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.

Just my 5 cents after being with SE for this long.

Discussion in 'General' started by KG_Jedi, Jun 30, 2017.

Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.
  1. SpecFrigateBLK3 Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,133
    Actually, I thought Numbers was American.
     
  2. Soup Toaster Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    192
    Sounds like someone is jealous. You know we da best! :)

    PS - IMO, spinning planets is dumb. And numbers guy, while your butchering of the English language is humorous, you're making us all look bad. Is it THAT hard to take 1/10th of a second to see if you misspelled any words and fix them? Your browser has a built-in spellchecker, for the love of everything holy please start using it.
     
  3. SpecFrigateBLK3 Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,133
    Excerpt from the alert email I got because I watch threads I reply to.
    -
    "Yes yes I do you know...fully destructable planets are uslees they caus lagg theres no point going down in a planet"
    -
    Since you thought better of leaving the rest of the post up, I'll just let the other bits slide.
    If you are so adamant that you want such a different game, go looking. There are options. Cut the shill act.
     
  4. [flux] Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    69
    This thread wasnt even about planets.

    Heres a nickel my 3 cents are free:

    Order of magnetude in space:
    Universe, galaxy, solar system, star, planet, moon, asteroids.

    In the grand scheme of playing a space exploration game. What you want to do?
    Fly around with some purpose from place to place.

    What place? Start at some space base in the middle of nowhere and have random asteroids? Planet hop on worlds reletively close around a common sun or one ominous unreachable light source?

    The idea of a having some organization of matter in space leads to the argument of rotation. Maybe in 10 years when this game goes gamma and computers can handle these massive calculations this can be possable. But in the meantime...

    Would you like to see different solar systems with planets at a different radius from a central sun? And moons at different radii from planets? No rotation mind you. And maybe asteroids around suns, planets, and moons with varying sizes with respect to potential gravity of the point?

    Or have random clusters or sporatic generation of each spacial mass?

    So now we have multiple suns and no rotation. Thats a good place to advance to. How to handle these stars is another debate. But while in atmosphere, day and night could take effect as other stars could be hazed out. Moons get a dark side.

    And the distance of stars could require a jump drive to tie them together.

    Just a thought on the matter. Not a complete one.
     
  5. damoran Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    608
    The ideal "end game" iteration, towards which SE has been teasing since it's inception is every sci fi nerds wet dream:

    A fully destructible voxel universe with semi-real world physics in which players make and break everything (with multiplayer).

    Problem is, SE is not that game.

    SE was originally designed as a space ship building demo with crash test physics.

    I agree, it can be frustrating when the potential is staring you in the face...but I think we're a long way off from the first one.
     
  6. Malware Master Engineer

    Messages:
    9,600
    No, reality gets in the way... :p

    It was never gonna be that game imo. It was never a realistic expectation.
     
  7. Spets Master Engineer

    Messages:
    3,209
    this is not a rotating planet and those are not asteroids, just particles
    --- Automerge ---
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Soup Toaster Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    192
    Great post Spets, I think the community could work together to create something cool with stuff like that. While I think it looks weird as a ring (way too thick) it shows the potential for it to work, and more importantly (IMO) it shows that we could create dense asteroid fields.
     
  9. Speshal_Snowman Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    175
    I feel like now, the game isn't going to change drastically. I thought with the new Ui design I would like things alot more. But the redesign wasn't really a redesign, but a coat of paint. I fear that any features they add will be similar, like a windmill. I worry that the windmill will just be like a solar panel with a different block and a few setting changes and not a new wind mechanic. But I would love to be wrong, but so far nothing ground breaking has happened.
     
  10. Bumber Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,018
    Windmill will probably be a low-tier, planet-only solar panel. It doesn't really justify the dev time of a new wind mechanic by itself.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. briank Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    34
    A new wind mechanic would probably have some effect on ships in atmo.

    Can they just implement something like the reentry and wing mod into the game?

    I know there are problems, but the speed limit is the main factor that is a problem when it cones to realistic simulating. Big ships don't compleatly disintegrate upon crash landing from orbit for example. The speed limit should be something that even hydrogen thrusters would be hard to hit in combat situations (diminishing returns?) And be 5*.
    Plus the speed limit is the only thing that prevents us from actually orbiting a planet. I mean whats a space sim without actually orbiting a planet?!
    Other then that there isn't really much to add honestly. Gas giants (x10 to x20 where you can harvest hydrogen en masse but have to be careful due to gravity, actual flowing water, and weather, and rings. It would be nice to have a battle in gas giant orbit over a planet sized moon.
    Adding magma to the despawning zone and having blocks take damage in there. Same for gas giants. And add geothermal generators

    Aand thats about it
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2017
    • Agree Agree x 3
  12. KG_Jedi Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    69
    Seeing how discussion went off from building mechanics to planets, lemme add another 5 cents :)

    Shrotly, I'd be just happy with airless moons. Earthlikes yield too much problems - you gotta implement atmospheric entry/exit air friction mechanics, aerodynamics, you have to add liquid water or some static waterline... There isn't much profit from atmospheric planets - only free air and that's it. We don't even use any flora or fauna which is a distinct feature of duch planets. And I don't even mention that these are nowhere the real size of them in real world.

    Now if we only had airless moons, that would solve lots of problems. No need to model aerodynamics. Moons IRL can be the same size they are in-game. Moons will be a good place to drive your land vehicles. Spiders still can be present of such moons (remember 'Startroopers'?). There won't be any need for atmospheric thrusters though. Overall I don't get why did they add that pseudoatmospheric planets when they could have done fully working airless ones.
     
  13. Malware Master Engineer

    Messages:
    9,600
    Because they're fun. Maybe you don't care for them, but I and many others do - simply by what they are. Besides, the game isn't done yet. I still have hope they will do something more, but since they seem to insist on trying to cater for everybody and their cousin's playstyle while not having the resources to do so, the hope is dwindling even for me...
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
  14. kai769 Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    69
    With the issue of rotating planets and the player not being able to catch the ground, i don't really understand the argument, wouldn't the fix just be to make anything inside the planets gravity rotate with the planet? why would it need to connect with the ground to rotate with it?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  15. captainbladej52 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    379
    let's assume for a moment the technical issues that Malware and some others pointed out didn't exist and they decided to implement rotating planets tomorrow, you still have to answer a few questions. If you're going to make things in the gravity well rotate with the planet, then how would you treat the objects that are in the weaker parts of the planet's gravity. In other words, if you have a base on the surface at point A in the full gravity well, and a ship at point B above the planet with the gravity well at half strength, would you pull that ship along at the same speed as you would the base on the surface or not? Since some of the arguments are being made from the point of desiring realism, the higher up you go in the gravity well, the less and less effect it would have on the ship. In other words, our base at point A is moving at one speed, and our ship at point B would be moving at another speed. Now if we assume our ship at point B descends into the gravity well to the point that the base and the ship experience the same gravitational pull, you still have the matter of the ship having to catch up to the base depending on how far it's rotated around the planet. That's not the best example ever but hopefully one of the others knows what I'm getting at and can explain it better. Honestly though I don't see rotating planets adding that much value to the game at the moment. sure the thought of it may sound cool but in practicality there are other things that I would rather them add first.

    For me I would love to see procedure generated pirate bases and such. In other words I'm flying along minding my own business in a fighter scouting out resources. Next thing I know after flying over a hill I'm smack in the middle of a massive pirate city base dodging fire from enemy turrets and perhaps drones. There's a time and a place for things like rotating planets to be considered, now is not that time as there are other things that would add more to the game than that.
     
  16. kai769 Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    69
    Gravity already effects ships depending on how strong it is, using that formula for the effect of the rotation would make sense.
     
  17. PLPM Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    841
    What?
     
  18. Ronin1973 Master Engineer

    Messages:
    4,797
    THIS! Except procedural so that there's not a huge hit with permanent asteroids in the game and that the asteroids can contain random amounts of ore types.

    Being able to specify what ore types and frequencies would be even better. Different algorithms should also be able to be plugged in as a mod then accessed by the game when first generating the world and when placing procedurally generated content when the player is in range. Allowing players and modders to create their own patterns of asteroids as mods as well as use multiple algorithms when generating a world would be great.

    The order in which they generate and a user modifiable exclusion zone around each point would prevent asteroids from merging into each other.

    Fix it, @rexxar !
     
  19. captainbladej52 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    379
    So in other words you would have varying amounts of pull at various heights. That goes back to the original problem I stated before, since the ship and ground base could potentially be moving at different speeds, you would have to descend into the gravity well in order to catch up to the base and get back to it depending on how far around the planet the base went. That would be more trouble than it's worth.
     
  20. kai769 Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    69
    That actually sounds like fun, you would have to plan the approach to land taking into account of the rotation.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  21. captainbladej52 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    379
    I will have to disagree with you there as that would just add an annoyance more than it would a fun thing. I don't find something like that to be fun and that would be more irritating than anything. This falls under that category of the game not needing to be 100% realistic to be fun. It would provide nothing in terms of overall value.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  22. kai769 Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    69
    I agree that the game dosnt need to be realistic to be fun, the game is plenty fun now without rotation of planets, some ppl would like rotation, some wouldn't, i personally would like to experience that due to how real planets behave, would also be good to have the sun static and the planets rotate so space solar arrays would be more realistic.
     
  23. PLPM Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    841
    ...

    That`s suicidal.

    We don`t have the precision movement or controls to do that efficiently.

    It`d be a mess, and that`s the best case scenario already.
     
  24. captainbladej52 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    379
    And that's the thing you guy's don't seem to understand. I wish Keen had the resources to program the game with enough customization options and such that we could customize the world down to the last centimeter and smell of the hydrogen fuel if we wanted to. At that point folks could just customize to all their whims they may have. You don't like this individual block, okay turn it off. I like to use shields so I turn them on. I wish they had the ability to put that much customization into the game but the truth is that they simply just do not have that amount of resources lying around as much as some of us may wish they did. In an ideal world game companies like Keen would have an infinite or near infinite amount of resources to put into the game to give everyone what they want, but sadly we don't live in that ideal world.

    What others in this thread, myself included now, have tried to tell you guys, is that it's just not feasible to actually make the planets rotate. The closest I could see them coming to something like planetary rotation is simply casting a shadow on the planet that moves around it every so often. Even then you run into the issue of it being obviously fake when you're in space and see the shadow moving, but not the sun.

    Putting features into a game is not as simple as just flipping switches as much as we all wish it was. Be it at the small time level like I do with modding older games, or full on AAA titles and MMOs like World of Warcraft, SWTOR, or some other big games out there, coding can be a major b**** sometimes. A single one or zero out of place in the code can crash the entire thing. I've seen it happen with some of my own mods where I screwed up the name of a file and had it calling something completely different than what it was suppose to. I've also seen instances in games where a single decimal point in the wrong spot made an ability so overpowered they had to do an emergency maintenance cycle to fix some of the issues that caused. It takes time and resources to create features in the game as well as manpower. Then there are the technical limitations of the game itself and the engine. A feature like rotating planets would also eat ALOT of resources and even then I'm sure I'm underestimating the drain on resources.

    I don't know about you but at the end of the day I would rather have 100 features and blocks or whatever that work correctly and work well, than to have 1000 blocks and features that barely function. At some point all companies have to put their food down and just take the game a certain path. For me I would love to see shields and small grid jump drives, but can live without them being vanilla as long as the game works. Where as I would like to see some form of shields make it to game and small grid jump drives, others don't. They have to make choices when developing the game. They may decide down the road to implement shields and small grid jump drives, and they may never add them. Either way someone isn't going to get what they want in the vanilla game. Point being overall some stuff just is not feasible and they can't cater to every single whim the playerbase may have.
     
  25. [flux] Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    69


    Speed is relative. So if you are going 50 units/second relative to the center of the map and a non moving planet's surface is rotating at 40. Then on one side of the horizon you are going 90 with respect to the surface and on the other side 10. If the planet is not moving itself then you would have a speed of 50 as you pass the axis (which is spinning) and if the planet moves then you are moving at a relative speed to the axis. As before, moving planet would impact relative speed

    So if you wanted to land on a planet you could pick the side of the planet moving with you and match its speed.

    Inertial dampeners is whats screwing people up. Have you ever turned them off to catch a drifting ship? Well relative to the drifting ship you move real slow and easy with your controlled ship to make soft contact instead of ramming and damaging both ships.

    If your inertia is reset to a moving planet's inertia then you match up to its speed. So then you seem to be standing still even though you are actually moving in respect to the map or universe. Its the atmosphere and everything else that has the same base inertia that makes us seem to not move on earth or float away when jumping or airplanes and helocopters not just go up and move out of sync with earth. And earth does not accelerate very much, eclipsed orbit, so your milk isnt sitting to one side of your glass, overcoming gravity. And gravity ties it all together.

    Unless of course you think the earth is flat. Then you probly cant play this game with you head up your butt.
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2017
  26. PLPM Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    841
    Well...

    I would be happy with jus the texture of the atmosphere rotating instead of the planet itself; It gives that "real" vibe while not having to go through the whole hassle of figuring how to make it doable without compromising on what little we already have.
     
  27. FoolishOwl Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    510
    Space Engineers assumes an absolute frame of reference, and limits your velocity with respect to that frame of reference. You don't get to "reset" your inertia relative to a planet's surface.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  28. PLPM Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    841
    I`d expect things like not being able to go as fast in one direction to the other because the inherited speed of the rotation but the static reference and the speed limits.

    Plus, how fast would the planet rotate? Woud activating inertial dampeners be a death sentence?

    How extense would the calculations on the background be, and how reliable to not screw up? I`d expect things to get much worse with Clang if that`s the case.

    Would building be affected and how much?
    ...

    The game was not made nor expected to handle planets, compromises had to be made for that to happen... making planets rotate and be feasible gameplay wise? Oh boy... They`re barely feasible as it is...
     
  29. [flux] Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    69
    Yea. I was explaining if the planet and object had the same relative inertia especially in the atmosphere of the planet and then there would be no apparent movement. I use the word "reset" which obviously is not a function in SE
     
  30. FoolishOwl Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    510
    Ah, sorry, I misread your post.
     
Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.