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.

State of Development, Open Development in Early Access, Changes to Release System, Xbox One

Discussion in 'Change Log' started by Drui, Mar 13, 2018.

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

    Messages:
    809
    A skybox picture of a moon or planet, a wallpaper you consider equal to a genuine 3D-Planet? That's so ridiculous an argument, I hesitated to answer that. :D
    Skybox stays always the same, no matter where you move and how close you come. Illusionary distance.
    The 3D planet you can approach, dive into its atmosphere, fly around it, even land on it and build structures - try this with your skybox picture! :D
    In one word: planets is the best what could happen to Space Engineers. Even if you never approach them and regard them as... well... your beloved wallpaper.
    --
    And:
    Last time I paid attention to it, the game had in the options a choice for spawning new asteroids as you move through space. Including the density in which this would happen. None - few - many. You seem to have missed that.
     
  2. Forcedminer Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,227
    faked sky box planets make me paranoid.
    it'd be like chasing a rainbow because there's a pot of gold at the end of it...outsmarted by the irish mythical leprechaun
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  3. Thrak Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    536
    I actually did this with an older version of the vanilla skybox... which I believe had some distant asteroids in it. "Why aren't these getting any closer?" I would ask.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  4. Roxette Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,407
    Oh yes, the good old days, with a skybox full of fake asteroids and 5 real ones somewhere... but at least the glass was clean enough to see where you were going... Space Engineers, trolling noobs since 2013 :D
     
    • Funny Funny x 4
  5. Petr Beranek Developer Staff

    Messages:
    206
    Man, I don't know, but... the game is called Space Engineers... not Ship&Station Engineers. (Hint: Think about where the planets are usually located ;) )
    In this sense, survival on planet is also kind of survival in space as being on planet means you are in space... ok, I spoiled i now... planets are located in space... :D

    Even if we added gardening or fishing, it would still fit, as those are things done on planets - > in space :D
    (even though it is hard to fish something from ice... lol... but if there were actual fishes frozen in ice... and you had to mine them out instead of regular old "fishing" :D Like some kind of treasure hunt.... I would love this feature :D if only there was some use of fishes...)

    Now when I think about it, there is possibility that plural of "fish" is "fish"... but I like "fishes" more so deal with it. :D
     
    • Funny Funny x 4
    • Like Like x 2
  6. Tenzo Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    276
    Thanks for clearing that up for me. I always wondered where the function went and why... I miss those large asteroid clusters around my base so much. :(

    They made Lone Survivor my favorite scenario.
    --- Automerge ---
    Obviously planets are in space.

    But in regards to a game about engineering ships to thrive IN space, going to planets is a bit like cheating. Because the moment you leave space, to go to a *planet*, you leave that premise behind (again, long hours playing Lone Survivor may be the reason why I feel this way). You can refill on the things that you can't get in space much more erm, luxuriously. But personal opinion anyway, everyone plays the game differently. You guys are totally entitled to like planets if they fit your idea of Space Engineers and if you guys can use them and they enhance your gameplay then that's great.

    But for me, they don't really feel like more of a cosmetic feature that has been more fleshed out than one would expect. Okay, a lot more fleshed out than one would expect! lol

    Gameplay wise I feel your time, Mr. Petr, and the other awesome people on the dev team, would have been better spent on smaller, less ambitious quality of life improvements, iterating the game's immersion elements, than a single big feature that doesn't really expand the depth of the game, it just it expands outward... I'm not a game designer but I am sure there is a term for that sort of growth. Lateral growth vs... something something. You get the picture. :)

    And yes, honestly, @Cetric ... I've spent 2000 hours (none of them idle) in EVE Online, staring at 2D skyboxes and I never felt like I wasn't in space. I felt this awesome rush of freedom to go anywhere and do stuff. Maybe it's not really a good comparison because EVE does have some planet co-ordinates, though they are not places you can actually visit past their station. But there are plenty of landmarks in space, maybe that's why just getting by with a skybox didn't really impact my immersion negatively.

    Also while talking about skyboxes, I did notice that the skyboxes from EVE that people have ported over to SE, don't really look like they do in EVE at all. The skyboxes in EVE are much brighter and you get a sense that there is a universe around you. (The SE counterparts are indeed a little dark and look rather faded. Not realistic at all.) But the devs on EVE might do some fancy things with them than just a single skybox, I'm really not sure why they look so cool. But they really do look good. So, a skybox for me would have been a suitable "vista" to gameplay.

    I really miss playing in Caldari space. The ports to SE don't really do them justice for how they look in EVE. Some of them are drop dead gorgeous.

    Also, Cetric, have you never seen the other version of asteroids? You know, the ones that weren't infinite?... I'm not sure you know what I was referencing earlier. But you can't spawn the old ones anymore. All you can spawn are the procedural ones... And no offense, but, those can't hold a candle to the old ones. For one, they have no sense of scale. They don't invoke awe when you get up close to one, and from far away they all look like one of three shapes.

    Maybe asteroids is something they can improve before release.

    But I really do miss the old ones. You used to be able to choose between both versions, but now you can only play with the infinite procedural ones.

    And while on the topic of skyboxes, the new lighting *really* doesn't work with any other skybox than the default one in the game right now. The brightness becomes exponentially brighter. By a lot.
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    This is with the unofficial blue skybox. The HDR... It's painful.
     
  7. Malware Master Engineer

    Messages:
    9,661
    @Tenzo It is very simple. Landable planets provides gameplay variance, which is far more than a mere cosmetic feature. It lengthened my gameplay time significantly from something that was becoming naturally stale. I still find just landing and taking off from planets... without any transition... just fantastic.

    And given just how many people were screaming for planets... I don't think I'm alone in this.




    Oh. And the game isn't finished yet.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Burstar Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    460
    I find it to be quite the opposite. Starting on a planet means dealing with the oppressive pull of gravity all the time. I find that obtaining the resources to get offworld is much more difficult than surviving in space. So much so that once you do leave atmosphere it feels like there are no more 'problems'.

    Frankly the idea that the addition of planets was a waste of time is just ludicrous. Name one person that saw the existence of a game called Space Engineers for the first time, and didn't immediately think of how cool it would be to be a Neil Armstrong, or make a space shuttle/Saturn rocket/Soyuz, or design their own landers, or...

    Regardless, discussing what WAS done is pointless. We should be discussing what can still BE done. So unless you're saying Keen should delete all that effort and remove planets altogether for whatever reason then tell us what you think should be done.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  9. Bistro187 Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    50
    So anybody know when the next update is? Its been over a month & a half right? Feels like it anyways.
     
    • Late Late x 2
  10. mojomann71 Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,833
    @Malware that is a crutch that Keen likes to use saying it is a Havok issue, when truth be told it is their VRAGE Engine that is the culprit.
    Take a look at this list of games that use Havok (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_using_Havok) and you will see games that well exceed what Keen has claimed Havok fails at.

    Now it may be Havok does not work well with VRAGE, but again that is a VRAGE issue not a Havok one. :)
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
  11. Burstar Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    460
    Truth be told you're just talking out the wrong end about something you have no clue about. Actually cite Havok being capable of exceeding the limits Keen says they're up against (pro tip: don't use a Wiki) or keep your ignorance to yourself.
     
  12. Malware Master Engineer

    Messages:
    9,661
    @mojomann71 Sorry, no. It's all about how indexes to physics elements are stored internally in Havok in a 16 bit integer, leaving the max value possible at 65535... something that is easily overflowed in large ships.

    I just did a quick sweep through that list and couldn't see anything that would go over that limit. Of course I don't know lots of them but since I know this limitation is true I still claim none of them does.

    I'm sure with some not inconsiderable effort they could manage to find some workaround for this limitation by splitting the grids but given how much trouble there has generally been with physics and clang, and how computers can't really support these sizes anyway performance wise and still provide general gameplay I say spend that time and money on other areas if the game that will benefit more people. Fixing it is not feasible, it'll cost more than it will give.
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2018
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. Petr Beranek Developer Staff

    Messages:
    206
    Oh, the Wise One, please, give us a sliver of your knowledge, so we can fix this issue and make SE great again. Maybe just tell us what is the main issue and we will go fix it immediately. ;)
    Why did nobody told us, that the problem was in VRAGE the whole time... You all knew that, didn't you... I can imagine all of you laughing at us behind our backs for thinking it was Havok, while it was problem at our side... How cruel can all of you be? :D

    But to be serious again. As Malware said, if you can overflow Havok with sheer number of blocks and with complexity of your ship... That means there is something seriously wrong in your design. Building death star to scale may sound like a good idea, but in reality it is only as good as big (I mean really big) paperweight. Building such big ships have no practical reason. And as things get really, really heavy, you would need hundreads of gyros and thrusters and reactors to do anything with that... which would (in hypothetical scenario where your computer can run the physics simulation without major impact on simulation speed) turn your game into a slideshow. If your goal is to build gigantic ships to scale with all of the details, I would rather suggest you to use Blender, 3ds Max and SW like it. You can create there basically anything. Yes, you can't play with it afterwards (unless you create your own game or import it in other SW that supports it), it is only for looking, but same it is in SE.

    When it comes to building ships in SE, this one of few places where "thinking bigger" is really not the right way to go.



    Will it comfort you, if I tell you, that next major will be released in future? :D (If it won't comfort you, well... no comfort to you then ;) )
     
    • Like Like x 4
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  14. Cetric Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    809
    I am also wondering how someone could seriously not welcome planets in SE. It's like saying the introduction of color film was bad for the development of photography. While you still can make black-and-white pictures if you want.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Funny Funny x 1
  15. Tenzo Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    276
    I know I am running for the most unpopular post of the month here, but... regarding Havok not being able to process complex ships...

    @Petr Beranek @Malware
    Why don't we just fake it? If Havok is the bottleneck... Only feed Havok the outer shell of a ship to use in physics calculations, and use an internal "estimate" of the remainder of blocks contained within, so that you still retain reasonable calculations, but you don't take it to the level of 'calculating every blade of grass that moves'.

    You know what I mean?

    Once the shell is destroyed, shrink the outer shell to the "new" shell of blocks, once again, omitting calculations of blocks that are "internal". Once these new blocks are destroyed, you can "turn on" new blocks for Havok to process like layers of an onion. But this "outer shell" should progressively shrink, making it much easier to deal with once destruction occurs.

    It's the only way you will be able to make physics calculations behave in any sane manner in regards to optimization and the only way I see that doesn't involve your team tearing their hair out as they get closer and closer to release.
     
  16. Malware Master Engineer

    Messages:
    9,661
    @Tenzo They already do that. To the extent where it's feasible. They combine the planes they can into a single one. For example; you likely could create a much larger cube than you could a pyramid because the pyramid, having lots of edges, would have much more elements than the cube which would have combined each simple plane. Otherwise my previous unfeasability statement comes into play here. Splitting the ship into multiple physics elements would - as I already suggested - solve this problem but would very likely create a whole lot new problems instead.


    Optimization does comes into play here, but in inverse. Splitting the grid into multiples would likely increase performance impact, not reduce it. It would also increase the likelyness of bald developers, not decrease it :p

    It's not up to me to determine whether or not Keen would find it worth the time and money to solve this particular problem but given that ships of this size is likely to perform badly no matter what Keen does, even if they're the best programmers to ever write a line of code, and their desire to get the game into a finished state, I would say it's most definitely not worth it.


    Don't worry about "the most unpopular post". You are definitely part of the minority, that's true, but you're not alone in not "getting" the planets. However I would suggest you make sure you have your facts straight before making accusations and allegations ;)
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2018
  17. Tenzo Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    276
    @Malware Ah. Well, I think they are on the right path then. Cheating these calculations in *some* way, is the only way to go I think. :)

    (Even if the way I thought of might not be the right way for SE. :p)

    The end user can't tell the difference as long as *some* stuff breaks apart in a manner they "feel" is correct. So as long as you can maintain that the "feel" of stuff breaking apart is correct, you can get away with all manner of nefarious calculations. ;)

    We must save Petr's hairline!
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. Burstar Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    460
    This speaks to the sensitive issue of unreasonable player expectations and capability. Having been an admin on a DS for a while now I'm appalled at how players build in mp. Sometimes it's obvious malisciousness, but more often it's that the player just doesn't understand how much of an impact their build decisions have. When the sim plummets you hear all kinds of wild speculation stated as fact which only makes it worse as the unknowledgable are fed more incorrect data (myself included).

    Marek et al have stated that the impossible problem they face is that the better the game runs the bigger the builds get but the wall is inevitably hit anyways. Speaking as an average user who is used to checking the min/suggested hardware requirements and thinking this means 'I'm good, build anything!', I'm suggesting there be a building guidelines tutorial or whatever. I'm sure that building limits and guides are out there but it would be nice to have them compact and in one location FROM A REPUTABLE SOURCE that all players have to see before playing. Perhaps a hardware test that spits out your machines Keen-recommended capability range, possibly sending this to the server which aggregates and then summarizes the limits to all the players/admins. The goal being a more reasonable player base instead of trying to code to unreasonable expectations.

    Along these lines server tools that better show which player is being dumb this time, or rather, what exactly is hurting the sim would be nice.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  19. mojomann71 Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,833
    @Petr Beranek I never said I was a wise one. Kind of shocked by your sarcasm however. Did I say SE wasn't great in my post? All I was getting at was a comparison of other games that use Havok and SE. If Havok has no issues with these other game engines, to me it seems there would be a conflict between the two, and again to me it would seem that VRAGE was having issues being compatible with Havok.

    No worries though with your attitude you just ruined SE for me with your dry wit or sarcasm. Not that you care I know.

    Guess you never read all the times I had your guys back, all the feed back on bugs etc that I gave. No you get your little girly panties in a wad over a comparison. Granted I did say it was used as a crutch, but that is far less than what others have said about your Dev team and the Company you represent.

    How about you go raise hell with people that actually do slam the game. I definitely did not expect the unprofessional-ism from a Dev.
     
    Last edited: May 5, 2018
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
  20. Malware Master Engineer

    Messages:
    9,661
    @mojomann71 The problem isn't that you said it was used as a crutch. The problem is that you practically called them liars. And me too, by the way. Although I agree he should have been a bit more diplomatic given who he is, since insulting Keen or a Keen employee is against the forum rules you should be happy he just chose to just respond with sarcasm ;)

    There's a reason those games seem to work better with Havok: Their models and companion collision models are made by a professional graphical designer, which had full knowledge of the limitations they had to work with. The collision model of the basic ship (just armor, none of the entity blocks) is dynamically generated. The more you build, the more physics elements you get. Build flat walls, you don't get so many elements. Build lots of corners and edges, and you get more. Most games don't have to work that way, or they enforce limitations in other ways. They also usually consist of multiple models put together, and this limitation only exist within a single grid. If you hit this limit on one grid and start another, the other will work just fine. This is how the other games get around this limitation. See my previous posts about this for the reasons why this might not be suitable for SE.

    As with so many things in Space Engineers; there's a lot of cheats, workarounds and tricks that other types of games can employ that's simply not available for a game like this where nothing can be presumed about either shapes, sizes or positions... Everything is up to the player. It's totally unpredictable.

    (edit) Hm. I'm suddenly uncertain whether or not the entity block (non-armor) collision models are included in that single grid collision model. Maybe @Petr Beranek can enlighten me?
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2018
    • Agree Agree x 1
  21. Cetric Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    809
    Great idea.
    And you are right, the stronger the game engine performs, the farther gigantesc building players will push the limits and - still complain about dropping game speed and what else. Your proposal would make it clear where the limit is and nobody has to complain when ignoring it. Hope KEEN makes a note about your idea.
     
  22. beelzerob Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    429
    I begged for planets. I've not been back to space since they came out.

    But.... As someone who found hundreds of hours of fun gameplay in space before planets were ever a thought, i have often wondered if their introduction was a mistake. I wonder how different or polished SE would be now instead. Most likely it would have already been released. And THEN introduce planets, maybe even as a paid DLC, into a stable game.

    Idle speculation, i know, but i think most people who don't welcome the introduction of planets are maybe of this mindset. Now planets are easy to blame for overall development taking so long.
     
  23. Malware Master Engineer

    Messages:
    9,661
    @beelzerob I still don't understand why people insist development has taken so long for this game. Given its complexity it really hasn't. And trust me. Planets has had a lot of positive influence on the game. The voxels engine was completely rewritten to be tons faster specifically to cater to the planets. Without the planets the game might never have transitioned to DX11. Without planets and its variant gameplay lots of people would have left the game a long time ago because it simply got stale. People are leaving now, it would have been a lot worse without the planets, I'm certain of it. The very fact that they managed to pull off planets has brought a lot of attention to Keen. That was no mean feat. If they'd finished the game first, there would very likely never have been planets. At all. I think people just look at the surface of what planets are, and don't realize what they really have meant for the game.

    No. They've made lots of choices I wish they hadn't. Planets, that was a right one.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  24. mojomann71 Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,833
    @Malware I honestly appreciate your reply to my comment. It was far more professional than the actual person who should have handled themselves as such. I wasn't trying to class anyone as a liar, and I apologize to you for that.

    I have had many more fun hours spent in the game over the frustrating hours. However when a Dev "snaps" sarcastic or not, on a comment that is far more tame than other posts directed at their team, and their company, it really puts things in a better perspective for me.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  25. Burstar Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    460
    Hopefully the perspective is 'hey maybe I did something wrong to trigger a professional, and should figure it out so I don't do it again'.

    I'm betting it's not.

    I don't think this is my idea. Benchmarking etc. is old hat for games. I do hope they use it though :p
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  26. zDeveloper10 Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    742
    I,for one,like planets. certain people may regret it, but I've had a lot of fun with it.
    heck,I think about space a lot but yet still get sucked into using them again. especially now that wheels are fixed-wheee.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  27. mojomann71 Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,833
    @Burstar Since you do not like a wiki page here you go from Havok's own site:
    https://www.havok.com/showcase/

    Again if my comparison "triggered" a professional and all the pure hate and straight forward attacks that are in the forums didn't trigger a Dev, that is the perspective.

    And pretty sure my post did not slam Keen or SE. I also said that it may be that Havok does not work well with VRAGE.

    There is no hate there, also I have been on Keen's side a bunch of times, been accused of being a fan boy. As soon as I draw comparisons to what I see, I am the bad guy.

    But others can spew complete garbage and crickets...nothing said by any Dev's, and there have been plenty of posts that would be understandable for sarcasm or "triggering".

    So if you think I am talking out the wrong end @Burstar that is your opinion and you are entitled to it.
    I am gonna drop the subject, as this conversation will become a dead horse (too late) :)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  28. Tenzo Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    276
    @mojomann71 I don't think Petr was intentionally trying to be mean to you. I think it's an issue of the way text comes across the wrong way sometimes, even between people who have English as their first language.

    When you read text it comes across much more bluntly to the other person, reading it, than it does "in your head", when you write it.

    When you're talking about something you are passionate about, that happens even more, subconsciously, because you are not directly speaking to the other person.

    Without those intonations of friendly banter, that you use in every day speech, words can really fly off on their own.

    I don't see that Petr has updated his avatar with a new voodoo doll, so I think you're safe.

    Still, I rather prefer that any of the devs speak to us here frankly, than to just have silence for long periods of time while everyone is arguing with one another. I think it makes them seem less like artificial "robots" coding a game in a basement somewhere, and more relatable--as users who are just as passionate as players, with their own list of problems and grievances. So please, cut Petr a break if he came across as less than diplomatic, because he's only human. Try to understand where he's coming from, as well.

    Besides, if anyone triggered anyone, it was me. :p

    I think your *rawr* hey guys, VRAGE, post just walked into the room at the wrong time there.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  29. Burstar Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    460
    Citing a list of games that use Havok proves nothing. It's like denying Climate Change because it snows.

    Cut him a break? What? Petr did nothing wrong there. He was unwilling to suffer fools and I don't blame him one bit.
    @mojomann71 was clearly spewing false information to accuse Keen Dev Team of being liars. Worse he refuses to see this. I'm glad he was called out on it and hope it's the beginning of a new era in intolerance to stupidity.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  30. vadimo Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    1
    so much bugs need to fix.... When are next update?
     
Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.