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 1.180.6 Minor - Beta Improvements

Discussion in 'Change Log' started by flexx, May 25, 2017.

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

    Messages:
    1,004
    Agree 100%
    This came up once when xocliw teased it in a stream. I hope they don't let it run on ice.

    We already have a gas generator (O2 Generator) which can split for us. Yes we need power to run that, but it'll work with a simple battery or solar panel to jumpstart the power system.
    That's how it should be.
    I'm afraid they'll leave it in to cater to easy-start 'gameplay' reasons. I disagree though.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  2. Lurch84 Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    63
    Ah I see, thank-you for the explanation.
     
  3. Commander Rotal Master Engineer

    Messages:
    4,975
    I mean, they could make Uranium non-existent on Planets, i guess, but A that'd be a rather... weird choice, and B it wouldn't change anything for Space-based gameplay.

    Why though? All we've seen so far indicates that the Survival Revamp will be part of the "Start with less"-scenario they're cooking up: the Parachute will give you less components from the new lander, the basic Assembler will give less components, probably less valuable ones, and might only be able to produce less valuable ones, who knows since they're not telling us anything; the Wind Chime and the Water Generator are both lower-tech versions of a Reactor and will likely give less valuable components. Add to that the fact that we know they want to give players the ability to start with less blocks; all the details are there. And, while that's a rant for another day, that's it's own issue entirely. If they want players to start with less they need to either get rid of Components and Ingots or give the Welder, Grinder and Drill the ability to assemble, disassemble and refine in lower efficiency. Otherwise they might cook it down to "less blocks" but you're STILL going to require your tools, an Assembler, a Refinery and a power block. You'll still need to give the player a Lander, otherwise they'll just starve to death and die as before; all they do is give them worse blocks. Ideally the player should be able to start with just a Welder, a Grinder and a Drill. Otherwise what's the point.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  4. Gwindalmir Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,004
    I guess that's what I mean by massive.
    All those changes you described are what I was thinking of.
    There's more they could do, like give your player suit a basic assembler/refinery, which I would have preferred to a 'survival kit' but meh.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  5. doncdxx Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    411
    Instead of ice, maybe the new engine could run on He3 gotten from moons and asteroids and hydrocarbons pulled from shale or something on planets.

    It's more realistic and could add variety to the game.,
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Pharap Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    175
    [​IMG]

    ; n ;

    [​IMG]

    Dreams... shattered... space ladders... no more.

    This is the one thing about your quote I have to potentially disagree about.
    If 'wind chimes' are only work in atmosphere and are capable of working at night (and possibly cheaper than solar panels) then they have a valid niche application.
    That should definitely be the stopping point though.

    The sun is affixed to the sky, there's no burn up on entry, you don't have to balance your thrusters to account for angular momentum.
    There's probably a large number of physics laws I'm not even aware of being broken.
    Realism is an illusion.
    To be honest though, few people actually want genuine realism because there are so many difficult to overcome things that would get in the way of the fun.
     
    • Like Like x 5
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. FlakMagnet Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,551
    This.... If you tease it, make it happen. If it's not decided, hold fire on the teasers. We want to know where the game is going, not be tempted with stuff we may never see. We already BOUGHT the game, so why tempt.

    Fixes and performance improvements are always welcome
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  8. Acolyte Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    109
    I don't think I like the look of the new hydrogen generator - what is it for ?

    It is so easy to find fuel for existing power systems - why do we need another one ?

    You already have borked logic regarding hydrogen systems (making either hydrogen or oxygen from ice, but not both) I really can't see how you are going to add to this picture without creating more mess and confusion.

    Document what you have, then stand well back ....
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  9. link8dragon Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    20
    Thanks for the update, still need some improvement to welder but it's better.
    Can't wait to see that new block coming for remade all my ship and vehicle ;)
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. EnjoyCoke Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    72
    holyf'ingshi' can't wait!

    Also... ALSO ALSO ALSO!

    Stop whining. New power blocks is awesome.

    I noticed someone said, "Hydrogen eats too much ice".
    Solution: Have oxygen tanks+hydrogen tanks.
    Make PB
    Tell PB to turn off oxy. generator if tanks' storage exceeds x%.

    i.e "
    Code:
    void Main(string argument)
    {
      string ERR_TXT = "";
      List<IMyTerminalBlock> l0 = new List<IMyTerminalBlock>();
      IMyOxygenTank v0 = null;
      GridTerminalSystem.GetBlocksOfType<IMyOxygenTank>(l0, filterOxy);
      if(l0.Count == 0) {
        ERR_TXT += "no Oxygen Tank blocks found\n";
      }
      else {
        for(int i = 0; i < l0.Count; i++) {
          if(l0[i].CustomName == "Oxygen Tank") {
            v0 = (IMyOxygenTank)l0[i];
            break;
          }
        }
        if(v0 == null) {
          ERR_TXT += "no Oxygen Tank block named Oxygen Tank found\n";
        }
      }
      List<IMyTerminalBlock> l1 = new List<IMyTerminalBlock>();
      IMyOxygenGenerator v1 = null;
      GridTerminalSystem.GetBlocksOfType<IMyOxygenGenerator>(l1);
      if(l1.Count == 0) {
        ERR_TXT += "no Oxygen Generator blocks found\n";
      }
      else {
        for(int i = 0; i < l1.Count; i++) {
          if(l1[i].CustomName == "Oxygen Generator") {
            v1 = (IMyOxygenGenerator)l1[i];
            break;
          }
        }
        if(v1 == null) {
          ERR_TXT += "no Oxygen Generator block named Oxygen Generator found\n";
        }
      }
      List<IMyTerminalBlock> l2 = new List<IMyTerminalBlock>();
      IMyOxygenTank v2 = null;
      GridTerminalSystem.GetBlocksOfType<IMyOxygenTank>(l2, filterHyd);
      if(l2.Count == 0) {
        ERR_TXT += "no Hydrogen Tank blocks found\n";
      }
      else {
        for(int i = 0; i < l2.Count; i++) {
          if(l2[i].CustomName == "Hydrogen Tank") {
            v2 = (IMyOxygenTank)l2[i];
            break;
          }
        }
        if(v2 == null) {
          ERR_TXT += "no Hydrogen Tank block named Hydrogen Tank found\n";
        }
      }
      // display errors
      if(ERR_TXT != "") {
        Echo("Script Errors:\n"+ERR_TXT+"(make sure block ownership is set correctly)");
        return;
      }
      else {Echo("");}
      // logic
      if(getExtraFieldFloat(v0, "Filled: (\\d+\\.?\\d*)%") >= 80) {
        v1.ApplyAction("OnOff_Off");
      }
      if(getExtraFieldFloat(v0, "Filled: (\\d+\\.?\\d*)%") <= 20 && getExtraFieldFloat(v2, "Filled: (\\d+\\.?\\d*)%") <= 50) {
        v1.ApplyAction("OnOff_On");
      }
    }
    
    const string MULTIPLIERS = ".kMGTPEZY";
    
    bool filterOxy(IMyTerminalBlock block) {
      return !block.BlockDefinition.SubtypeId.Contains("Hydrogen");
    }
    
    bool filterHyd(IMyTerminalBlock block) {
      return block.BlockDefinition.SubtypeId.Contains("Hydrogen");
    }
    
    float getExtraFieldFloat(IMyTerminalBlock block, string regexString) {
      System.Text.RegularExpressions.Regex regex = new System.Text.RegularExpressions.Regex(regexString, System.Text.RegularExpressions.RegexOptions.Singleline);
      float result = 0.0f;
      double parsedDouble;
      System.Text.RegularExpressions.Match match = regex.Match(block.DetailedInfo);
      if (match.Success) {
        if (Double.TryParse(match.Groups[1].Value, out parsedDouble)) {
          result = (float) parsedDouble;
        }
        if(MULTIPLIERS.IndexOf(match.Groups[2].Value) > -1) {
          result = result * (float) Math.Pow(1000.0, MULTIPLIERS.IndexOf(match.Groups[2].Value));
        }
      }
      return result;
    }
    
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  11. Timotei~ Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    208
    This this and this. Unless some breakthrough in thermodynamic science happen in the coming years. Getting energy out of ice is pretty much impossible.

    The initial premise of the game was to respect as much physic laws as possible and take some liberties when needed. On stream the other day Marek Rosa himself was talking about reorienting SE toward it's original premise. An ice power generator is going completely against this premise. It is not needed and break a fundamental physic laws. Just saying.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • Informative Informative x 1
  12. Lurch84 Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    63
    That was me, thank-you for the code (not something in my skill set), I shall use it :)
    (well try to... figuring out how to edit it, as it's throwing errors when compiled)
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2017
  13. Timotei~ Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    208
    also.

    Ice generator hype: []... . . . . . . . [----------------] :(
     
  14. Smokki Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    77
    Could we just have a new resource for the new power generator instead of ice/hydrogen? There's already the "organic" material. Why not use that so you could use refinery to turn it into biofuel pellets or oxygen generator to turn it for biogas?

    What ever you do, please add that model in game, even if it doesn't do anything.
     
    • Agree Agree x 5
  15. stulle bua Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    1
    Within a space ship, where we have a closed cycle "air" distribution and those combustion engines look like they´re air cooled, we would heat up the enviroment we´re living in up to a point where we couldn´t exist anymore.
    So where are our radiators to get rid of our access heat?

    And combustion engines in times where we can jump across a star system, 3d print space ships...and all the other funny scifi stuff we do.
    Don´t get me wrong they look nicely animated but 200 years out of date.....
     
  16. captainbladej52 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    379
    There's some stuff I agree with in your post and some stuff that I can't agree with. Some stuff I think would be good and others I don't see the point of it.
    Creative mode:
    1: could add another tool to work with when building ships and could be a good thing.
    2: You can copy settings already from many types of blocks such as large amounts of turrets by grouping them together and changing the group settings as a whole. I could see this being useful if you want to copy settings to just a few certain blocks but beyond that I would see this as being redundant.
    3: You can already sort by block type and by name of certain blocks. Unless you just wanted a different view I don't see this getting used too awful much. Options are nice but too many options can overwhelm more than they can help. I honestly believe the current sorting system addresses stuff like this well enough already. Just my personal opinion on that one but different folks like different things.
    4: Could provide a useful tool depending on implementation and this I like.
    5: additional sort options can always be useful though this one for me would definitely have to be optional.

    Survival:
    1: The first thing I would ask is the purpose for atmo pressure aside from realism. How would this enhance the game vs how it is currently? This could be done for adding aerodynamics which I assume is where you're going with this. Can you elaborate a bit more on the purpose for this one?
    2: Again, what purpose would this serve? What would be some of the positives and negatives of the temperature? A positive I could see would be allowing generators that run cooler to be more efficient, and a negative being generators that run hot to be less efficient. If it's purely for the reason of, stay here next to this heat source or freeze to death, then no this doesn't need to be a thing. I don't find mechanics of, stay next to this or freeze/burn to death, as more often than not these types of mechanics pretty much lock out the ability to do anything for large portions of the day/night. I'm not sure about you but I don't find standing around for large portions of the day in a game to be fun. I would ask that you elaborate a bit more on this one as well.
    3: Again I will ask, purpose? I could see some of the more radioactive parts of an area be an indication of uranium deposits and the radioactive places being a place to get extra uranium, but otherwise I don't see too much of a purpose. Creating environmental hazards simply for the sake of having them doesn't really work well usually. There needs to be a purpose behind them such as, if I build in this more radioactive environment enemies will have a harder time attacking as the radiation scrambles their instruments. If it's a situation of simply wanting to avoid a certain area then it becomes a situation of all risk and no reward. In a situation like that the radioactive area will simply be an area people avoid and never go to.
    4 & 5: Food and drink are things that have been pretty much done to death. I've yet to see anyone propose an iteration of food and drink that's little more than eat/drink this or die after x amount of time. In a game like SE I don't see this having a purpose as imo it takes away from the chief aspect of the game which is the engineering. the game doesn't need to be 100% realistic for it to be fun. In other survival type modes in games the food/drink usually becomes a penalty rather than a fun factor. I personally wouldn't find it fun if I survived a massive fight against the space pirates to the last man standing only to die because I didn't eat something before coming on the mission. That would piss me off more than it would anything else. Now if it was set so that I eat x food item and I gain a buff of some type then I could perhaps see it being something I would enjoy. An example being I eat an apple and I can focus more for a set amount of time allowing a slight increase to aiming radius and such. Unless it's something along those lines that isn't purely just eat/drink this or die, then I will remain opposed to food/drink in game.
    6: Same thing I've asked for all of them, purpose? We already have oxygen processing and such in game with the oxygen generators and so on. What would be some of the pros and cons of this?

    [/QUOTE]

    I'm glad to see discussion going on but I'm going to disagree with most of the stuff here this time around.
    1: it appears we're already getting wind turbines from a few of the update videos anyways and they will most likely work anywhere that has an atmosphere. So this one we're already getting and this one I agree with. Alternative means of power generation is never a bad thing.
    2: this one is a big fat HECK NO. If you remove the ability to use small reactors you pretty much remove the ability to use a large amount of builds that the small reactors enable. You also make producing fighters alot harder also. Small reactors on their own produce far less power than their big brother large reactors and it takes alot more of them to match or even exceed the power of one large reactor. A large reactor takes more resources up front but will always produce much more power than the small reactors do. it takes an excessive amount of small reactors to equal the power output of a large reactor and they're already very inefficient compared to large reactors anyways. Reactors are already heavy enough and don't need to be any heavier. This serves no purpose and would be something I'm sure the vast majority of players would simply mod back into the game. There's no legitimate reason to remove the small reactors.
    3: I can agree with hydrogen thrusters having more power to them and would love to see their strength come up a bit. They don't need alot but I do believe they should come up a bit at least. I don't agree with them using both hydrogen and oxygen both unless that oxygen amount is so minute that it's irrelevant. They already are the most cumbersome thrusters in the game as they eat ALOT of resources and making them eat even more resources is just asinine. You already need them to be connected to a source of hydrogen, which usually involves large bulky tanks to store the excess hydrogen, some oxygen generators to supply the hydrogen, and a conveyor system to connect it all. This would NOT be a welcome addition in my book.
    4: Additional types of propulsion would be welcomed and can agree with this one.
    5: Again not only no but HECK NO. They're already very heavy to start with and don't need to be any heavier. Ion thrusters already eat a heavy penalty in the atmosphere compared to hydrogen and already takes alot more of them to match a single hydrogen thruster. They're fine where they are.
    6: I would love to see a small battery as that would be something I would utilize instead of needing so many small reactors in some of my builds.
    7: Again no, all this would do is double the resource costs for everything and that's not fun for anyone.
    8: This could be feasible but if using oxygen and/or hydrogen then they should grant far more thrust and if using purely electricity.

    Overall I just can't agree with these suggestions as they would make resource costs insane as is and ultimately would suck the fun out of the game. You don't need 100% realism for the game to be fun. Secondly if it's not broke why fix it.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. SaturaxCZ Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,718
    Im waiting for hydrogen engine from moment hydrogen get in game and we could use like fuel for vehicles, so.... just take it all in disscusions topic and dont write it here ;) We all prety much know, who is for it and who is agains it, who just want balance energy input X output, etc... and how many topics get off hand.

    +1 for hydrogen/oxygen engine/cell. +1 dont forget on smaller fuel tank. ( 3x3x2 )
    -1.000.000 for direct ice use in hydrogen/oxygen engine/cell. ( oxygen generator in game work fine :p )
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. Anubis 2 Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    61
    I think this is the first time I've disagreed with you. A hydrogen generator would be a welcome idea particularly for those polar moon bases where ice is in abundance and your not squeezed for jetpack fuel, its also good for those places that don't get much sunlight and have little uranium
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  19. Tau Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    52
    Awesome!
    Glad you hear lots of work is being done on the foundation of the game, Rather than the surface. Those stability changes may just get me playing again!

    A bit of Input about the "possible" new Block, While i don't really see the appeal personally (I use reactors for EVERYTHING!; Even on planets.)
    From what i can tell, For modern power generation, and even 20 years back, They wouldn't use IC-Piston based engines, For efficiency, They would use Turbo-Shaft engines, basically a Jet Engine that has a large Turbine for creating Mechanical energy on an output shaft rather than thrust.
    I personally just feel that this would be more, if you will, Fitting for a future-based game.
    It would also open up the exciting possibility For Hydrogen Powered Atmos Thrusters! That would be AWESOME for people that want to fly in Atmosphere without using a Boat-load of Hydrogen, and at the cost of not being able to use them to get to space, This makes sense, and it would actually make the "flame" on Atmos thrusters make sense for once.
    (Then you could just make some Spinny-fan thingy for Electric Turbines.)
    Definitely fun for Fighters! And it would allow people to use less "Thruster hulks" (Ships that are made mostly of Atmos thrusters because they are not the best)

    Anyhow, I like what is being done with the game's code, These changes should make i t playable for me again, I'm all for that.
     
  20. Needye Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    24
    I think with the next update that adds new ways to get energy would be great to reduce the levels of uranium and make it a strategic resource wich players have to fight for it, with thing like a Geiger counter to locate it (when i mean reduced i mean something like one vein for moon but a really big one) so it would be forcing players to use it wisely and fight for it.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  21. Thrak Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    535
    For all of you realism junkies, news flash: Dissolved hydrogen gas (H2) can be found in water (along with many other trace gasses). This is in addition, of course, to the hydrogen bonded to the oxygen that actually creates H2O. Not much, mind you... but I think it's easy to imagine a future where these trace amounts of dissolved hydrogen gas are used to produce a very low amount of energy. It's a concept, at least, which uses a lot less hand-wavium than, say, jump drives.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 3
    • Informative Informative x 1
  22. odizzido Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    670
    at least the jump drive has a valid reason to exist. The game is locked at 100m/s because of technical limitations so they add the jump drive so you can actually get somewhere in a reasonable time. I can accept that easily. What I don't like is them adding the magic pixie ice generator simply because they don't want to add in a new resource.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  23. beelzerob Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    429
    I'm unreasonably excited about ANY block that shows some form of animation for a change.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  24. SuperBaldMan ∞ Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    20
    Anyone else think going deeper in to planets would be cool. Like maybe add some kind of fossil fuel found 1 or 2km down on the EarthLike or something. May need a new type of drill or the use of warheads to dig down that far. And it would actually give a reason to go down to a planet for a reason other than the challenge
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  25. Spets Master Engineer

    Messages:
    3,209
    we have Solar Power, Reactors, Batteries. and soon™ we will also gonna have Wind Power and Hydrogen generators, what is next? Fusion power, Steam generators, and hydro power? oh wait, no water
    I agree with Rotal a little bit, why adding this that is not a huge game changing when you can add other stuff? I mean, people are using Air Vent blocks to replace the Half Block? a single block, just a single block, why they don't add this? or deconstructed blocks to replace other blocks because we don't have aesthetics blocks? like a passage block to act as bunk bed WTF? ridiculous! a grinded rotor part to look like a car steering wheel? Are you kidding me? that looks HORRIBLE! why not just add a control seat, like the Azimuth mod, or Tumble's, or Sage,s control seat? You know what I mean? simple "essential" blocks
     
    • Agree Agree x 7
  26. captainbladej52 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    379
    1: absolutely agree on this first part. it's a bad idea to tease things that may not end up in the game and creates hype only for those folks to be let down later.

    2: going to disagree here. additional blocks are never a bad thing as it gives options to people. We have Oxygen farms, solar panels, and now hydrogen engines. The hydrogen generator/engine allows an alternative method of generating power when a reactor is not an option, and solar panels may otherwise be unwieldy or little sunlight is present. Plus the thought of actually having an engine for wheeled vehicles is something I look forward to. I'll probably even use them for some of my larger capital ships depending on how the block turns out. This hydrogen engine also allows another use for hydrogen when it is in large supply. If I need power and don't have uranium, but I have alot of hydrogen then boom there's my power source. There's alot of additional shapes and such of blocks I would love to see them add, half-blocks or other such types of aesthetic blocks much the same way you're indicating. However I fail to see why they can't add both at the same time. Personally I would prefer function before aesthetics.
     
  27. Dicarus Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    136
    Any projected improvements to simspeed on servers?
     
  28. jaunetajabe Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    111
    [/QUOTE]
    I am totally agree with this explanation.
    Really a big ship plenty of ion thrusters and reactors and batteries should not be able to leave a planet just adding some atmospheric thrusters..

    Being realistic we should be obbey to build a rocket to impulse the ship out of the planet and once that we reach some height unmerge both ships!

    We find in workshop lots of ships with 3 different types of thrusters that fly in atmosphere very easily
    --- Automerge ---
    I think that we are getting crazy with new block.
    I do not think that will produce energy from ice

    It will be an early game block with two working modes
    A) Ice mode : produces O2 and Hydrogen from ice consuming energy
    B) By mode: Produce energy from Hydrogen

    It is defined to be a block that would be used in two different modes not complementary but unique depending the case
    If we have an early base we would use as O2 H2 producer, if we have a vehicle we use it as motor
     
  29. WhiteWorlB Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    90
    New blocks? revamped survival? All fine and Dandy but tbh i dont know where this is going. What is the Goal? Ive read its about needing less blocks for survival and give a sense of Progression, however i think the blocks your showing are kinda redundant atm, imho they dont add anything to the game i could not archive before and a sense of Progression could be gained far mor easyly. Additionally there are two survival scenarios. Planets and Space. From what i understand, the additional blocks are mostly for Planets, which usually I get on, to get off again.
    If i play any survival game there are basically two things i want from it. Adventure and Progression.
    Which in SE would mean. give me a reason not to die and more reason to explore(besides finding ore). I think it would be better to implement solid Scenarios before adding more blocks, for that survival feeling. Per ex. i start from a planet with a crashed ship and almost nothing but the bare Minimum to survive, my sensors Show an abandoned structure some Kilometers away , A Mission log Pops up and says something like "Weve recieved a distress call from planet xyz, upon entering the atmosphere we lost Control of our vessel and crashed into the planet for unknown reasons, go and explore the origin of the Signal." While doing that you find the missing components you Need to get off the planet. Aragath showcased how well Scenarios could work with his tutorials. I feel this resource is not used enough.

    TlDr:
    Good content not equals new blocks
    Gimme ways to immerse myself into the world.
    Punish my mistakes(death=some Progression loss)
    Give me more reason to explore.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  30. Anunnaki Nibiru Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    44
    2) how many transport vehicles of any kind you have seen, to be equiped with nuclear reactors? Even in wild sci-fi fantasy, there is no concept of any "smaller" nuclear reactor, then few story high building. Even smallest nuclear reactors today (after more than 60 years of development) are used on 5 biggest aircraft carriers ships and maybe 15 biggest nuclear submarines. In both case, few story high and few rooms wide! There is no way in for-seen future to equip nuclear reactors to fighters.
    5) we are developing ION propulsion from 1964, and the most powerfull constructed yet has folowing performance: BHT8000 for 449mN you need 8KW of energy, so for in game SmallGrid Large ION thruster with 144kN you need 2.5GW!!! Even most powefull ION thruster in development DS4G is capable of 2.5N with 250kW of energy, that is for 144k you need 14.4MW. But I was unable to find dimensions or weight of such ION thrusters. For comparison, current hydrogen/oxygen thrusters (most powerfull RD-170) has 7900kN for 9.3T of weight.
    For both points means, when you need fast changes in speed/directions, you should never use ION thrusres. ION thrusters in small size can be used only with solar panels for very super light sattelites, or in very big sizes on biggest ships in combination with nuclear reactors. So, placing ION thrusters on "Fighters" would be nonsense.

    For any other questions from "survival" section:
    Because those things would require more and more specifics blocks to be build and maintain on base/planet to survive. Engineering designs (ships, bases) would be forced to be designed in different way, to save resources/energy to keep up. Pressurization and temperature means posibility to have different suits to different environments, even inside base with pressurization, temperature and oxy/co2 control, we would be able to get rid of the suit completly. Maybe we can add "movement"/flexibility/speed penalty to big space EVA suits. Engineers (in survival mode) would be preffered maybe to build ships inside pressurized hangars because of that ...
    Food/drink again ... maybe something you can easily gather grow on planets, but very hard expensive to grow in space/on asteroid base (no gravity and etc). This can bring element that players needs to barter food from planets for something else. Like some materials can be more easy to "crystalize" in space (no gravity) or harvest from asteroids, than from planets ... and etc.
     
Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.