Welcome to Keen Software House Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the KSH community.
  1. Hello Guest!
    Welcome to the Bug Report forum, please make sure you search for your problem before posting here. If you post a duplicate (that you post the same issue while other people have already done that before) you will be given a warning point which can eventually lead into account limitations !

    Here you can find a guide on how to post a good bug report thread.
    Space Engineers version --- Medieval Engineers version
  2. You are currently browsing our forum as a guest. Create your own forum account to access all forum functionality.

[1.184.0] Large steel tube volume is increased by a lot

Discussion in 'Bug Reports' started by Rafflarn, Sep 15, 2017.

Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.
  1. Rafflarn Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    1
    Can't find anyone else talking about this and the increase isn't mentioned in the full change log.
    As far as i know this is the only component with more Volume than before.

    1 large steel tube has a volume of 160L

    Im playing on inventory x10 and can only carry 25 of them at most.

    The weight is still normal.
     
  2. Roxette Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,501
    Looking at the historical changes to the parts definition file, it appears that an error or reversion crept into the large tube specifications sometime over 9 months ago, reducing its dimensions and volume. That has now been changed, reverting it presumably to a much larger volume as well as correcting the dimensions.
     
  3. Scya Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    266
    I was used to carry 8 Large Tubes on 1x inventory all the time back to 2014. Now only 2. But actually I quite like this change.
     
  4. Forcedminer Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,227
    oh yeah i guess i sorta noticed it last night.
    i was grinding an antenna outta the way the communication parts are usually quite heavy but after 2 hand grinds and reconstruction they're all gone.

    oh well nothing a small ship with cargo container and wielding won't solve!
     
  5. Lurch84 Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    63
    Personally I think it's a bit much, maybe at 1x you should be able to carry about 4-6, only carrying 2 at a time for a really quite common component feels a bit silly and tedious gameplay wise. It could put people off a bit if they get fed up with the to and fro before they've had chance to build a basic welding ship (minimum of 8 tubes off the top of my head for that, so 4 trips just for tubes let alone the rest of the bits). There's enough going backwards and forwards as it is early game.
     
  6. NikolasMarch Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    927
    this doesnt make sense, i have the compatibility folder asvailable to me, the large steel tube was 38L back then which was somewhen around feb 2016, which was approx 17 months ago, im a fairly regular survival player, and have not noticed them change until now.
    this needs addressing, its ruining carefully balanced minimalistic survival respawn ships
     
  7. Roxette Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,501
    Yes, I think it's been unchanged for years, though I only had a nine month old version of cubeblocks.sbc to hand to check against, I was stating that as a minimum verified time...

    Changes (intentional and otherwise) to the parts specifications in cubeblocks.sbc have always happened regularly and not always with any notification, justification or logic. There was a time when I would use a local copy applied as a mod, with my own custom values in places to improve sanity and reduce the impact of unexpected changes like that. The components required to build the blocks are quite arbitrary and in many cases of questionable sense. That said, reverting the size of the large tubes by such a large factor after such a long time of it being static really justified prior notice at the very least :/
     
  8. I23I7 ME Tester

    Messages:
    3,827
    This was intentional. Not a issue.
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
  9. NikolasMarch Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    927
    intentional to change it fair enough, but was an 'over 4x' increase really necessary? realism shouldnt apply too much here, as in reality we would be able to store some small steel tubes inside the large steel tubes to be space efficient :)

    was the impact of the balance of things taken into account? even minor changes now, to things that have been a certain way for a long time, will have consequences where you least expect them.

    for this i ask you, if you could ask the Devs if they are willing to compromise and bring the volume of the large steel tubes down a little, to maybe 2.5x the original volume, or just round it to a perfect 100L :)
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. I23I7 ME Tester

    Messages:
    3,827
    I will forwarded it to the designers but thats the most i can do.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.