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.

Halloween Update 1.184.6 - Skin Crafting & Ghost Skin

Discussion in 'Change Log' started by flexx, Oct 26, 2017.

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

    Messages:
    87
    Well.... Actually, I have seen an effect in performance since the update. I've gotten a hell of a lot more stutter since the update came out than I did before. But SE is so temperamental on my older computer, any minor increase in performance that's expected won't show up for me, even if you believe the 'many tiny streams make a river' justification. Anything short of a huge performance boost isn't going to be noticeable on my end. It's not a potato, but it is still coal-powered.
     
  2. Captain Broadstairs Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    468
    Question, do you get consistent stuttering or is it periodic? Because I find i get pretty bad stuttering when the game is trying to autosave itself on its regular interval. I leave autosave on though because I'm too forgetful to manually save regularly.
     
  3. Stardriver907 Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,187
    I don't play multiplayer. No good reason. Just concentrating on my own stuff for now. But, if the thruster damage is no different from what it is in single player right now I don't see a real problem. Since the minute it became an option I have played with thruster damage on, precisely so that i wouldn't put blocks in the way of the thrust. This has more than once made me rethink a design, but never prevented me from making what I want.

    If Keen gets rattled by all this they might nerf it but, honestly, they don't need to. Apparently blast door blocks are supposed to handle thrust damage so the code can already accommodate blocks that can resist. If the damage can still propagate beyond the blast door (or whatever) blocks then there might be a problem.

    As it is, I've spent the day watching people on Twitch that don't play the way I do yet they seem just as content to keep playing as I am. We don't play the game the same way, but we share the same attitude. The game is not finished. Everything is subject to change. Don't fall in love with your builds. They're all just one update away from being unplayable.

    I just quoted this so can't claim I'm ignoring it. No one here that is not a Keen employee can tell you definitively why they made the change. They made it clear that they felt it needed to happen. You saying it didn't need to happen is not enough for me to believe it shouldn't have. The fact that your friends can't see an improvement doesn't mean there isn't one. For all I know performance had nothing to do with it, but that's the explanation they gave and it makes sense to me. I'm not saying you have to believe it, either. What I AM saying is that they did it and if you want to keep your ships you need to rework them cause it's not likely they'll change it back.

    I don't know why you're so upset with ME. After eight pages of salt I just though someone should point out that this sort of thing was bound to happen, has happened before (many times) and will no doubt happen many more times. You should be used to it. It's not going to stop.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 5
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  4. TheDeinonychus Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    87
    It's hard to say, really. It is much more pronounced on planets than it is in space. But since the update, it's gotten worse, even when in space. It doesn't seem to be at regular intervals, as you would expect if it was strictly due to autosave. It's rather odd. Some times it's once in a while. Other times it could happen every three or four minutes. Sometimes if I tab out of the game for a moment, it stops. Other times tabbing out doesn't seem to help.

    It probably also doesn't help that I mostly play the game single player. I know a lot of games these days actually perform worse as single player, since one machine is running everything. ARK was a game that, ironically, turned out to be less lagy for me in multi-player.
     
  5. suicideneil Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    227
    • Calm Down
    You don't understand the difference between a Square, Circle, and an Octagon, do you? It's okay, not everyone had much success playing with those shape-sorting toys as a toddler.

    Your arguments about armouring thrusters is fallacious at best- 'combat grade thrusters' is an idiotic statement; thrusters are thrusters, we add armour around them to give them additional protection regardless of how resilient, or not, they are without any armour around them. Utterly stupid thing to say, really.

    I also have no idea, none at all, what you are arguing against with regards to 'those ideas'- you are building the weakest of strawmen to fight against and it's quite bizzare listening to you ignore the subject at hand entirely, and argue against things no one even mentioned.

    Please, learn to spell ( YOUR, ETHER ), and learn to address the specific points people bring up, not some entirely imagined points since you have no valid arguement against what they actually said. Either that, or stop being a mindless sycophant and be quiet- many thanks.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. Thrak Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    373
    I got the stuttering thing on saves when I had been playing the single-player solar system (survival) for more than a month with a massive (35K+ block) explorer and several smaller grids. The SANDBOX_0_0_0.sbs file had bloated to more than 1GB in size. Even a Samsung 840EVO SSD was having trouble writing it smoothly.
     
  7. Captain Broadstairs Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    468
    Might be worth checking to see if theres is anything clogging up your world with admin tools. I know its sounds obvious, but I had totally forgot about a massive ship I'd left floating about in one of my creative worlds.I moved on to another build and noticed the framerate dropping with noticeable stutter. Finally the performance dropped so far I decided to do a proper check through the grid list only to find this giant drain on the world just hanging around abandoned. You may find a cleanup gains you a little boost.

    I don't think I've had many worlds get that bloated but it does build up on you.
     
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2017
  8. Stardriver907 Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,187
    If you don't understand what I'm arguing that's ok. I don't understand the personal attacks, though. Can you make your point without resorting to playground tactics?

    I believe the salt over thruster damage is unwarranted. They did it in order to improve the game which is their job. I believe the change makes it more likely that new players will avoid putting blocks right under engine exhaust just to make their ships look better, because you can't do that with the kinds of engines you get in the game. If your ships are your own design this is a minor issue. You can modify your ships and keep playing as if nothing has happened. If your ships are copies of some other design or are blueprints from the past you will have to modify the design in order to use them in a current version of SE. I have ships that I built when SE first came out and I can still use them because when stuff like this happens I just modify the design and press on. I don't go in the forums and call people names just because I had to do that, either.

    This is a forum and one particular viewpoint on this issue has been clearly heard. I am simply expressing a different viewpoint. Saying Keen did it "for no good reason" doesn't mean there wasn't a good reason. I don't care if they use an octagon or an oblate spheroid, the area of effect is larger now so if you use a vanilla engine you need to allow for more room for the exhaust from now on. Attacking me won't change that, or my opinion. I'm not the one upset here. I'm playing SE right now and enjoying it.

    You do what you want.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 5
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. Lander1 Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    41
    @Stardriver
    So you haven't got a problem with it, great, good for you, now kindly stop trying to bury the voices of those that do, with your page-long, meaningless, essay-style rants. Good day.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  10. Stardriver907 Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,187
    Who's trying to bury who here?
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  11. DrVagax Administrator

    Messages:
    821
    No need to insult others because of a argument, this place is for discussion and if your opinion is that someone else's suggestion is silly or whatever then just leave it be and ignore it, you don't need to attack the person.
     
    • Agree Agree x 5
  12. Logi Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    170
    To me this whole thruster thing seems like another prime example of developers who don't play the game changing something because theoretically it would improve the performance. Messing up the windows was another such incident, because messed up windows made it easier to see that there were windows, but if you actually played the game, you would see the obvious problem with that decision.

    @Stardriver907

    You don't seem to get the problem with this change...it's not about the length where thruster damage is done. It's about the the adjacent blocks being affected (not blocks blocking the thruster). Trying to build something reasonable in size is already a problem in SE and for that reason I love to put windows & catwalk blocks on the outside part of the hull (to have more room inside the ship). I used to have thrusters next to the hull and they would not damage those catwalk and windows because why would they? Catwalks and windows are so thin they could as well be part of the hull no matter which side they are on.

    Hull -----> [ ][ ][ ][ ]XXXX[ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ]
    Thruster -> [ ]>>> ¨¨¨¨ <- window

    And up to this patch this setup was working fine on singleplayer.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
  13. Roxette Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    941
    Developers can satisfy all the players some of the time, and some of the players all of the time, but they cannot satisfy all of the players all of the time... Thruster damage is an on/off option in world settings, it's a player(/server operator) choice with clear implications. There are many ship designs on the steam workshop that would not work with the damage enabled (there are many that could not possibly work other than in creative mode, but that's another matter) as there are many that no longer work because of other major changes since the initial game release.

    As soon as this update with the changes was released I decided to disable the option on my server, to avoid player anguish at unexpected ship self-destruction. Screaming at each other isn't going to achieve or change anything, least of all your opponents belief or point of view. The real problem is perhaps not how people build or play, it's that the game itself tries to be too many things to too many differing styles of play, and consequently performs less than optimally for all of them. Often it seems that changes intended to improve the game for one group of players has side effects that make it worse for others. When the game around you changes, you have to adapt or die :)
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 2
  14. suicideneil Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    227
    StarDriver- No one is attacking you, they are pointing out that your opinion is invalid, but you don't seem to care and blindly continue to insist that it was a fair change to make when it clearly wasn't. Look at this picture again- do you understand why the change makes no sense? if you don't, then continue looking at the picture until you do.


    [​IMG]
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  15. Azazel Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    10

    Dev said: Thruster damage area is no longer cylinder but it is rectangular (faster computation, slightly larger volume of effect).

    You said: "...they are pointing out that your opinion is invalid, but you don't seem to care and blindly continue to insist that it was a fair change to make when it clearly wasn't. Look at this picture again- do you understand why the change makes no sense? if you don't, then continue looking at the picture until you do."


    I say: Don't you want to rethink the post? Maybe you should "Look at this picture again- do you understand why the change makes no sense? if you don't, then continue looking at the picture until you do."
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  16. Arcturus Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,611
    Blast door blocks are immune to damage from small grid thrusters, but that isn't by *design*. The original thruster/landing pad code (since 01.042 in August 2014) was supposed to "fixed small thruster damaging heavy armor" but has since been modified. Just prior to the current update, if the thruster (any type) is a large grid thruster, or if the block being hit by exhaust has deformation ratio greater than 0.25, damage can be done to the block.

    Deformation ratios:
    Large ship heavy armor = 0.4
    Large ship light armor = 1.0
    Small ship light armor = 0.32
    Small ship heavy armor = 0.16 (immune to small grid thrusters)
    Drills = 0.2 (immune to small grid thrusters)
    Wheels = 0.3
    Large blast door = 0.2 (immune to small grid thrusters)
    Small blast door = 0.24 (immune to small grid thrusters)
    All other large grid blocks = 1.0
    All other small grid blocks = 2.5

    When I peek at the code from the current update, I don't see reference to the 0.25 deformation ratio in the thruster damage code, so it may be that thrusters *currently* damage everything. More testing is required, I haven't started the game to confirm this.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  17. FoolishOwl Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    413
    If that's correct, that would mean that the heavy armor landing pads in many KSH prefabs, e.g., all the Easy Start stations, would be damaged by small thrusters.

    Has anyone checked? I'd been worried they'd changed this a few weeks ago, but I checked my heavy armor landing pads and didn't find damage.
     
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2017
  18. DigitalStone Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    240
    I think i feel an major update coming in the very same month as the last 2 years.
     
  19. suicideneil Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    227
    No, I don't need to re-think my post. The thruster nozzle is round, its exhaust is round; why on earth would they change it to a square that is larger than the nozzle? You need to look at the picture until you understand it too- there are also words in the picture you need to read- cheers.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  20. FoolishOwl Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    413
    I'd suggest, as a quick fix, for the sake of the experience of new users of Space Engineers, that the checkbox for "thruster damage" be unchecked by default, at least until either thruster damage is reworked, or KSH's prefabs are redesigned to account for the changes to thruster damage.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  21. PandaTv Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    7
    why give not skin set by game i serach long for my skin .

    and why have the 1-1class by 1-1 inside the nr 1-2
     
  22. Azazel Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    10
    The nozzle is in a square, its base is a square. "... why on earth would they change it to a square that is larger than the nozzle?" It is the size of the block, and it seems easier to check the damage with the rectangle of the block than calculate new areas.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  23. Stardriver907 Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,187
    Ok. what I see here is that on the left is a circle that represents the engine nozzle, surrounded by a green square that represents the armor blocks that one would surround the nozzle with. On the right I see red areas that are supposed to be blocks that were safe before but not now. Therefore you have concluded that the change makes no sense because the red areas get just as close to the nozzle as the green areas, yet the red gets destroyed while the green is still safe. If you measure the distance at the closest point to the circle, the distance is the same for red and green, so why should red be destroyed?

    Is that a fair assessment?

    Now for the answer. Space Engineers is a game of cubes. Everything is square. EVERYTHING. Things that look round to you look square to the game. This is why people say Borg Cube is what you end up with when you try to build a ship in SE. Curves don't happen. This is because cubes are super easy to calculate. Super fast, too. Circles, however are a bitch cause you have to use pi. Remember pi? It's that number that know one knows exactly. You can use 3 or 3.14 or 3.1416, etc. but your results will always only be close, not exact. Machines struggle with pi. Machines struggling means poor performance. Someone at Keen looked at something similar to the first picture and said, "If the area of destruction was a cube instead of a cylinder, the machine won't struggle." Most, if not all, of the coders agreed, because the less cycles you use to get a problem solved, the better. Might not mean much to one person playing SP on their laptop, but to a server with hundreds of ships and probably thousands of thrusters, the difference can be significant.

    This is one of those things where in Real Life you are correct, if the green is safe the red should be, too. However since we are not using super computers we have to compromise. This becomes one of the many things on the list of what makes Space Engineers "unrealistic". The Sun revolves around the planets. All celestial objects are stationary and immovable. No orbital mechanics. Et Cetera. The blast from an engine is now a cube. As a result your computer won't choke if you put several hundred thrusters on it. It won't look like a cube to you, but it will look like a cube to your CPU.

    Oh, why not put the cube inside the circle? My guess is that if they do so it's more likely people will build right on the nozzle cause the parts outside the cube would be "safe" even though they partially cover the nozzle.

    I'm trying very hard here to be objective. I suppose people that don't know me might construe my posts as a rant. People that know me know my rants read like rants. I don't have a beef with any individual. I DO believe some of the posting on this subject contains a lot of unfounded conjecture, which always leads to baseless accusations, which often triggers a response from me. People are saying there was no good reason. Well, in fact there is a damn good reason. I have not looked at all of my ships since the change but I'm assuming some will need to be modified. After nearly 6000 hrs I am SO used to that, and it disturbs be when people get so upset when an update forces a change. Until the game is released you cannot seriously expect anything you have built will survive. This game is not following any "normal" development pattern and no one can say for certain when they will call it "Finished". Some believe this December. I suspect another year or two (that gives them enough time to break everything we've done ;)). Expect having to go through this again.

    And again.

    You don't have to be happy about it. I never said you should make your modifications with glee. It's a pain in the ass. No one looks forward to it. However, if it means my simspeed stays closer to one than point zero two then I'll make the modifications.

    If Keen can find another way, they'll do it that way instead. However, I think Mathematics won this round.
















    Round. See what i did there?
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 5
    • Agree Agree x 2
  24. Lander1 Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    41
    @Stardriver; It worked before the update.. so.. no we don't need a supercomputer to make it work.

    Keen have made several concessions to the way the game works (things like large rotors mounting small rotor heads). These things originally started out as bugs/exploits but we the players made them into features by using them.

    WE USE THE THRUSTER EXPLOIT THEREFORE IT IS NO LONGER AN EXPLOIT! IT IS A FEATURE WE USE!!. PLEASE DON"T TAKE THAT FEATURE AWAY FROM US, AND PLEASE STOP CALLING IT AN EXPLOIT.
     
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2017
    • Agree Agree x 2
  25. mojomann71 Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    578
    I23I7 I can verify that the thruster damage in SP was no where what it is now with this patch. I play SP a lot to test my mods and do other tests. What people are "screaming" about is this update. The update of the thruster damage was so great I had to go and fix my torpedo mod as the thrusters were burning up the torpedo as soon as it was built. So these folks kind of have a valid reason to gripe, as it will kill a lot of builds that were not really an exploit.

    I Just wanted to clarify that. :)
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  26. Stardriver907 Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,187
    Using an exploit does not turn it into a feature.

    It worked before the update, but it appears it will hinder progress if left alone.

    It's not a feature.

    We're gamers. Exploiting glitches and things overlooked by the developers is what we do. Fixing glitches and things overlooked is what the developers do.

    I still believe the answer is more simple than letting the glitch stand. Make engine blocks that can handle more damage, and make blocks that can remain intact near the engine exhaust. Performance improves and people can hide their engines if they want. I'm talking about adding two additional blocks. Only problem is it will take Keen forever to produce the blocks.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 4
    • Agree Agree x 1
  27. Lander1 Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    41
    Actually it does, many ships on the workshop FEATURE cool engine cowlings... Keen did not intend for this to become a feature sure.. but it has.. and the community won't stand for it being taken away.

    As for your asertation that curves don't exist... I suggest you learn to Engineer better.

    http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1171655123
     
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2017
    • Agree Agree x 2
  28. Darkheyr Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    17
    And give people a way to customise how thruster nozzles look, and exclude flat blocks such as windows from thruster damage unless it's hit head on.

    Or, you know, just reduce the damage area to where it was before (or less, to keep the desired simplistic shape), and people can continue to do that without further time investment on the side of developers. This is a building game, and this change needlessly takes away a building feature, be it intentionally created or not.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  29. Captain Broadstairs Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    468
    Interesting, very interesting. I would like to know if this was an intentional change or an oversight considering landing small ships in an internal large grid hangar is a supported feature, why else would they have provided us with hangar door blocks if not.

    Removing the immunity that Blast door sections had is counter productive to having a safe landing pad or deck.
     
  30. Thrak Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    373
    I admire your restraint in waiting this long in the thread to mention how many hours you've spent playing the game. Typically, you do so much sooner. Bravo.
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.