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.

Things that make planets unplayable in survival

Discussion in 'General' started by Pyronymer, Nov 15, 2015.

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

    Messages:
    712
    Patience people, this IS THE FIRST ITERATION of planets.
    even if i agree that jetpack allways was too O.P. (because have same speed as ships) i think the jetpack fuel in survival should last more.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
  2. FlakMagnet Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,551
    Well ... personally....I can agree with some of hte OPs points, but by no means all.

    The jetpack does last a very short time, but that's only an issue if you are careless. I was careful....and haven;t needed it harldy at all. Just as well...as when I ground down the O2 generator on the starter ship, it destroyed all my ice...which wasn't what I was expecting. Need to go find some more.

    There is uranium on planet surfaces. I found some 30m down 500m from where I landed. Now....it is perfectly possible to go prospecting with just a hand drill. It's a bit slow, but poerfectly possible. You need to develop a corkscrew type digging strategy, and check often that you can walk back out. Minor issues can be solved with a bit more drilling to even the slope. I have managed to drill down close on 50m this way to reach a deposit of gold I wanted. I am now engineering a more mechanised solution. I have been keeping my heavy plant on the ground, using wheeled vehicles....as this seems more energy efficient. I am scouting by air....and then driving out to exploit it.

    No problem driving in teh dark...as I use headlights. Not sure where I got that idea from..... I keep the speeds sensible and I haven't hit anything yet.

    As far as air craft go, I have found that the small thrusters are nice decorations....but no use for going anywhere. I get better results using large thrusters for lift, and then angling the craft ( like a quad/helo ) to get forward thrust. Seems to make for a much better flight, and it's quite fun! I also have bolted solar panels to all my flyers. When not in use...they are parked in the sun to recharge.

    Where I have to agree is the pirates on the Easy Start. What a pain! No chance to develop stocks ofmagnesium, and just relentless attacks from the get go. I switched to the 3 planet system, and that's been a lot enjoyable.

    Also I agree...the plkaetary lander says it has compoinents to build certain things, but it doesn't. It can only build small grid versions. That should be clearer. Especially, as mentioned, that you cannot recover the battery components from the lander...you just get scrap steel.

    But in short:
    Jetpack...don't rely on it.
    Easy start scenario is a bust...like the small ship drills
    Atmo thrusters are not right ... you can work with them, but they are not right.
    There is uranium
    It's not too deep
    Day and night....well...of course! Lighting does need work, but it doesn;t have to be a major issue
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. propagandawar Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    151
    Because I went mining for Iron and found a Dead zone. I decided to start a new world and Drop some Iron Cargo (Blocks) off near a old blown up rover and Solar tower. Figured Id start from there. Your best bet if you don't want to do that is keep flying till you find nickle and silicon for the batteries.
     
  4. mhalpern Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,119
    fortunately, at least in grassy ore areas, iron, nickle and silicon seem to be just below the surface, you might have trouble in ice lakes.
     
  5. Croolis Var Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    23
    I've owned SE for years but not played it much because I found it lacking content with regards things to do. Now, with planets, it's awesome.

    I started with just the starter atmospheric lander, in an Earth like planet. I had to do a few restarts because I din't have a clue what I was doing (flying in the dark, etc.) but I persevered. The fact that you have to overcome gravity with essentially no jetpack, making simple builds a challenge in planning and method makes the game so much better. I forgot that you could disassemble components into ingots again so as far as I was concerned I had two batteries, that's it, until I found some silicon to mine. And that's how I proceeded, where because of this lack of disassembling (I still chewed up the lander for its components, but there's no Power Cells on it) the game was even harder. I had a car with a solar panel and an ore detector stuck on it and an aircraft with a solar panel and an ore detector stuck on it. Building scaffolds, falling down, getting stuck in holes, love it. Finding ore isn't so hard with a small ship detector once you learn to recognise the dark patches (not easy at first, but once you get it, it's easy). My flying mining drills so far invariably get stuck in holes - am I dreaming it or does the extra weight you take on when mining ore affect them? They suddenly fall over and I think it's an increased mass thing. That's awesome. Once the thing falls over, it's nigh on impossible to right again as the small engines have no power versus gravity, but for level movement they're fine. I need to go back to the drawing board (don't tell me what to do, I want to figure it out). Awesome.

    Why is all this awesome? Because as someone said earlier - you have to ENGINEER your way out of it. You don't get this stuff with Minecraft. Assessment of OP: must try harder, or get bored and quit.

    If they buff the jetpack, I'll be annoyed. If they buff the small atmos engines, I'll be annoyed. They can correct the erroneous information given on the display in the starter ship concerning starting components. If they change the battery, I'll be annoyed - the small charge that's in them when you build them is extremely useful, otherwise it's a boring wait on solar panel charge. Losing the Power Cells when grinding them is nothing if you've just got a handful of silicon. I didn't even have that and got along fine with some effort. Moaning because it's dark? Have a word with yourself and build some lights lol.

    I like it all as it is, don't change a thing.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
  6. Memphis Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    145
    While there are several things that need to be tweeked with planet survival (look in suggestion and bug report forums) the complaints that the OP brought up are not some of them. Night too dark? Flying with jetpacks? Ore hard to find? These are all fun and interesting challenges that can be engineered around. Yet another "Make the game easier" thread to which I will ask, "Do you even engineer?"
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. Devon_v Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,602
    The patch notes say 100% in 1g is 7 seconds, so it's bugged at the moment.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  8. KissSh0t Master Engineer

    Messages:
    3,556
    I find it hard to jump to a planet... if I point at a planet and jump to it I usually jump past it, so I have to turn around and wait for jump drives to recharge and jump again.. and... yeah..

    A way to measure the distance between the player and the planet or have jump drive make you appear next to planet when you point at it and jump to it is needed.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. Bumber Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,018
    Maybe it's affected by mass?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. Fragman Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    294
    Ore is not too deep (30 meters), but deposites is so small!
     
  11. Devon_v Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,602
    That's a good point. It might be 7 seconds for the weight of an astronaut alone.
     
  12. Pyronymer Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    153
    Before I start, I'm pretty sure it's not an issue based on the weight of the astronaught, if it is then the tools alone seem to be enough to drop you to the ~2s range. It feels like you squeeze out slightly more time coasting forward or sideways than you do trying to push upwards, but if so only by marginal amounts bordering on wishful thinking.

    Now, anyway, with the initial list of essentially game ending frustrations for the current state of survival play having prevented me from fully interacting with its elements I've been meaning to try and work around these things and try and see more of it looking for either more remarkable failings in the form of bugs or bizarre game play balance decisions, or even, dare I hope, an actual reason to keep playing.

    So I set to with an EXTENDED period of space mastering, testing a few extra things out, and setting up a relatively safe but minimalist starting outpost with the intention of getting a feel for mining, and the general time and component costs of getting various vehicles and stages of play off the ground.

    Finally having set things up... things did not proceed to go well. Bringing up more reasons survival on planets is currently unplayable, and also reminding me of a few things about the whole mess I', going to mention.

    9) I start to randomly choke in cockpits why now?
    OK. So I've been noticing for a while since I started messing about in survival on planets SOMETIMES I get into a cockpit... and start losing health rapidly. This has lead to some issues, including emergency bail outs I then couldn't retrieve the craft from because... under 2s of jet pack...

    Quick searches for losing health in cockpits didn't bring anything up at the time so it was down to experimentation. Eventually I figure out oh hey, so if you have your helmet off, and the cockpit isn't supplied by oxygen, even though you are in an oxygen atmosphere and still have oxygen in your suit, you will start to die. Only. Not every time. Just sometimes. And it won't tell you it's oxygen related. And you can't actually remedy it without getting out of your cockpit. Which is sort of bad news if you were say doing 104ms before your health drops low enough to get the low health warning and you need to bail in a matter of moments.

    This one seems to play out like a bug, but honestly at this point "2s of Jet pack seems like a good idea" KSH could easily be intending for asphyxiating cockpits to be the intended functionality and the thing where sometimes they don't is maybe the bug, I can't even tell anymore.

    Even once you identify this problem, assuming I even have it fully nailed down as is... it remains a problem.

    10) Wheels to The Center Of The Earth
    Before I start this one, night time is still dark and after encountering this issue I had to wait until daylight as my alternative transport just plain couldn't functionally light its own path safely enough with 4 spotlights cranked to full.

    So anyway. It's dark, but dawn will be soon and it's time to start some proper survival. My original decision on minimalist survival start is to eschew flying vehicles and start out with just a small size rover.

    It's headlights were... not adequate, but they DID let me perceive the obstacle that utterly lost my vehicle. A patch of perfectly level ground perfectly level to the perfectly level ice I started out on.

    See what happened was this. I drove off the ice, then fell directly through the perfectly level ground adjacent to it and plummeted in the general direction of the center of the earth.

    This happened twice, and with load times being you know FOREVER that was enough for me to paste in a makeshift small atmospheric flier I'd blueprinted earlier in as a substitute "anything but a purely walking start" vehicle option and writing off wheeled vehicles as a viable survival option until at least the next patch.

    Of course this one is pretty clearly a bug, though I'll also note the way the suspension/lift seems way off no matter what I do with the settings, but obvious huge bug or not... wheeled vehicles aren't currently a viable survival option (let alone early game survival option) if they might randomly and without warning BE SWALLOWED BY THE EARTH.

    11) Then All the Ore was Ghost Ore
    So anyway there has been... hushed and furtive mentions here and there about the state of ores on planets about the forums. Some people say there are some detector bugs. Others say that ore deposits are stupid tiny. Others say that they are stupid thin to the point that they won't even render once the voxels sort of average out.

    Whatever it is. Having now dug to SEVERAL ore deposits, by god damn hand like a proper early survival player, my experience with Uranium now holds for every single ore deposit I have tried to dig to.

    Which is to say. I've dug through and destroyed quiet a few tons of rock, and not found so much as ONE PIECE OF ORE.

    I'm going with bug, because it damn well better be a bug.

    12) So what IS the real Ore plan here anyway
    But the furtive talk suggests things about thin bands and tiny amounts per deposit being possible reasons for this/intended function outside of the apparent ghost ore.

    And has the anti-fun brigade talking like giant scale open cut mining to get infinitesimal smears of ore is a totally viable solution. Though I think we can ignore anyone who suggest that.

    But yeah. IS that the plan? Because Deep Ores was a bad enough idea. And Keen needs to really reconsider this.

    Planets are harder to work on, and harder to gather resources on. Even if the ore was on the surface and distributed with the same size and frequency as on asteroids it would be HARDER to gather than it is to gather in space.

    And in a GAME more work NEEDS to have a reason. Typically the reason being, somehow, more reward.

    But if the ore deposits really do turn out to be even harder to gather, and/or they turn out to be smaller once found and gathered than the ones on asteroids... then you are essentially double dipping on negative motivation to force players to leave planets and STAY the hell off planets. If I can spend less work AND get more rewards AND get the ores you can't get on planets in space... why am I ever on planets again? And if I have to get off a planet to start, sure whatever, but then why the hell will I ever want to return?

    The community discussed this a fair bit before planets hit, and the correct solution was bandied about by various posters, and that correct, and fairly obviously correct solution was that while gravity or whatever might get in the way of your mining on planets the sensible compensation would be that individual ore deposits CLEARLY should be REALLY BIG.

    Small enough to completely miss and not know if it is bugged ghost ore or not is... rather clearly not REALLY BIG.

    13) And that gets me thinking about just how quick and dirty you could leave a planet
    This one might require some testing.

    But now I'm thinking... you know the overhead for actually having say, a really basic large craft and the basic assembler/refinery and so on, like say, the rather terrible and apparently understocked planetary lander, is pretty big in components.

    And hydrogen tanks and thrusters are supposed to be made out of pretty cheap components. (I mean, I wouldn't know yet with all the issues with survival since before hydrogen thrusters came out keeping me out of proper survival play I've yet to get any real feel for their costs having only messed with them outside of survival).

    I'm thinking you bring your clumsy lander down on a sunny ice lake. You strap solar panels to it and charge it. You hand mine all the ice you can possibly manage. You scavenge your ship down to a bare skeleton, run what you need to through disassembly, take off all the terrible atmospheric drives and throw on Hydrogen tanks and thrusters and just leave. You could probably do it just barely in a default 1 hour day cycle.

    I'd need to test it to see if it could be sensibly done, and it might take practice to do it quickly, but I'm pretty sure it should be pretty easily doable.

    You could do similar things probably even more easily with the easy starts, and only the very most minimalist starting platform could actually really prevent you from getting the heck out of Dodge in a similar manner.

    Then of course you basically never return to planets again because why would you with them like this? Of course then you get to be in space where there were major issues with survival play before planets, issues that planets won't have fixed and you will have to contend with that.

    Or you know, just go back to creative/other games for yet another week/month/year.

    14) And that gets me thinking about a major problem with transitioning away from hydrogen thrusters
    Yeah, and actually that gets me thinking, the biggest issue for hydrogen thrustering your hacked down planetary lander or whatever the heck out of dysfunctional planet town is that even once you have the basic means for production in space if you are running exclusively on hydrogen thrusters it is a LONG way off in time, cost and luck before you are even at the level of a basic default starter ship 1 starting point. And until you DO hit that level... you are going to be living and dying on your ice supply.

    With weight potentially being an issue during your desperate escape from the sheer suck of planets (not just their gravity, apparently), you MIGHT not be able to bring a huge stockpile with you.

    But even in a good scenario where planetary survival worked as intended and your assent was less a jury rigged act of desperation and more the glorious ascent of your first truly cool large ship with all sorts of resources and accessories all over it... the whole thing where you basically CANNOT leave from a pure planet start with ANY Ion thrusters creates this transitional stage where you are running a purely hydrogen based thrust for your space operations for rather a while.

    I can see it working... but I can also see it being gigantically frustrating and resulting in various out of fuel game over scenarios no one needs. Ice is seems marginally common, but not having particularly relied on it for hydrogen fuel, again what with survival being in a terrible state since before hydrogen thrusters were out, I couldn't begin to tell you how viable at what asteroid density running your ship off the stuff would be.

    I do know that reliably whenever you wanted any specific ore in space survival you'd frequently end up having to spend a good hour driving up to random asteroids until your ships face was just short of inside it before weird LoD issues and buggy ore detection would reliably tell what if anything you had found and before that process actually yielded god damn nickel or whatever. So imagine that, only you need to get Platinum and until then you need to also always get Ice.

    Oh, and annoying LoD ghost ore is still a thing. I swear I saw a nice big visible uranium deposit on a planet cliff, I flew over and it was, of course gone, burried by LoD, or hey, maybe never even really there, I rubbed my ships detector nose all up and down the surface of that cliff and got nothing. So. Yeah. Still not great.


    Anyway. The whole "no buggies, no ore, ahahahahahaha" thing was enough of the game frustrating me for now, so any further issues, or maybe god forbid some functional enjoyable game play, will have to wait until another session.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  13. ChaseBears Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    68
    well, the scenario outline you describe doesnt involve any planet gameplay at all. if you want to start in space, you should just start in space rather than doing an atmo start.

    It is more than possible to build a large hydrogen rocket with sufficient power and ice to make a good start in space, you just have to build up some planetary industry first rather than mostly relying on Lander salvage.

    a small descent capsule to return you to the planet if need be would be easy to assemble.

    Large construction projects are way better done in space in any case because of the scaffolding issue, i feel this is completely intended.

    two questions for people having '1 second' of fuel.

    1.) do you have dampening off (this will result in massive fuel usage if you dont)
    2.) are you on a server?

    fuel doesnt last long on the planets for me, but it lasts long enough when i need to (like if i screwup when mining passageways.)
     
  14. BobbyHill Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    216
    I agree with you Pyronymer. this was very brave of you to post this as most people here are fanboys in the extreme and forget we critique space engineers because we love it.

    i have found that survival in space is easier than survival on earth-like planets which seems very odd to me and seems to go against game progression. yes i know you cant run out of air and there's no food so there's no reason to die but there are more ways than avatar death to die in space engineers (run out of fuel). some things i think would make it better is if the jet pack was ion again using energy instead of hydrogen, flight mechanics supported x10 inertial dampeners to stay aloft and prevent crashing and batteries when recycled gave off battery cells again. additionally what i think would go well in space engineers is if batteries charged faster. lets say you look at the battery in the control panel and it says "fully charged in one day"... COME ON NOW i know space engineers is a huge time sink but i don't have 24 hours to charge batteries in game after all I'm just trying to play a game. what if instead that 24 hours scaled to your sun rotation time. so if you have day cycles of 24 min shouldn't that mean that a day and night are both 12 min and so a battery should be charged in 2 in-game days right? I'm not a genius but doesn't that seem to make more sense for play-ability? it seems that in a quest for "realism" we're in a state of reduced play-ability for the casual players. wouldn't it be cool if there were actual difficulty settings besides predetermined starting parameters such as what planet/base you start on? like lets say a normal or easy mode which influenced the game by increasing inertia dampeners, power cells from batteries, ect ect... medium scaled it up from there and so on and so forth. i think players making the argument like "the game just doesn't work for you" is based on ignorance and is a mind set that limits what space engineers could be. if space engineers had difficulty scaling i think you could cater to more players and thus be more inviting to new comers. besides why should anyone have to play the same way as anyone else? this is a sand box game after all.


    sorry for the long replay Pyronymer. i really liked your post and thought it had many very valid points on general discomforts with planets game-play. this is definitely something worth discussing so we can take the discussed ideas to the suggestions section.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  15. BlackUmbrellas Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,818
    This was clearly explained in the patch notes, if you'd read them.

    Cockpits are airtight. You need to put a small-ship oxygen vent attached to them/your conveyor network, then set it to "depressurize" so it sucks in air from outside.
     
    • Informative Informative x 6
  16. Carl the BedWetter Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    66
    Ya the only beef I got right now is the jet pack and atmo thrusters. The no jet pack makes it a bust. Everything becomes more tedious and a pain. I know I could "Engineer" a way to make it less problematic, but it just kills the mood. The atmo thrusters aren't a huge deal, but I could see them with a bit more thrust. Be kinda nice.


    I think the big problem right now is rotors and pistons don't work well. So far I've made a big miner that can hold 5 million iron ore plus , but getting to the ore is the problem. I could make this huge long conveyor system going down to the drill head, but that would just look stupid, and be dangerous. All I know is planets haven't even been out a week yet and there's a lot of time to tinker and fix em up right. I'd say a month or so before planets are survival balanced.
     
  17. Pyronymer Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    153
    So then the option b I outlined where keen has gone insane and the actual bug in play is that sometimes you DON'T choke in cockpits without going through the elaborate process they have put into place instead of just assuming you crack a god damn window open.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  18. Hotshot Jimmy Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,500
    TRUTH.
     
  19. Reflexus Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    179
    If the planet is unplayable:

    [​IMG]
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  20. BlackUmbrellas Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,818
    How do you "crack open a window" on a sealed cockpit? They don't work that way. It's either entirely open or entirely closed.

    Placing one additional block on your build and hitting a button isn't an "elaborate process"; stop whining, learn to play the game, or go away.
     
    • Agree Agree x 7
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
  21. mhalpern Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,119
    Actually the ore is pretty plentiful once you know how to access it, that wheel bug is weird, again atmospheric thrusters aren't terrible, you just have to get used to them
     
  22. Pyronymer Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    153
    Only they DO work that way and you could oh I don't know, open one of the vents that you apparently connect the stupid entirely redundant internal air vent piece onto.

    Seriously though "they don't work like that they are entirely sealed... except for all the ducting holes all over it that they connect to everything with and you can even pass items in and out of!". You didn't put too much thought into that terrible realism argument did you?

    But more to the point, it's a terrible realism argument. Lets all remember this is a GAME, and one thing it needs is nice smooth playability. You know what isn't playable? Choking in a cockpit due to lack of oxygen in an oxygen atmosphere with oxygen in your suit supply.

    The incredible lack of thought towards intuitive and smooth playability from keen into this, apparently intended mechanic goes way and beyond just the inconvenience of needing to stick an entirely redundant air conditioning duct on reverse for no sane reason.

    It goes beyond just the really poor feed back to the player on what is happening or why or how to remedy it.

    It includes questions like, why is this a problem when there is also oxygen in my suit? The intuitive player friendly design choice would be to default directly to using suit oxygen supplies, but apparently not.

    It extends to questions like, well if you want to insist on your helmet being on to use the suit oxygen... then why doesn't your helmet get automatically put on in this circumstance.

    It extends further to questions like, well fine, if you insist on manually putting your helmet on for this then why the hell does the helmet hot key NOT WORK IN COCKPITS, even though it doesn't actually DO anything else in cockpits to my knowledge?

    It extends to the question, if cockpit blocks are being made needlessly more inconvenient in atmospheres than they need to be, then why isn't there an alternative atmosphere friendly small ship control block? They seriously want to offer the ONLY pilot seat/control blocks for small ships being basically the equivalent of putting a plastic bag over your face for no god damn reason?

    It then extends to if all this is an intended feature why does it seem to only apply very inconsistently. Why is it that sometimes you just randomly DON'T choke to death in these insane plastic bag on face cockpits you have no choice but to use or mitigate by elaborate and non-intuitive means?
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 6
    • Agree Agree x 3
  23. Memphis Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    145
    *eye roll

    "Choking in cockpits" - Solution = put one oxygen bottle in your cockpit inventory.....solved. I swear Pyroymer, do you even try to find solutions to these before coming on the forums and posting a wall of text?


    Edit: You can't have it both ways, a cockpit is airtight or it isn't. If it wasn't airtight then people would be choking in space. Also if you are very clever (which I suspect might be an issue) you can create an open air cockpit using remote blocks.
     
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2015
    • Agree Agree x 7
    • Disagree Disagree x 4
  24. BlackUmbrellas Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,818
    ...What are you talking about?

    No, you really can't "crack open the window" of a fighter cockpit, and the square cockpits don't open at all, they have a hatch on the back. If they're airtight and designed to work in vacuum, there's literally no reason to let you open the windows of them.

    The air vent isn't "redundant", either, it's the mechanism that allows you to intake and pressurize oxygen. It has its own block because, you know, this is a game about building specialized engineered vehicles for different purposes.

    Again, stop whining, learn to play, or go away.
     
    • Agree Agree x 6
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
  25. Morrigi Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    240
    On the subject of atmospheric thrusters:
    With sufficient power, 8 large small-grid thrusters can lift well over 1500 metric tons. The vehicle sure won't handle like a fighter when it's fully loaded, but it can and does work. I have no issue with them. The issue is that atmospheric craft do not fly like spacecraft, and people need to get used to this. It's entirely possible to put an atmos ship through crazy maneuvers without excessive thrusters, but you have to mind your altitude, your cargo mass, and respect gravity and how your vehicle is built when you do it. Pitch and roll also become incredibly important in atmosphere due to the direction that your thrusters are pointing, and you have to learn to use that to your advantage or you will very quickly become a crater.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  26. Franblast Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    123
    Wheres the WAAAAAmbulance when you need it...
    Seriously tho LOL Keen cant make all the babies in the world happy now..

    PATIENCE, dont cry :( your baby bottles are on their way, mommy is bringing your blanky
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2015
    • Disagree Disagree x 3
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  27. ChaseBears Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    68
    pyro's right about cockpit oxygen. it is highly silly to ever asphyxiate on a breathable planet. Cockpits should be capable of venting naturally, through the advanced process of just leaving the door open.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  28. LFCavalcanti Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,378
    All these people fighting over what works and what don't... me?

    [​IMG]

    I'm just here waiting... some update to improve performance so I can play again.
     
  29. Tayrtahn Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    60
    Now these seem like some good points to me. It'd be a perfectly valid fix to have the helmet automatically equip in that situation (or at least let us use the button while in a cockpit!).

    I also like the idea of an open-air small ship cockpit. No need to sit inside a pressurized cockpit in a wheeled tractor or car! It'd have to be a pretty big block (5x5x5?) to fit the engineer model in the small grid, but that wouldn't matter much if you're not worried about enclosing it. So yeah, can we get an open-air seat for small ships?
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  30. Memphis Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    145
    It's already in-game. Just place a regular seat (no need for a 5x5x5 or whatever) and a remote control block. Sit in seat, control remote block, then profit. I don't see the need for Keen to create a specific block to correct this (although I wouldn't be too opposed to one, they just got more important things to do at the moment). Also, since simply putting a single oxygen bottle in the ship inventory solves the problem, I don't know what all the hubbub is about.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.