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.

Update 01.022 - You asked for solar panels... here they are!

Discussion in 'Change Log' started by George.Mamakos, Mar 20, 2014.

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

    Messages:
    416
    Lolz, space legos
     
  2. Andarne Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    296
    One thing that annoyed me about the solar panels is the placement options. I don't like the antennae, and feel that we should have an option to put them in the centre of a block.
     
  3. Rico Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    786
    I agree with thruster damage, but we need more powerfull engines then ;)
    Try to design a good looking heavy armored big scaled ship without a ugly big wall of thrusters ^^
     
  4. SpaceNut Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    15
    I literally made an account on this forum ,after being a lurker for many months, just to comment on this update and the game! First off I would like to thank you Marek, your dedication to the development of this game has been extraordinary! You have put out more updates in quick succession then most other "Alpha" games out there (on steam)! This game is awesome and I can't wait to see what comes next, I check your website and blog several times a week in eager anticipation. Seriously, this game is the brilliant lovechild of Minecraft (another game I was thoroughly addicted to) and the Space genre! Keep up the great work and don't listen to any naysayers, you are pumping those updates out like a dedicated machine and have progressed at a great pace since you first released back in October. Finally, I thank you for creating this wonderful game.
    The next thing I would love to see it something that adds an extra challenge to players who have established a self-sufficient base on Survival Mode. Since after the basics are set-up it can feel a bit easy, I believe Space NPC Pirates or Environmental Hazards like Solar Flares or Meteorites would add that needed element in Survival Mode.
     
  5. DJ-Col7 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    134
    SOLAR POWER! Now we just need batteries so we can have solar powered miners and such.
     
  6. Rynea Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    6
    Good idea but currently pointless. either I'm doing something wrong and my solar panel doesn't get energy properly or the amount it provides is a serious joke. The maximum output of a generator (small one) is 5 MW ... the maximum output of a solar panel is like 5KW for the one I've tested ... that would mean it takes 1000 panels to compensate for 1 generator ... seriously?

    I understand that a solar panel doesn't provide as much as a generator .. but a 1:1000 ratio is quite silly .. make it 1:10 or 1:20 ?
    Right now I see no reason to ever use a solar panel unless for an emergency medic station perhaps, but even thats questionable.
     
  7. Syncaidius Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    824
    I think that is the whole point. Otherwise we'll end up with people building flying solar arrays and effectively make nuclear reactors completely pointless once they've made their "10 or 20" solar panels, which I'm massively against happening.

    Real life solar panels used in space generate around the same amount as the ones we were given today, and considering the devs are aiming for a good level of realism, i'd say its reasonably balanced as it is.
     
  8. generalderp Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    6
    I was hyped for this update until i tried it. all my ship designs are impossible now. In a hardcore survival game it requires a huge amount of resources and time just to build a landing platform. Solar panels? great. more options? Fantastic. Damaging a ship by trying to land on it in a survival game? not so hot. Fix please.
     
  9. Salxixa Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    2
    Sorry Rynea, but I invite you to check, JUST CHECK, the amount of power a regular nuclear fission reactor provides today. A solar painel, even if it has 100% efficiency (converts 100% of the absorved light into power) only provides a few kW per square meter (1,4kW on earth surface, a bit more at the space without atmosphere). The devs are right, there is no way we can compare solar vs nuclear plants. The amount of power a fission generates is "too damm high!!!".

    Btw, I can't wait to go home and check the new updates on my x3 survival.
     
  10. extraammo Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,015
    Way too many people complaining about thruster damage. You all need to understand that you are missing the point if you are asking devs for certain features to fit your designs rather than making designs that take advantage of the features that are added.

    Creativity is not trying to make change the resources to fit your fantasy. Creativity is making something amazing with what you have! And you have, and will have, is a realistic, physics-based environment. If you don't like it, make your own game. The devs have specifically said that realism is key. They want their games to be physically educational.
     
  11. pirate Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    249
    I don't even have hidden thrusters on any of my ships and they're tearing themselves apart. This is a bit overzealous.

    [​IMG]

    Thruster damage is a good idea but it doesn't take into account how hard it is to make smooth flowing small ships without thrusters poking out all over the place.
     
  12. STARFIGHTER Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    17
    I'm sorry, what? I'm missing the point for asking the developers to include the option to disable a new feature which is utterly wrecking everyone's ships, making it difficult or impossible for people to land on carriers safely, or build large ships with smaller greebling by bolting on panels of small blocks? I'm missing the point by asking for the option to be able to play in Creative mode with the same freedom of action as I was up until this point, an option which no one who currently enjoys the thruster damage has to take advantage of?

    Absolutely nothing about asking for the option to toggle thruster damage off impacts you negatively in any way. Meanwhile, a huge section of the player base has been screwed by this change.

    Nobody is trying to "change the resources to fit the fantasy." The change was forced upon us. And I for one don't like it - at least in Creative mode. I'm perfectly happy to play with damaging thrusters in Survival. All I care about is having the ability to continue building ridiculous ships if I so chose in Creative mode, the one space in this game in which building ridiculous things is supposed to be feasible.
     
  13. Rynea Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    6
    You can't compare real life to a game ... in real life the advantages of a solar panel comes over time .. in a game I can't wait a year or even a week for it to be worthwhile. Or do you build ships on a hourly basis in real life? In real life we would also go on a mining trip once per year .. game and real life has differences, and I see no point in a solar panel if I can't power anything with it properly.

    It takes 15MW to keep a refining environment somewhat stable for one person, now please show me the person who wants to build 15k solar panels. The amount of time it takes to build a solar panel is way too high .. since' we're already talking realism .. check how big a nuclear plant is, check how long it takes to build. If you want to compare real life situations with game situations, at least take into account that a 1x1x1 nuclear plant built in 1 minute and fuelled by a handful of ore you gather in 5 minutes is also a bit different to reality. I understand that solar panels are way less effective than a nuclear plant, but if I compare the time it takes to mine enough uranium to last me a year or two its so much lower than the time it takes me to build several 1000 of solar panels, that the math part just doesn't make sense.
     
  14. Xeltosh Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    9
    really awesome but only 4.XX kW energy out of one large solar panel on a station? 2 refineries and an assembler suck up 1.XX MW. i think a little too less for the costs it has. and to get the perfect angle, i would like to use motors, but there is no way to transfer energy through them. a cable or something would be nice so you could angle the panels perfectly^^ or maybe that you could build them in any desired angle, maybe with an indicator how much percent it could produce in that angle.

    @Syncaidius: well.....a solar panel can´t suck up damage and you can´t armor them, so relying on panels on a ship, especially when it is a "battle"-ship is pointless. so the 1:10 or 1:20 ratio would be acceptable, so you could build stations or civil ships with panels(and an emergency reactor of course). in my opinion it is pointless to power a station with reactors alone; look at the ISS as example, it has giant panels, yes, but they are producing way more than needed on the station.....^^
     
  15. pirate Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    249
    I think they should have added high impulse high consumption monopropellant RCS thrusters before thruster damage, that way maneuvering thrusters can be near armor and not melt it.
     
  16. shadow250 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    265
    re: solar panels. my base is currently at an angle where i cant get full output no matter what. i tried using a rotor as a tilt motor which made all 4 lights light up but to power wasnt connected. is there a way we could get a tilt moter that conducts power ar make the panels mountable on a 45 degree slope block?

    re: thrusters. it looks like they destroy everything within a 2 blocks behind with full braking and 1 block behind and to all 4 sides.
     
  17. pipakin Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    182
    Those horizontal thrusters sure look internal.
     
  18. Cacharoes Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    2
    I am not sure this is an Issue or not but I was testing a ship I was building for the possibility of damage when operating, and one of the Engines flat out blew up.
    As you can see in the image, I thought the engine would possibly damage the wing that sits it front of it , however it just blew up. I am not sure if this is intentional or I am missing something, because the engine did not do that before the update.
    Do the engines now take damage from high stress? [​IMG]
     
  19. pirate Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    249
    They aren't-

    [​IMG]
    They're underneath a wing that shields them and carries weapon pods. With no pods attached it's open from the front and back.
     
  20. Banditv1 Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    44
    OK that is it!! We have to have world space engineers day!!
    Thank you for making all these things possible and for finding ways to make everyone happy.
     
  21. Zethariel Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    17
    Tried the solar panels on my refinery ship. Barelly a few kW compared to the MW required to power the whole thing. After calculation, I'd need Around 1000 of those...
    *silently dismantles the solar panel and flips large reactor back on*

    At least it didn't break survival much. I was really hoping for conveyors though - they are a big game changer as far as ship flow is concerned, more so that the currently not too usefull solar panels.
     
  22. bluev1121 Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    2
    Awesome update!
     
  23. Kalec84 Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    20
    Mining drills have a limit??? lol i nevet gathered more than 3000 total materials 15000 is way too much... i think :p
     
  24. marek_rosa Developer Staff

    Messages:
    115
    Hi Everyone,

    I just spoke with Ondrej and we decided to make "thruster damage" optional. We already considered making it
    optional before this update but we were not really sure if it will be required and the "world settings" screen
    is already full, so we just waited for your reply.

    It looks like we will make a hot-fix update tomorrow.

    Bye,
    Marek
     
  25. pirate Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    249
    Thanks, guys - your rapid consideration of community opinion is why this game will be a success.
     
  26. Captain Lackwit Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    25
    Good, because thruster damage destroyed literally every one of my designs. And not even because they were internal.
    One heavy fighter design of mine had a tail with reverse thrusts on it. That tail went bye-bye, and so did my brakes. On top of that, I can't stand destroying landing pads by lifting off of them.
    Kudos for the solar panels, but no points for gryffindor in terms of balanced thruster damage.
     
  27. Dan2D3D Moderator

    Messages:
    1,000
    I HAVE SEVRALS WORLDS THAT ARE NOW FAILED WORLD DU TO THIS NEW UPDATE SO I DON'T LIKE IT VERY MUCH.
    Now you can load big ship with, NO LAG, NO THRUSTERS, NO GYROSCOPE AND NO FUN.
    Except for the good looking and playing with the turrets my ship are now burning or status.
    All new world are created with blank picture. :( We have to change it manually.
    Try to open the ASA EXPLORER on workshop?????
    THIS WORLD IS FAIL DU TO THE NEW UPDATE OF SPACE ENGINEERS :(
    Developers should deactivate the thrusters damage on creative mode.
     
  28. ArenDaystar Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    146
    See? Best devs in the universe. No contest. Now, for the love of all that is holy, can we all stop complaining? Honestly...:mad:

    Also, check out this thread, where I explain how to put your engines inside ships safely. :)

    http://forums.keenswh.com/post/thruster-damage-distance-6814519?pid=1282024448#post1282024448
     
  29. Xocliw Public Relations Staff

    Messages:
    2,615
    Marek, I like the idea of thruster damage in survival, its just the extent of the damage it causes. If you could reduce the effect of it that it has on other ships that would be perfect. It was the severe damaging of stations when ships took off, landed and docked that killed it for me in survival. In your average survival situation I agree, stacking thrusters is BAD and should be punished ;). It should also only damage blocks directly in front not surrounding blocks.

    But still a great update. I have so much respect for you guys at KSH! IMHO the best developers I've experienced ever, some developers do listen but you guys REALLY listen and people see their feedback (be it positive or constructive criticism) being acted on :comp: not just pushed to one side. I've also noticed if there's a suggestion you don't think will work you always give a good reason for why not.

    So keep up the great work! :thumb:
     
  30. bummer6 Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    44
    This is nice and all, but we REALLY need conveyors and an efficient way to gather ore with the small ship drill. I don't see how conveyors is such a big issue... You're already doing what the conveyor is supposed to do with the assembler and refinery. When the refinery is done, it sends the ore to the assembler as long as they share a door, well the conveyor just needs to do the exact same thing! When an object is put into the conveyor, it sends that object to the next conveyor/storage container/refinery/assembler until it reaches the end of the chain... It shouldn't be that hard.

    Another thing I hope will be implemented soon is the ability to create dedicated servers. I know this probably wont work until you guys found a way to make WAY bigger worlds (I'm talking several asteroid fields that are relatively far apart so that fuel actually matters when going from point A to point B) without sacrificing performance, but it'd still be fun on a medium scale world.
     
Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.