Undo the connector power "fix".

The ability to lock connectors when one of them was not powered was, apparently, a bug. It's fix was reported here:

https://forums.keenswh.com/post/01-046-connectors-no-longer-connect-if-one-is-unpowered-7066848?highlight=connector&pid=1284178405#post1284178405

Unfortunately, I stepped away from the game in .46 due to the spotlight bug that cropped up for me. I came back this week excited to continue my experimentation with power isolation only to find that it was pretty much all for naught.

Here was my concept:

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=330870477




Two physically isolated battery arrays, 1 isolated solar panel array, 1 isolated Main Power Control Room, each of the devices on the Lone Survivor platform were isolated. All of it controllable from the two control panels above. (I was looking forward to controlling the battery arrays and section isolation via buttons).

With this, setup, I could control which battery array was powering the station and which was recharging, I could control which device was getting power (I had a door to the control room, but had to remove it because this "fix" wouldn't let me power it anymore).

I'd started work on a station that made practical use of this concept but stopped when .46 was released and the spotlight issue came up for me:




I built 4 isolated docks, an isolated resource management section, isolated power room. I would've been able to control the power flow for each individual section from one room and anyone accessing a dock airlock would only have access to the devices on that particular dock and nowhere else. They wouldn't even have access to the station's main inventory because of the resource management setup I'd devised for trading.



I was going to even try to create modded blocks that would be actual power conduits (connectors without the ability to transfer items). I'd already designed the proof of concept of an isolated engine room for a large ship:

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=295581503

But, that's all done now... none of this will work anymore.

It seems to me that this kind of build goes to the heart of what Space Engineers is about... engineering solutions. This "bug" allowed for some really creative stuff and, as far as I can tell, did no harm. Please, please, please bring it back, or create a block that can transfer power via induction like connectors. Please.

 

The "fix" has also made it a pain in the ass to build battery drones in survival. Every small ship has to be built with at least one reactor to provide power to lock the connector to charge batteries.

 

However the problem with the way it used to work is that the magnetic pull made it hard and in some instances impossible to break free, especially on dedicated servers and with lag. Search through the bug list to see all the complaints on that problem. If they could come up with an in-between solution that would be great. A clean undo will only result in a new flood of complaints.

 

I used to be able to have a docking ship power the dock on my isolated power station. The dock would light up and the doors and dock conveyor system would become active when the ship docked - doesn't work anymore.

I hope they can figure out something better or if something can be done via modding (I'll have to see if there's something in the ModAPI that can reverse this which will allow me to create an inductive power coupler.) Granted, I was using connectors in ways not originally intended, but that's kind of the way advances are made in this game.

The problem that existed on the connector before was that the pull was there even when powered off. Perhaps, there It should be a timed thing - where the pull is disabled for 10 seconds or so to let the ship pull away and then it re-enables.

 

**Sorry for long post**

Connectors were never meant to work the way they did, at all, and if they had not been bugged and then fixed you would not be here today asking this question. By telling them to reverse it and place it back in a bugged state you are saying to change the vision of what the game should be, the vision that they have worked hard on and are basing the rest of the game on. It may seem small, but it has huge impacts on the way the game is played, and meant to be played.

It was and would be unrealistic to undo the fix, connectors are meant to pass inventory, which is useless if one ship is not powered, and in reality you wouldn't just shimmy up to a connector like these and pass power to a deactivated connector, the ship is un-powered, there is no computer to control it, therefor it is non functional.

That is why there are landing gear and merge blocks to deal with un-powered ships, and in reality you would have to always consider power on any ship, and loss of power is a SEVERE malfunction in space, and has dire and difficult consequences that are harrowing to overcome. Do not use the Y key to power down ships unless you plan on getting back in the cockpit, think of the Y key as a circuit breaker. If you want to leave a ship in a collectible state, set a control group for everything you can and use that to put the ship in a low power standby state.

Yes, you will initially require a reactor to charge up the battery on a drone, but once you have some charge you can remove the reactor and continue on the battery alone, they have many many hours of charge in them. Yes, it will take some careful consideration and watching of the battery levels to ensure you don't run out, that is the point. You are in space, it is supposed to be difficult and require careful planning, and if you don't plan correctly, then the consequences will be severe, after all, you are in space, careful planning and consideration are part of the game. Put spare merge blocks on your ships if you might need to rescue them, that is what they are meant for, they can even send emergency power to charge up a battery, or hey, even start building a ship on a merge block so it is already powered so no reactor is needed to charge the battery. That is the name of the game, having difficulties and finding ways to overcome them, not just going for the easiest option, easy means dangerous.

You are trying to use a connector in a way it is not meant to be used to do something it is not supposed to do. In game programming blocks are coming, and they will allow you to get as creative as you want and to do what you did above and more, in spades. Changing the connector to be something they don't want it to be to fix a problem now, or allow an ad-hoc form of a feature that is already coming soon is out of the question, long term plans win out over short term concessions. Be patient, when in game programming blocks come along, the old connectors will not be anywhere on your mind.

 

Inductive power - the ability to power something in close proximity. This has been a reality for some time now. So, forgive me if I didn't read your entire post. It's entirely realistic to have a powered connector turn on an unpowered one via induction. We also have blocks that seem to have at least some power without the need for an external power source - you can access storage containers, for example. And much gameplay in Space Engineers, at least the gameplay that I enjoy watching and playing, has involved using blocks in ways that they weren't intended. I would totally create an inductive power coupler myself - a block based on the connector with no ability to transfer inventory, but still has the power transfer ability - that was my plan, in fact. But, with the current state of modding, blocks have to be based on existing blocks and since the connector is no longer able to connect when not powered, I can't even do that. Now, I'm looking at other solutions, but spare me your diatribe, please. It's not unrealistic by any stretch of the imagination and part of engineering is making use of things in ways they weren't originally intended - that's how advances are made.

 

The ability to lock a connector when one end is unpowered was not immediately obvious as a bug. In fact this looked like a useful feature.

This led to designs where you could have portable cargo containers, with a connector on them, and use them, well, like portable cargo containers (i.e. not welded to the floor etc).

Inductive power transfer has been with us for years (think cordless electric toothbrushes) and would certainly be a logical design decision to allow an unpowered (passive) connector to slave lock to a powered (active) connector. There are many advantages to being able to do this. Additionally, using a 'magic' merge block to power up an unpowered ship/station/other has its own disadvantages.

It may have been a bug that allowed us to use connectors in this way - Small to large rotor connections were also caused by a bug, but the dev team have indicated that this behaviour may stay, at least until there is a better way of linking differing grid sizes. Not all bugs have negative affects - some even get elevated to feature status.

I think this needs a little more thought by KSH.

Or give us a hand tool/block that can be placed against an unpowered system to temporarily power it. Perhaps something that can use suit power? However re-enabling the connectors previous function may be better in the long run.

Just my two cents.

 

The problem is that they fixed the bug by removing a feature. The bug wasn't that you could lock to an unpowered connector... with batteries being added, the ability to do this actually makes sense. No, the problem was the magnetic pull and, rather than decrease the power of the magnetic pull (or maybe that's not possible, I don't know), they disabled the ability of the connector to connect at all when unpowered. I also think they should rethink their solution or add another block... inductive power coupling adds so much potential to the game - especially now that sensors and buttons are in the game. Oh, the ideas I had for adventure maps!

I've had a look in Visual Studio and I can't find a way to create a mod block using scripts that will perform this function - I can flip the power switch on the block using a script, but, if it requires power, that means nothing. So much for my modding plan of creating an inductive power coupling block (which was originally going to be a modded connector without the unnecessary inventory transfer ability). Many weeks of work, a function that made building exciting for me and was an inspiration for me to mod in this game has gone down the tubes. It was very cool... you could even short the system if you managed the power wrong.

I'm going to add a suggestion for an inductive power coupler block... because ultimately, that's the block we need. People have been asking for it for a long time (though, they wanted it to be power transfer through landing gear). This would be its own block one that had all the functions of the connector except inventory transfer and magnetic lock - neither of which is needed for this function. For security purposes, however, it's important that the connection can only be made via the powered coupler. Having someone able to activate a power coupling from the unpowered side defeats the security purpose of power isolation. This was the way connectors used to work.

 

I absolutely love that this bug was fixed. Now it's possible to separate connectors painlessly by simply turning one of them off. Unpower one and the attraction stops.

 

The way the connectors act now is the right way. It was pain in the back (<-- I love that saying ) to undock/fly away on a dedicated server with lag. The ability to lose attraction when unpowered is essential and must not be undone. Otherwise, you could lose more than often ships or at least connectors. More than once I ripped my side of my welder ship due to this behaviour.

I'm highly sceptical that merge blocks attract each other in the way they do actually even when unpowered. This is not serious to me. If you fly in completely with the tenons, yes, there is power transfer possible, but this assumes mechanical force to hook into each other. Without that, it never will work, there can't be any attraction.

I know there're possibilities for power transfer without direct contact, either magnetic or by a ray beam. But those technics, I don't know if they're capable of transferring MW to provide necessary power to the entire ship or station. Partial power supply is not given at this state of the game (or at least it is not documented).

Of course I'd love to have a block what has the abiltity to provide power, and only power. If it's possible to dock my ships to my station, having their inventory isolated from the station, that would be great (and clearly arranged). That would be welcome. But do not misuse connectors for that. If you want to have enough energy for supplying your station, build adequate solar panels. You can still build batteries if you need a backup if a death star darkens your solar panels. :rof:

 

The magnetic pull of connectors was not only a problem on dedicated servers with lag; it was a problem in single player as well. I experienced the issue myself. The problem was the power of the magnetic attraction and not the ability to connect to an unpowered connector. The solution was either to reduce the magnetic attraction or have the ability to turn it off. It's possible to lock things into place without magnetic attraction - landing gear do this, for example. So, it's not out of the realm of possibility to lock connectors without magnetic attraction. In fact, I'd argue that connectors don't need magnetic attraction at all in order to function. A better solution would've been to simply disable magnetic attraction.

Misuse connectors... wow. And, I suppose people were misusing rotors to create pistons and misusing rotors to connect small ship parts. An inventive engineering choice to solve an engineering problem is not a misuse - it's engineering.

Again, this wasn't simply about providing enough power, it was about controlling power flow. The ability to control power flow has tremendous impact on station security and power efficiency. And, how do you think connectors are transferring power currently? Without direct contact via induction.

 

That's a good point.

I speak only theoretically, what could be a possible explanation, but I'm not the constructor of this. Connectors need magnetic attraction for fixing each other in a defined way due to matching openings, at least for the conveyor system. Then, magnetically locked, they could have a directional radio beam for transferring power. If this link is estabilshed once, it is self-powered. There have been thoughts in real life for linking solar panels in orbit and transfer electrical energy by directional radio, but that would barbecue birds or make other damages due to high energy within the beam. Such a beam, for connectors, needs cogent two fixed points, or the link is not estabilshed. That's why they must be powered first, or they can't attract each other due to missing energy. First attraction, then linking and finally transfer of energy, control and cargo. I don't see why it should not work.

At least I'm glad we have connectors in the system in the way they work. This makes everyday life easier. But I don't agree with working parts if they are unpowered, no matter what it is. Switches or fuses have not been introduced to SE yet.

Anyway, I don't see a problem. If you need power, build more solar panels. My station is powered by 1.536 Solar panels plus backup, connected via a large minimal ship for 100% efficiency (no normal engineer would place a station in space which does not support 100% illumination of its solar panels on the wall). This gives me 221 MW, enough for powering my spherical gravity generators shielding device, assemblers, refineries and even lots of batteries of docked ships for reloading. If someone wants to hack into your base -- he can do, with a grinder and welder. I don't see any security issues by isolating power management, what does not exclude to have it, anyway. But, as stated, this might be a feature implemented in future. A system what can isolate control, power and cargo (in any thinkable way) is very welcome. Actually, everything what provides energy transfer also provides control. This includes direct access via passenger seat. There's been also a discussion whether that should be possible or not.

 

I don't know what beams from space has to do with this; we're talking about induction - a technology that currently exists... you can charge your phone, your electric toothbrush, for example, via induction.

Landing gear are magnetic... but the locking only occurs when you lock the gear. Connectors could operate the same way. The whole magnetic pull bit caused more problems than it was worth.

How do you feel about storage containers? They work without power. Using your argument, storage containers, cockpits, nothing should work without power... and, yet, they do.

As or switches and fuses - that's what I was using connectors for. In fact, if I didn't follow the right procedure with a power coupling, I could short out the connection - which meant repairing the affected power coupling. I could lock and unlock connectors to turn on and off areas of a station, to turn on and off access to doors (which I could completely isolate from the rest of the station... meaning, if someone used the control panel on a door, they'd only see the door).

You keep bringing this up and I keep saying it's irrelevant, I'm not talking about how much power I need. That's not at all what's being discussed.

And if I'd said power isolation makes your base unhackable, you'd have a point, but I didn't... so, you don't. I said it has an impact.

Yes, someone could grind their way into the dock on my station, for example. This will get them into an unpowered room from which they can access absolutely nothing on the rest of the station. They could attach a control panel to the dock... They'd get access to what's in the dock and nothing else. They could attach a power supply to the dock... They'd be able to power the devices in the dock and nowhere else. In order to gain access to the main inventory - for example, they'd have to figure out where it is first. And to restablish a power connection, they'd have to physically find where the power coupling was - because you could only lock a connector from the powered side of the connection. And it would be incredibly time consuming to take control of the entire station - they'd have to gut it with grinders to find the power coupling points. That's the impact having a power isolated station has on security. And, the beauty is, I could control all of it from one room hidden in the station.

 

I agree with this. To add to that, this is a creative use of engineering to solve a problem, and make a more realistic base.


If there was in fact bugged code in this, they shouldn't bring back the bugged code itself. That being said, they should re-introduce this in a non-bugged way as a feature.

 

The over-strong magnetic pull and power from one side are two separate issues. The problem with pull was due to the attraction persisting even when the connectors were off. If the only change from Keen had been to make it that both sides must have power to lock, then persistent connector pull would still be giving players grief today.

I must admit that in all honesty I never really experienced the persistent pull issue. On my workers I had two connector hotkeys, one to toggle lock and one to toggle the connector itself on/off, and by unlocking and then switching the worker's connector off there was no connector pull at all.

 

I'd say the proper solution would've been to simply remove the magnetic pull. Connectors are big enough mouthed that it's not difficult to establish a connection without having the connectors themselves drag the ship over with a powerful magnetic attraction. It always caused my small ships to bounce around anyway. Make connectors work like landing gear... when they are in proximity of one another, they light up and can lock (so long as one side is powered... that's the only side you could lock from - this is how connectors used to work)... assume connectors have the same tiny onboard power system that storage containers seem to have. Other than that, keep the same connectivity and power transfer functionality. Or create an inductive power coupler block that functions exactly like a connector used to sans magnetic pull and inventory transfer ability.

 

I think it's a bit premature to be basing gameplay off the supposed wireless nature of connectors. The in-game model is a simplified abstraction (much like conveyor tubes being mere hollow pipes, or loose construction components looking like cartoon toolboxes) and the gap in a locked connection provides more resistance to physics damage when forces are applied to one side of the connection. This abstraction, to rigid components with a gap between, is easier to code and easier to model/animate, and is entirely reasonable.

My take is that in the game universe or design concept it's not a wireless connector, but a kind of clamp with limited (actively powered) flexibility to allow connection at angles, presumably with power and control connections built-in. Consider this present-day multifunction railway coupling: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Northern-333011-coupling.jpg. When the couplings are joined, the act of locking also automatically flips open the cover over the electrical connectors (like this: https://i.imgur.com/Pi2KNqP.jpg) and pushes it forward to provide power and control to the connected carriage.
I don't see why any of this requires both sides to be powered. It merely requires the side initiating the connection to be powered. Much as it was before this "bug" was fixed.

Edit: I don't assume the "real" pull is magnetic. In my internalisation it's an actively-articulated mechanical connection. Here's a current, real-world example: https://i.stack.imgur.com/lmS2n.jpg

Edit 2: Actually, this is a much better example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgynous_Peripheral_Attach_System. For docking, only one side requires power, but each docking ring is capable of being the active or passive side. The rings are brought into approximate alignment, at which point the hooks engage and shock absorbers/attenuators bring the two rings into a sealed connection.

 

Well, if the devs make it a physical connection, they make it a physical connection... doesn't change the functionality. I go by what I see in the game - the connector pulls the other connector near and then it can lock. I don't think you need the first part since people can maneuver the connector into place.

 

The worst thing is that currently LOCKED connectors don't hold thing in place sometimes.
As for original issue, I agree that you should be able to lock connectors if they are close enough, even if one side has no power. It's just a convenience. I had to put a battery on my storage module simply because you need that if you accidently disconnect it from everything.

 

Guys, the whole "inductive power" thing, the circuit would have to be MUCH larger than the connector is to transfer any reasonable power. Yes, your toothbrush and cellphone may use it, but that is over less than an inch passing only miliamps. The point is connectors are connectors, not rescue hatches. Even in current space missions when they have to dock with an unpowered ship it is a long an arduous manual process of connecting and getting the hatches open, then either getting the power working on the other ship, or MANUALLY passing cables through the hatch to power the other ship, not a wonderous magnetic attraction device. Even so, wirelessly powering an entire ship with kilowatts of power is not realistic in today's or near future's tech, but once a connection is made it is easy to pass a cable through to power all you want.

An inductive system to attract ships like that would have to power several killowatts of power, and that is not realistic with current technology. Notwithstanding the grav gens the devs are trying to keep the technology in a realistic state. Connectors are meant for inventory and controlling already powered ships, once connectors are connected think of a cable passing through to provide power, not some wonderous induction system that is outside today's, or even close future's technology. They are not rescue devices, they are not access control devices. You are trying to force a use on an item that is not meant to be used that way. That is like hopping on the international space station and demanding it be used as a telescope because it has windows and some cameras.

They fixed the bug because of this exact post. People liked the bug too much, they thought it was right, but it isn't, and it isn't in the vision of the game. The bug was probably a fairly low priority bug compared to the other bugs at the time, but they had to fix it because if they waited longer it would just result in more people being angry. Like I said before, the connector is a connector, for inventory between powered ships, that is all, stop trying to make it more than that. You want to connect to an unpowered ship? That is what merge blocks are for. You want to power an unpowered ship? Deal with it, that is what space is about, you leave a ship unpowered and you best be ready to deal with severe consequences, and 1 meter device is NOT going to pass kilowatts of power to a ship to bring it under control wirelessly, that is why there is the manual merge block, which is a facsimile of what they use in real life.

What you are trying to do with access control and the like is NOT what connectors would be used for in reality. Trying to capture a rogue ship using a magnetic powered device would be out of the question too, you would use a manual, mechanical connector that does not require power, that is the reality, and that is also called the merge block.

The features you made with the connectors will be replicated in a better fashion soon, for everything else there is the merge block, the connector is a connector for inventory between powered ships, that is all, leave it be and learn to work around it, after all that is what you do as an engineer, not demand that they make everything how you like it, but you take what you have and make the best of it. The tools to do what you want to do are there, no need to replicate them in connectors.

 

Modern spaceship docking rings only require one side to be powered, and it's not exactly difficult to imagine a standardised coupling that includes power and data interfaces. I don't understand how you can say it's infeasible to power a connector from one side but a merge block is just fine.
Here's a page where you can read all about docking:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docking_and_berthing_of_spacecraft

And if the developers didn't want our input they wouldn't have a suggestions board.

 

But.......this is the Bug Reports Sub-Forum...Suggestions is far away from here....

 

The developers seem to be much more on the side of liking to discover unenvisioned uses for their items -- which they might not know /exist/ until they hear complaints about it breaking -- than a "shame on you for playing our game wrong, you should have known better" type.

Also merge blocks confuse the control panel and mess up ship names a bit much for temporary connections.

 

SE needs to be a good game, not a good reality simulator. So, everything you said just irrelevant. The whole conveyor system (And connectors) is already "Acceptable Break From Reality", so enforcing some dumb "realistic" rules is just plain stupid.
You know what is a bug? The bug is that when you align two connectors and press "P" you cannot be sure whether it will be locked in place or not. BOTH VARIANTS POSSIBLE. THIS is a real bug. The other bug is that gatling turrets chew through memory like crazy. But "Blah-blah-blah not realistic" is not a bug. Especially when the whole system you use for transfer items is just a set of pipes which already has very little realism in it.

 

I think unpowered connector should be able to lock (and become powered one) to powered connector,
if it was properly aligned, however powered connector should be able to give hints (especially if linked though antenna) how to align properly unpowered one (no magnetic alignment while both connectors is not powered).

P.S. cable power link would be great to solve such problems.

in some cases you need to build static small tool (ship) near large ship/station, even without engines,
only block you need there, and link it with connector to station, now it's requires to build a reactor only to lock connector which is stupid and unrealistic,
even charged small (1x1x1) battery in character inventory would be much more realistic, or character could just power connector from it's suit.

P.S2.

picture assumes that it will require one square meter, which is same size as connector.

small ship connector now requires 50 watt.

 

I'm pretty shure that powering a system like a ship will vaporize the bobbin in the connector. The fact landing gears do work has a mystique reason...you need it. There's nothing real about it, as long as you use permanent magnet -- and that can't be switched. Also, they don't work on stones.

You can access containers, cockpits etc. with your avatar because you have physical access to it. You can manual open the hatch and throw parts in. You can manual open the cockpit, anyhow you have to get in there, finally.

Again:
I don't have anything against a new fuse or switch block. But the way described here how connectors should work is wrong to me.

I'm sorry, but I search a deeper meaning behind this. I still don't understand why you need to power certain parts of your base, while other parts remain unpowered. It shortens your list, yes. But is it all you want?

The more you lock your base, the more attractive it becomes to others, and the more it will get hacked. As far as there's nothing to do against grinding parts to control them, this is only a matter of time.