Welcome to Keen Software House Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the KSH community.
  1. Hello Guest!
    Welcome to the Bug Report forum, please make sure you search for your problem before posting here. If you post a duplicate (that you post the same issue while other people have already done that before) you will be given a warning point which can eventually lead into account limitations !

    Here you can find a guide on how to post a good bug report thread.
    Space Engineers version --- Medieval Engineers version
  2. You are currently browsing our forum as a guest. Create your own forum account to access all forum functionality.

Translation Error! Please address this very simple issue!!!

Discussion in 'Bug Reports' started by MotoRider42HC, Mar 16, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.
  1. MotoRider42HC Apprentice Engineer

    "Rotor" is wrong. It should be called a "Motor" or a "Servo Motor".

    Rotor Images:





    Motor Images:

    This image even goes as far as to label the "rotor" as only a part inside of a motor.

    Servo Motor Images:



  2. Conradian Moderator

    That part was implemented under the name motor, but it was felt that rotor fit better, perhaps simply because of their definitions.

    Rotor: a rotary part of a machine

    Motor: a machine, especially one powered by electricity or internal combustion, that supplies motive power for a vehicle or for another device with moving parts.
    "these electric motors are highly reliable"

    There is also a part within the game for building many parts called a motor. Since there is this part, it would be more confusing to have this large assembly (Termed the rotor) instead called a motor, particularly when it is composed, at least in part, of motors.

    EDIT: Also, your images of rotors aren't the objective definition, but of parts of machine called rotors because they rotate. i.e. the rotors of, in order, a disc brake, an alternator, a helicopter's wing assembly, another disc brake, and again a disc brake.

    You image of a motor does indeed suggest that there is a rotor inside a motor, and I doubt it's wrong, since it matches the definition of a rotor.
  3. MotoRider42HC Apprentice Engineer

    You just proved yourself wrong!!!

    A motor takes electricity and converts it into motion! The devices in space engineers, incorrectly referred to as "rotors", TAKE ELECTRICAL ENERGY FROM REACTORS AND CONVERT THAT INTO MOTION TO CREATE DOORS AND ETC!!!

    And those stupid little parts that they added into survival mode, THOSE should be called rotors, or actuators, or solenoids, or whatever. It is f-ing stupid to say that a thruster needs a motor!!!

    And no, my images are NOT wrong. I placed images of a BRAKE ROTOR, of a HELICOPTER ROTOR, of a ROTOR that is inside a MOTOR, etc...

    If the development team is so insistent on calling those parts "motors", then the ACTUAL motor should be labeled as a SERVO MOTOR.

    The devices in SE that we all use, and some of us stupidly refer to as a "rotor", are SERVO MOTORS. The use electricity to create motion, and are capable of tracking that motion, braking, and making adjustments and limiting travel.

    Unless you have a college-level Engineering education (like I do), and have been born and raised in the USA to speak ENGLISH (like me), then you have no right to argue the definition of these SIMPLE machine components.

    If they aren't going to change it to "motor", then they need to change it to "servo motor".

  4. Conradian Moderator

    Woah dude, no need for the bold and the swearing and the insulting of the things the devs did.

    Please, by all means go code your own space building sim and call them rotors and motors whichever way you want if it is going to elicit that response.

    Let me list this out simply for you:

    1. Your definition of motor only suggests they be powered by electricity. So you're already on the wrong foot, because my definition encompasses more energy inputs, and is actually a definition sourced from a consensus of modern dictionaries. Feel free to redefine.

    2. The devices called rotors have this interesting perk of rotating, and are designed for use in wider machines; therefore they are rotary elements of machines, and fit the definition of a rotor. This means that calling them rotors is not objectively wrong. (See Helicopter Rotor, which is part of a larger machine, and rotates.) Again, feel free to redefine.

    3. The means by which the thrusters work has not been specified, so there is no reason they can't involve motors. If they are an advanced ion drive with rotating electromagnetic coils, motors may be required.

    4. I never said your images were wrong, I said they were of rotors, which is the rotating element of a larger machine. Please look up the definition of wrong.

    5. Please tell me why helicopter rotors are not also called servo motors, since they are capable of the same parameters as you have defined for servo motors.

    6. I have a university masters in engineering. I was not born in the USA, but I was born in England, and I do also speak English (Though probably not like you). I think that this should aptly fill the criteria you stated for gaining the right to argue.
  5. plaYer2k Master Engineer

    To join this holy crusade against a single word, which i by the way find very amusing.

    Sure, if you would look at the current rotor block as a whole object that drives your device, then motor would make sense as it has both the stator which you initially place and the rotor on which you place the rotating body. However as Conradian already explained, if you look at a bigger strucutre where the current rotor object is just a very small part the overall term rotor fits very well.

    In addition, calling a block "motor" which clearly has so many other uses aswell like a simple joint (no force at all), a break (only with a break torque), a decorative element to rotate an object to a certain angle (for angled planes, for gravity effects outside the parallels to X/Y/Z-axis). So yeah there are so many totally motor-untypical uses for a rotor object that it can hadly be called a motor. Either that or you are limiting your creativity a lot.

    But keep going, it was a good read C:
    (Here and "everywhere" else)

    Oh also, those "motors we stupidly call rotors" are not servo motors, see http://forums.keenswh.com/post/rotors-types-and-modes-6785992 Modes.
  6. mastpayne Senior Engineer

    Not really. It's quite likely they have some sort of gimbaling action, even if it is not animated or shown.

    (How else could we be turning these beasts?)

    They were putting vanes (operated by motors) in the thrust stream of rockets back in the '40s, and all modern thrusters gimbal for direction changes and control.

    Makes sense to me.
  7. radam Senior Engineer

    Its a name of the block and its a motor.
    Here is a screenshot from the developers native language version:
    And it just happens to be the same name as in my language and many others.
  8. MotoRider42HC Apprentice Engineer

    These thrusters are ION engines, they use electricity to make thrust. ION engines do not use moving parts!!!
  9. MotoRider42HC Apprentice Engineer

    THANK YOU!!!
    So why has it improperly been changed to "rotor" in the English version?
  10. MotoRider42HC Apprentice Engineer

    A rotor does nothing but act like a glorified hinge. Thats it. Plain and simple.

    The devices in space engineers are capable of using electricity to generate motion. They are capable of rotating to specific angles. They are capable of braking. They are capable of free-rolling. THAT IS A MOTOR.
  11. MotoRider42HC Apprentice Engineer

    I have never insulted the devs. It has simply been translated wrong by a bunch of idiots on the "get localization" website.

    If you have an engineering degree, you'd know damn well that these are motors. Now, granted that you are British, if your country uses a different translation, thats fine. BUT, I am arguing about the American English translation, which is 100% incorrect to use Rotor to define a object that uses electricity to create motion. ROTORS DO NOT CREATE MOTION. They are basically glorified hinges.
  12. marek_rosa Developer Staff

    Hi Guys,

    I don't want to argue whether rotor or motor is the correct choice. I just want to let you know that we decided for "rotor" because it better implications "rotation nature" of this type of block. This way it may be easier to understand and more intuitive for players who are not aware of motors vs. rotors. That's all.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.