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.

Hidden changes in 1.101 (I wish I could lock my old threads)

Discussion in 'General' started by Arcturus, Sep 25, 2015.

Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.
  1. Ash87 Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,977
    Good changes.

    And heck, I'd be fine if engines required fuel, as much as the jetpack did.

    It'd be quite the challenge, though I'd say you should seperate fueled thrusters and electrical plasma thrusters into 2 seperate things. Maybe the Fueled thrusters could be more powerful, but with a higher fuel consumption, whereas the plasma thrusters were less powerful, but just ran off uranium and no fuel lines?

    That's how I'd do it.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Ricardo Souto Princhak Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    23
    I don't see why they would make the thrusters to use fuel, we already use the reactors to power the engines. An idea would be a Hydrogen Power Generator, so you would be able to choose what to use. I think Hydrogen is for the jetpack only (i hope!) and the idea of start a game on planetside without the suit and have the need to build it would be great :D
     
  3. BlackUmbrellas Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,818

    This seems to indicate that it will, quite literally, lock you out of your cockpit.
     
  4. BlackUmbrellas Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,818
    This update appears to have highly reduced or done away with that flexibility, actually; I've seen a lot of other people talk about pistons and rotors not having enough flexibility to work in ways they used to.
     
  5. Mornedhel Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    35
    From a game design perspective I would appreciate if thrusters would consume fuel. Currently energy from reactors serves too many purposes. Fuel as an additional resource to manage would bring more diversity and depth into the game.
    But on the other hand I agree that with fuel, conveyor networks will make an even bigger part of ships than it already is with oxygen
     
  6. Coreinsanity Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    188
    Honestly bring on piped thrusters. It doesn't make sense for the thrusters to just be able to pull in their fuel but everything else that requires some form of fuel (minus power) has to be piped.

    Pipe the thrusters if they get fuel. Which I hope they do.
     
  7. Knsgf Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    538
    In multiplayer, when 2 people try to control the same ship at the same time -- and now landing gears physically meld 2 ships into a bigger one. In single-player I was able to accelerate the Big Red with the default fighter at slow rate.
     
  8. BlackUmbrellas Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,818
    I actually totally understand not wanting thrusters to need to be piped in. Piping would mean your thrusters would become a huge weakpoint because you wouldn't be able to armour behind them anymore, for one thing.

    Fuel tanks would be nice, but I'd be fine with it just magically draining to the thrusters.
     
  9. Coreinsanity Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    188
    Honestly that's masking a problem by not adding a feature, instead of adding the feature and addressing the problem that should be addressed anyway.

    I think the real problem you describe is there would be no way to armor the thrusters or piping (or other components). But specifically thrusters, in this case, as you can't just build blocks around the back.

    Edit: And I mean lets face it, the thrusters aren't going to be the strong point regardless.
     
  10. plaYer2k Master Engineer

    Messages:
    3,160
    I know you have done that a few times already so here is a tip.
    I personally ignore any message from people with their so fancy different fonts and colors for a whole post, i simply dont read them as if they would exist.
    That applies to people using annoying bright orange or blue on white or black backgrounds aswell as people using large text in full bold (which essentially is the equivalent to full-caps for me).

    As there may be other people like me, and you want to be heard, stop it :)

    One of them being me.
    Designs like this or that no longer work due to the missing flexibiliy.

    It is a two bladed sword. On one hand it is a great change as we finally got more control over it but on the other hand it also disallows us to do nice and sleek designs from before that utilized these flexibilities

    I am however fine with the flexibility change, the suspension wheel change still annoys me as it makes the blocks almost useless on their own for any actual application under "natural gravity (DigiTM)".
     
    • Like Like x 2
  11. Eternal Visitor Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    71
    weren't small ship turrets a concept mod before, now they're in for real with different mechanics. maybe the hydrogen would be used for the thruster booster if that ever got added in for real.
     
  12. Howitz Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    591
    yup, pretty sure they are supposed to be a weak point :p but maybe some kind of ''armored pipe block'' like a pipe surrounded in metal, just like the thruster mod with thrusters encased in metal. ( it would be airtight of course) you would leak fuel by there if its destroyed maybe? unless you put a bock to control the flow in the pipe? said block would cut the supply if the thruster is gone?

    just ideas, but i got plenty of them :p

    now what would be at the other end of the said pipe? a regular container containing fuel, drills, ores and ingots? or a dedicaded fuel tank, itself connected on a container or refinery?

    complexity, realism=more engineering creativity :p

    pure creativity in itself comes from having no restrictions, engineer's creativity come from their capabilities to overcome restrictions.= DEVS!!! add restrictions, realism, and complexity to the game as much as possible!!!
     
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2015
  13. BlackUmbrellas Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,818
    The issue I have with that is: on their own, thrusters can be disabled or destroyed, but you can have armour behind them. With piping required, every thruster would be a direct shot deep into your hull.
     
  14. RageMasterUK Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    201
    Great update!!!

    Had been working on a self-made auto tracking turret and had it nearly finished when the patch dropped! Oh well there goes a hundred hours work! Managed to retrofit my turreted fighter with the new turrets and its all groovy now.

    I would NOT like to see piped thrusters replacing the current iteration. With electrical and fuel connections I would much preferr we assume the piping is thin for these services and is integrated into other blocks. I cant see a justification to piping up every thruster with block based pipes, just too much limitation placed there on internal work to make decent ship designs... it basically scraps every design on the workshop o_0

    If piped/fueled thrusters are to be a thing, they should be bigger but have more thrust output and be different to original thrusters. Type of thing to put one on the back of your fighter ships if you want forward thrust 'AFTERBURN' capabilities but weighs you down some if you dont use it. Something that complements original thrusters.
     
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2015
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Howitz Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    591
    please read the rest of my reply? maybe ? :D

    oh and also, the said reply suggest the implication of an armor-like deformation mechanics for component blocks, as the ''pipe surrounded in armor'' block would have to behave like an armor block if sustaining damages.
     
  16. entspeak Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,744
    Gee, I don't know... maybe because they said it might?

    http://blog.marekrosa.org/2015/01/medieval-engineers_22.html

    @Arcturus -
    If it's going to mean a big difference in durability, I hope that they will add this in... it will still involve fewer calculations than a large ship because it doesn't have to move.

    Remind me what a PMW is?

    As far as jetpacks are concerned, I'll have to play to see how different it feels. Right now, I have to fix my mod, because something related to jetpacks has borked it. :)
     
  17. Coreinsanity Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    188
    And really that's the big thing, the thrusters are a weak point anyway. I mean, if it's getting past the thrusters to the pipe without the thruster itself being damaged severely, something's wrong. The only way I can see the pipe being damaged first is if the thruster is only attached to the pipe and the force of the impact(s) against it are jolting it around and destroy the pipe (logically the thruster itself would be more durable than the pipe, so if it was a case where both were able to take damage then the thruster would be last.)

    Honestly this opens up the option of some form of automatic shutoff valve. So lets say the pipes start leaking fuel (and maybe other contents) when destroyed. The conveyor system already has the ability to color itself depending on connection states (and thus it can keep and detect it's state). Without an automatic shutoff, fuel leaks out and could possibly be explosive and cause a chain reaction. With a shutoff valve, it detects the connection state being disrupted further down the chain (on the "out" side of the valve) and shuts down transfer, so maybe only a little gets out (there was some in the pipe after all.)

    As for what would lie at the other end, I would assume you could either have it hooked up directly to whatever generates the fuel, or have fuel tanks. There are actually things to consider in both, for instance without a large ship you might not be able to fit enough generators to satisfy all of your fuel needs. Therefore, you would want tanks. But on the other hand, these tanks would presumably be explosive to some degree. So that means we would have to weigh the benefits and plan out our ship designs around explosive fuel and thrusters.


    Again, you're overcoming a problem by completely avoiding the situation as a whole and restricting yourself to your current concept of how the piping is implemented in the game.

    I do see a need to rethink and adjust how thrusters work (Maybe EACH thruster doesn't need a pipe, but rather a "bank" of thrusters needs one pipe and they seed themselves, like the multi-facet conveyor connection). It would be impractical to have 6 thrusters requiring 6 pipes behind them, I'm pretty sure modern day engineers wouldn't make it work like that and they would end up making an efficient connection between them.
     
  18. Howitz Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    591
    Coreinsanity, what i meant is that we could have two kinds of pipes blocks, one that is free pipe, the other one would be pipe encased into an armor block, this could also be achieved via compound blocks, lets say you put an armor block behind your thruster, then trying to put a pipe block inside the armor block in order to link it to the thruster would create an armored pipe block.

    if the thruster is damaged, then you would leak fuel from the pipe into space, but as the ''armored pipe'' block is airtight and uses the same deformation as armor blocks, then there would'nt be a hole in your ship right away.

    just imagine this is a pipe instead of a thruster, and that the whole thing deform like an armor block[​IMG]
     
  19. Coreinsanity Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    188
    Really that's what I'm getting at anyway.

    I'm not offering a rock-solid solution, and I thought of that method as well. I'm just saying there's other options we could consider or look into other than "No don't add pipes because it will inconvenience the current system!" instead of "Well we need to change/add to the current system to make it more interesting by adding {X}!"

    I mean, if compound blocks came into play, that would be great. I'd love that, and instead of having an armor block with a pipe in it being what you build, I would much rather do it that way and just have it put the pipe in the armor block.
     
  20. Howitz Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    591
    Right, and with compound block, we could also have wiring, which would please a lot of players (some less) i think, opening a whole new world of things to consider when building a ship, well placed armor will matter even more, also, the whole conveyor system could work this way (making encased conveyors when put in an armor block)

    but that will be achievable only once we get compound blocks (if they even allow what we previously discussed) and also, component blocks deformation or some kind of damage system applied to them (that is compatible with armor deformation) will be needed. because right now, everything that is not armor glows either blue,fire red or green before simply popping out of existence.

    having said that, i think that if these features are to come, it will not be before a very long time has passed.

    Also, as realism oriented as i am, i never considered wiring as really needed, because i told myself that it was alright to just consider they passed trought the armor blocks. (just requiring some more ingots than just steel to build armor blocks could do) (maybe some visual effects of wires in the armor blocks as well)

    and again, :pure creativity is at ease with no restrictions while the engineer's creativity is determined by how easily he overcome the said restrictions.

    please keen make this into a quote on the loading screen :p (and yes you can make it sound better)
     
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2015
  21. Echillion Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,334
    If I had to speculate I'd say this is only for your jetpack and like with oxygen you have generators and tanks and bottles you'll have the equivalent for Hydrogen fuel so those of us that play on x1 will have even less room left in our already small inventories? as your thrusters are powered by your ships reactors/batteries/solar panels.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  22. Coreinsanity Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    188

    See wiring I'm not sure about. I mean it would be possible with compound blocks, but the question is should it? Rather, the question isn't should it, but how can we make it less tedious. I don't find wiring thruster banks all that tedious, there's not going to be that many of them. But when you look at wiring... that's a another beast all together. I can't imaging having to run wiring (compound blocks or not) through the hull, corridors, maintenance tubes, to each power-requiring block like lights - that would be realistic, sure, but also tedious as crap. Now, when compound blocks come out (assuming they do), you had a new option in the block selector that lets you pick different compound "modifications" to the block (eg: wiring) so you could just place and build one block, great. But having to manually switch between armor/wiring/armor/wiring/etc as I go down the hull just sounds really tedious.
     
  23. cedi Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    307
    Keen might add new mechanical blocks like hinges now.
     
  24. Howitz Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    591
    yeah, i just wanted to underline that it would make wiring possible, but i have the same opinion as you have on it :p (BAD IDEA)
     
  25. Howitz Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    591
    ''small inventories'' need to be small, to put limitations, thats what inventories are used for, if you want an inventory big enought to be able to carry a whole asteroid worth of ores on solely your engineer, then why would we even need inventories, and why would we even need to build ore haulers.

    space engineer is a game that is about realism, limitations, and the creativity showed by the players to find their way around the limitations and gain advantage over the others by how good they are at it.

    if you want to play creative, then play creative, but the whole game, mechanics and content wise, need to be built around what it is meant to be, which is 1x settings multiplayer survival and not the other way around, not adding mechanics and content made for creative that would affect survival, this would be bad.

    what is made for creative (copy/paste for example) need to stick there.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  26. Klaern Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    296
    Here's my prediction... Hydrogen won't be fuel for our current thrusters and will instead be fuel for rocket thrusters which will be a new block we're getting. Ion thrusters aren't really capable of accelerating a large mass off a planet. They just can't beat gravity and drag. Rockets can though, they accelerate much more quickly.

    This would mean they're not breaking every ship ever made, they're introducing a better way to get off planets, and we're going to have some pretty awesome new designs that incorporate rockets along side our current thrusters.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  27. entspeak Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,744
    Just played a bit with the jetpack and I like it. Feels better - tighter.

    As for the potential for hydrogen fuel for ship thrusters, it's irrelevant. As others have pointed out, there is no indication that this is for anything other than jetpacks at the moment. The sky isn't falling.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  28. Howitz Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    591
    the more kerbal space program blends in, the better i guess :p
     
  29. Mike55520 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    437
    Unfortunately something like that cannot hold back progress, its bound to happen, so let them rage
     
    • Like Like x 2
  30. Klaern Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    296
    They're both space sim games, makes sense that they'd have a lot of overlap. They both have different primary focuses though, so it's all good. I think Kerbal will always be more technically challenging with a much stronger focus on realistic launch physics and SE will always be more build and exploration friendly and as such less technically challenging.

    That said, I somehow still haven't played Kerbal so take my assumptions with a grain of salt.
     
Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.