Welcome to Keen Software House Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the KSH community.
  1. You are currently browsing our forum as a guest. Create your own forum account to access all forum functionality.

Gas "giants" and hydrogen "skimming"

Discussion in 'Suggestions and Feedback' started by FoolishOwl, Jul 10, 2017.

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

    Messages:
    510
    I'm reposting this here from General, as more appropriate to this forum.
     
    • Like Like x 4
    • Agree Agree x 4
  2. Merandix Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    519
    I'm all for it. It doesn't even need to be that complex. Essentially, a gas-giant doesn't need to contain voxels. Just a spheroid with a fairly detailed texture slapped on it and a layer of atmosphere around it to dip in and siphon off hydrogen. Ship basically goes boom instantly when hitting a certain altitude, perhaps add an altitude above that, from where some rattling and shaking visual and sound effects start playing. The tech should already be there, and a hydrogen scoop is just one block. Bonus points if each gas giant has multiple exotic moons.

    In general, I'm very much in favour of resource gating for survival: "I want X, so I should go to Y to get resource Z". On the other hand, with the abundance of Ice in the game, you wouldn't even 'need' to go there. It doesn't add anything to gameplay in that sense, other than a place to visit, but no real -reason- to visit that place. I honestly think Space Engineers is going to need some resources that you can use to build nice things that aren't necessary to begin with.

    For example, minecraft has an entire section of gameplay devoted to enchanting and another to brewing. You can play the game pretty reasonable without it (except beating some of the bosses perhaps). Yet it's NICE to have. Then there's smithing.

    In Space Engineers the main problem is that we NEED everything. Do we want to location gate uranium? Tough luck, we essentially need it to get to places.
    As far as I'm aware, platinum is currently location gated to asteroids. So if you want to go to another planet, you need to go to space first to mine platinum. Survival isn't survival in the strictest sense of the word. I'm interpreting it as: building with resources and keeping yourself alive. Crashed Red ship was the perfect embodiment of this mode in my opinion.

    A gas-giant system could perhaps add some exotic resources and an abundance of easy to extract hydrogen. That would be a major step in the right direction after giving Mars and Alien planets good reasons to go there.
     
    • Agree Agree x 7
  3. briank Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    34
    seconded. I've suggested this idea for around a year now.
    make gas giants something like 20* the size of current earth (normal panets should really be 5* normal (or 3~5 times) cause the curvature currently is a bit too visable), and let us skim in upper atmo. the lower you go the more hydrogen you get but the more fuel you need to stay afloat in 3~5G. below the 5G line, slowly start damaging voxels and damage more the further you get down.
    this damage by depth system is similar to my idea of lava underground on terrestrial planets.
    having unlimited hydrogen is nice, and might pave the way to fusion generation (via a block that seperates tritium at 100 to 1 perhaps?)
     
  4. sioxernic Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,535
    There is already unlimited hydrogen, unlimited iron, unlimited everything, so unlimitness shouldn't be an argument.
     
  5. Levits Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,122
    Indeed, with the current state of resources, you are not likely to run out of anything anytime soon in the game (<which for me personally is a minor detriment to overall gameplay. I mean, 30 minutes into gameplay and you've collected enough of everything to set you up for life).

    However, HOW you go about collecting those resources and from where are certainly viable arguments for introducing new things. Hydrogen may be easily obtainable from ice but it is far easier to acquire via simply siphoning it from a gas giants upper atmosphere, as well as visually appealing, and it gives new purpose and reason to designing ships and stations that could be focused on harvesting said hydrogen.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. sioxernic Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,535
    That is a good argument for not implementing gas siphoning to be fair.
     
  7. Dax23333 Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    657
    Gas giants have lots of gravity, so flying down and back up again would need a ship with an awful lot of thrust.

    What makes an awful lot of thrust? Hydrogen thrusters, so you'd be burning fuel to go and get more fuel. If the rates of hydrogen collection and gas giant gravity strength were balanced well it would be difficult or even impossible to gather hydrogen in this manner without a specially designed ship with loads of downward thrust and many hydrogen tanks, and not much else.

    I would love this, as it gives another ship design to build and optimize.

    Unlimited quantitiy of gas would be a good thing for long term multiplayer servers as unlike ice, which can be mined away and removed from the world, this will last.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. GrindyGears Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,787
    Why are people so he'll bent on making planets that would literally take a full day to fly all the way around...? As it stands right now with 120 km diameter it takes you a little longer than an hour to fully fly around the planet. That time scales up at the same rate as the diameter, twice the size, twice the time. Which makes 20x a horribly long journey and for what? Hydrogen that can be acquired from massive planet lakes and oceans or infinitely generating asteroids?

    Personally gas giants are nothing more to me than eye candy, and gameplay wise don't serve that much of a point.

    As for unlimited resource for long term: I could argue that we need infinite ore deposits because you'll eventually run out of resources on a planet... Space in this game is effectively Infinite, you can find anything of you're willing to travel for a little while.

    If a MP server has really gone on long enough to deplete all of the ice on a planet, the nearby moon(s) and all of the asteroids in a reasonable area I think the administration can just reset the voxels on the moon, or just add another ice moon.

    As someone who doesn't really play multiplayer Im not as familiar with resource gathering, but have any of you ever even come close to using up "ALL" of the ice for hydrogen production? You can barely cut away a couple voxels and have 50,000 kg of ice (or any resource) the actual volume to deplete seems asinine to me.

    Just my (probably disliked) $0.02
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  9. sioxernic Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,535
    If you ever exhaust Earth of Ice, you have... REALLY... REALLY!!!!!! REAAAAAALLLLLYYYYYYY! done a good job.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. FoolishOwl Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    510
    That's why I put "giants" in quotes. I don't see any reason to make them any larger than existing planets. If anything, they could be smaller, since they wouldn't really have terrain to explore, though that might look weird.

    I was reposting this from a thread discussing gas giants as eye candy. I'm sure I'm not alone in liking a bit of eye candy; I wanted to add some utility to it.
     
  11. Levits Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,122
    Allow me to explain a bit better... Siphoning from a gas giant that has Higher G forces (or even the same) than regular planets and damages your ship the deeper you go is not something that I would constitute as being safe. It might be easier to harvest after you've setup, tested, and ensured that your design functions correctly to the task/s at hand. <but once you've officially worked out a working model of vehicle or station (which may or may not be as easy as some think), the process of gathering hydrogen would indeed be much more efficient. You don't hear anyone complaining about how easy it is to harvest ice from a "lake"; which is literally as difficult as walking outside with a hand drill and digging some up. Sure, you plop it into a oxygen/hydrogen generator but you automatically start with one of those.

    Safe and "easy" are two different things as well. In order for a gas siphoning station to acquire enough hydrogen gas, it would have to be within the planets gravity (personally, I like the idea that the deeper you go the greater the yield over time. <which means that it would be in constant danger of falling. If someone were to say... decide to shoot out a few thrusters, your station is going to be a complete loss. If you mess up on the design, or add too much mass, or do anything to the station that reaches a certain point to have the thing break from it's orbit, it would be a complete loss and/or a very harrowing moment for you to rush to save it.

    By comparison, Stations hovering over the earth-like have no direct need to be within its gravity field. <and placing a station within it is ill advised and serves no real purpose other than to have it closer to the planet for various reasons... assuming logistical in nature. But rarely, if ever, does anyone place a station inside of the planes gravity field (or deep enough into that it would require hydrogen thrusters to stay aloft). Even if the thing does get knocked out of alignment, there are potential means to save the station from hitting the ground... or as it stands, hitting the ground doesn't destroy the while thing. Same scenario with Gas giants, that again, would be a complete loss of everything. Higher risk / greater reward.

    Of course this is SE, so I don't think many would find it too difficult to setup siphoning stations.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. Bumber Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,018
    Why does anyone need to fly all the way around, anyway? Shouldn't it be possible for players on a server to have an area on a planet where they're unlikely to encounter anyone?

    I mean, there's only a single Earth-like planet in the star system scenario.
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2017
  13. GrindyGears Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,787
    I use circumnavigation as a benchmark, if you can visualize the time it takes for a full circle, partial sectors can scale accordingly, say pole to pole.

    as it stands right now there is approximately 181,000 square kilometers on a planet that is 120 km in diameter why people want more is beyond me, lets say we take the advice of one of the users in this chat and make the planet 20x the size at 2400km diameter, to even move a quadrant you're looking at around 7-8 hours of actual flight time, it would make scouting for a suitable landing zone painful in most cases.

    bigger isn't always better, sure it adds a bit of immersion, but it also tends to add a lot of boring elements.

    now, you know just as well as I do, if they make gas giants the same size or smaller people are going to bitch and moan till the ends of time.

    and I can appreciate what you specifically are trying to do, its what others are suggesting is basically pointless, hydrogen is pretty near impossible to exhaust on an earthlike planet, i wont go into the math, but im fairly confident the millions, if not trillions of tonnes of ice on a planet was ALL converted into hydrogen you could fly even the largest dreadnoughts in atmos using nothing but hydrogen practically indefinitely.

    It probably wouldn't be a huge undertaking to do what you're asking, but I feel as the developers time can be better spent on other things.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  14. sioxernic Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,535
    Yes. You can have something that is super easy, but if you fail, you fail terribly, sure...
    That doesn't necessarily make it easier, and saying they are different things doesn't help again what I just said.

    Consider your word use? I am just saying, making it easier (even if it is more dangerous) way to get Hydrogen, I wouldn't be up for.

    Honestly I think think they should just make Gas Giants cosmetic.
     
  15. Greyson_XMG Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    132
    Gas giants would seemingly be easy to implement, and I have not read a convincing argument as to why they should NOT be implemented.

    It would add do gameplay. Things out there to go see. Things to go do. And new stuff to find.
     
  16. FoolishOwl Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    510
  17. KingdomBragg Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    544
    Didn't notice this thread before I necro'd the original gas giants thread to try and get some more votes for your suggestion. Either way, you've got my +3.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. Malware Master Engineer

    Messages:
    9,592
    For the people worrying about size: that's exactly what the jump drive is for.
    --- Automerge ---
    @Stormigedon No, actually, I'm not late. OP brought this thread back to life due to his feedback site posting. I did not necro this thread, OP did so themselves ;)

    Since I can't vote for this post (I have no more votes available) I support it this way.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Late Late x 1
  19. Levits Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,122
    This one's back on the front pages?

    +howevermany likes it takes to get it implemented.
     
  20. briank Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    34
    the problem with planet sizes is the speed limit... yes warp exists and it makes the large distance between plants workable, but planets REALLY should be at least double the size. though to do this, speed should be at least doubled with diminishing returns after the current speed limit.
     
  21. Levits Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,122
    Any increase in speed is always preferred; but, as has been the case since the beginning, the game cannot handle increased speeds. Maybe a few more m/s say up to 200m/s. But really, we will never have 1000m/s in this game due to the fact that you will phase through all known matter in the universe. <unless this can be fixed by the developers, any notions of increased speed is out the window.

    Gas giants (even if they are twice the size of the currently planets) are no different than current planets we already have and their issues are no different. That being: If you want to get around one or even get to one, you will either spend hours doing so at 100m/s (or if we're ever lucky 200m/s), or use a jump drive.
     
  22. FoolishOwl Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    510
    A basic problem with larger gas giants is that there's not really going to be any terrain to explore, so the problem, that larger size just means longer travel times between points of interest, would be worse than with existing planets.

    I suppose it would look best if gas giants were noticeably larger than terrestrial planets, but just larger enough for that to be noticeable.
     
  23. Malware Master Engineer

    Messages:
    9,592
    Again. Jump drive. I don't see any problem with this. They should be significantly larger, enough to be placed at a good distance from the "moons" and still be rather large in the sky but allow jump drive use between them.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  24. KissSh0t Master Engineer

    Messages:
    3,508
    *has infinite space*

    Boom.. I found one reason to add Gas Giants :woot:

    It would be pretty funny actually to get crushed by one if you went too far into the atmosphere.... your ship just going like..... crumpled paper... hahahah..

    Maybe the gas could be collected for some reason? but doing so would be dangerous.
     
  25. Stormigedon Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    72
    I hadn't noticed who necrod the post, I was saying it was about time someone mentioned the jump drive to counter the "it's too big to navigate" argument.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  26. Malware Master Engineer

    Messages:
    9,592
    Fair enough, although I don't get the point
     
  27. FoolishOwl Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    510
    Again. Jump drive. I don't see any problem with this. They should be significantly larger, enough to be placed at a good distance from the "moons" and still be rather large in the sky but allow jump drive use between them.[/QUOTE]
    Hmm. Countering my earlier point, if there's no interesting terrain, it means you're not missing anything by skipping past it, either.

    I wonder what size ratios would be aesthetically satisfactory, for gas giants to be noticeably larger. Like, if you were to going to depict something like Jupiter, at the center of a system of moons, would twice the diameter of an Earth-like planet be enough? Ten times? And, as far as graphic performance in SE is concerned, would that actually make a difference? (I've often been puzzled why simply rendering an object larger, without actually adding detail, causes a performance hit in 3D graphics; I'd guess it's a matter of a lack of optimization for an infrequent special effect.)
     
  28. Malware Master Engineer

    Messages:
    9,592
    It doesn't, actually. I don't know where you got that idea. The only thing that affects is fill rate - something that isn't as much of a problem these days.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  29. FoolishOwl Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    510
    Like I said, it was a guess, about something that puzzles me. I'm not a developer, and 3D graphics is the most distant thing from the little bit of coding I do.
     
  30. Malware Master Engineer

    Messages:
    9,592
    In fact, I could be willing to bet hard cash that a far larger non-voxel gas giant would be less intensive than the voxel planets.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.