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.

Why space engineers needs atmosphere

Discussion in 'Survival' started by Kylar_Reed, Apr 9, 2014.

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

    Messages:
    288
    I would say add atmosphere just for the point of having a shipwide depressurization.

    Also to the female space suits... coming from my girlfriend...

    The current avatar is fine, it represents a realistic space suit. I dont want to see skintight latex juat for girls. Anyway most of the female avatars in games are just horny kids. Its not cool, its not funny, its weird.

    Again from my girlfriend, not me.

    Edit: if you want proof of her point look at the female avatar in the suggestion thread...
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 28, 2014
  2. MorpheusLucid Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    2
    Currently SE is all about building ships and weapons that is really the only aspect of the game.
    My ship can beat your ship, my ship has more weapons and so on.
    Modders can now make planet size asteroids down fall to most is not being able to add more than 2 ores without doing some other steps.
    Scripts are all good but don't do any good if we don't know any commands or coding examples.
    Many things can be player created. Their are Sky mods to give the look of an atmosphere simple Water Mod for water look. 2 mods that have no real reason or use in the game but looks.
    To create a Atmospheric generator combined with gravity and options for skies textures and how thick or thin the atmosphere is. fuel it by uranium and ice.

    Like gravity how it switches on when you pass the border of it can switch the air so you dont have to do a med station or seat.

    Air could be a separate thing as well provide power to water "Ice" you get Oxygen and Hydrogen. One to breath One to burn.
    Speaking of Ice not sure why it was taken out of the game being most asteroids are composed of Ice and other ores to go with this many planets and moons have large amounts of Ice as well as a asteroid belt between the earth and mars.
     
  3. Tom Servo Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    93
    Technically you don't need gravity to engineer things in space, either. But gravity is important because that's the environment that humans are comfortable living in. Is there a gameplay benefit to gravity? Slightly; you can go through doors a bit easier without having to rotate your jetpack through them, but ultimately when trying to move through an area, you go much faster by flying. And yet, gravity was implemented into the game. Not just because of its necessity to human habitation, but also because of the interesting challenges inherent in building things meant for gravity environments (seriously, look at all the cool rovers and tanks that are basically useless compared to a fighter because we don't have planet/planetoid surfaces for them). On top of that, there's a ton of neat uses for gravity besides creature comfort: railguns, gravity drives, elevators, etc.

    Atmosphere/pressure is basically the same deal. Hell, the gravity we have not isn't even that complex. It's heavily abstracted, and that would be fine for atmosphere systems too. It may not seem as interesting or important by itself to some people, and it would be a gradual process to get it implemented, but you have to think about how it would complement other potential future features. Don't picture an empty ship filled with oxygen because realism, imagine an airlock system meant to safely transport NPC workers into your base so they can help grow food in your greenhouse to trade with the neighboring space sector.

    If Space Engineers restricted features to exclude what some people perceive as "useless", we wouldn't have wheels in the game.
     
  4. Grek Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    57
    agreed with Tom.
    i dont have idea why some ppl talk "we dont need air".
     
  5. Jarin Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    78
    Cue anti-wheel rant in 3...
     
  6. Jdavid28 Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    4
    I have been playing this game for a couple of weeks. Its fun, but its losing its appeal fast. After I built my mining ship, and have a working platform built up, I've reached an "Okay, what's next?" moment. To make this game really "realistic", it needs NPCs, both friendly, neutral, and hostile. I really don't get what's the point of engineering all these things if we're just building it for kicks. If that's your cup of tea, that's fine. There's a mode called creative so you don't have to deal with all that. But I want to build colonies in space, which would require "atmosphere" for the colonists to survive in, and food for them eat. Not to mention everyone has to sleep eventually which would require beds and rooms. NPC's could greatly add to the complexity of the game and make it much more interesting, and really give a purpose to all the building we do to begin with. Otherwise, that space station might look cool, but it's totally useless.
     
  7. Ghostickles Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,077
    In the meantime try Multiplayer. Highly recommend it. Other players are the most advanced A.I. you will ever encounter.
     
  8. Smoo Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    153
    You seem to want Dwarf Fortress, but in space. Or that space-station game that's on Steam where you manage a space station.

    Gravity, for players, is also mostly useless. You ignore it with the jetpack on. It's when you use gravity to move ore, ship components, and artificial mass blocks that it does start mattering. Walking isn't important in space.

    Gravity gives things.
    • Rock or component accelerator cannons
    • Trash disposal
    • Gravity drives.
    What would atmosphere give, exactly? Complexity for the sake of complexity? Buggy NPCs trying to path around a base? Sims in space?

    The space suits have "energy" and "health." Because having more complex life-support stuff would just be complexity for its own sake, with no payoff other than making you refill another bar every 5 minutes. And that's not a payoff, actually.

    I agree that more in the way of scenarios would be nice, but I've also had practive in Minecraft, of setting my own goals. Technically you "win" Minecraft once you have well-lit sealed house with enough food to not die. So, you build a second, nicer house! A castle! A larger mine! Go hunting! Install mods and hunt those, or in alternate worlds via portals!

    Same here. Build a better miner. Build a better support ship. A better construction ship. A mothership.

    And hopefully, there will be good mods. Like "NPC" invasions, like a large ship shows up and starts eating asteroids, and turning the material into drones that seek random players and shoot. Would be much easier with limited AI, like an AI that could place "avoid" markers around asteroids, and then path drone ships near player bases where turrets could shoot each other?

    But "little mans walking around without space suits" until a hull breach accidentally or intentionally kills them? Nobody has yet said what those little mans, or what that atmosphere will ACTUALLY DO, that justifies the material expense of making a sealed cube. And the CPU expense of re-calculating atmosphere every time a grid changes.
     
  9. Kill3rCat Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    19
    My, oh my. After reading some of the arguments in this thread for or against atmosphere, I just felt like dropping in again and sharing my opinions.

    Firstly, some people (a minority) seem to be comparing air/oxygen with the neccessity for food, drink and even 'taking a dump' (seriously?)! Food and drink are necessary for human life; so is air. That is where the similarities end. People have argued that food and drink are just tedium that add more values to worry about, and more ways to die. Those are valid arguments, and although I disagree with them, such opinions do have some credibility to them. Food and drink do not directly contribute towards any scenarios that could occur, such as depressurisaton. The closest comparison that could be made is that a stray missile destroys your hydroponics bay and you have to rebuild your food factories to avoid starvation. Pressurisation adds a lot more possible scenarios and outcomes such as having some of your cargo sucked out when your cargo bays take a hit, taking a hit in your engine bays and having half your ship inaccessible due to fires.

    Additionally, although pressurisation would involve a little bit extra work such as making sure everything is airtight and building life support / air recyclers, there is not much extra work there at all. In fact, if such a mechanic was added, then there'd be LESS work for you to do in the end than with a 'vacuum ship', as within a pressurised environment it's possible that your oxygen levels would refill automatically. Admittedly, this work wouldn't exist in the first place if there was no oxygen mechanic.

    Secondly, some people have been arguing that pressurisation would be pretty much useless in terms of gameplay. To dispute that, I'd like anyone with any such views to take a look at YouTube (e.g. LastStandGamers, VideoSage, etc.) or the Steam workshop. Look what players have created with existing mechanics, and think what would be possible with more tools at their disposal. Imagine escape pods or weaponised projectiles launched through pressurised tubes (think: air rifle), or some kind of flamethrower that uses the fire mechanic, if it's implemented. Maybe, variations of existing tools will be added that require an atmosphere to function in but are more efficient, such as a faster welder that requires the presence of oxygen. Or maybe a pressurised hangars which uses air resistance to slow incoming craft for safer landing. On a similar note, maybe we'll see pressurised race tracks which use aerodynamic 'plane'-like physics. With this community, there's no way of knowing. Also, as mentioned earlier, pressurised/oxygenated environments would add gameplay challenges for players to work around or overcome. Or just grit their teeth and bear it, if they hate it that much.

    Space Engineers is ultimately a game about engineering in space (who'd have guessed!?); thus, pressurisation enhances the core features and is in line with the game's philosophy. It presents more issues which you can either work with or work against. Issues which challenge the player to work around them and will in the end result in a superior and more enjoyable product. There is always Creative mode for those who can't bear with the hassle of having to pressurise their ships, or eat and drink (in the event that food/drink mechanics are added). Even in Creative mode, pressurisation makes positive contributions to gameplay. In fact, since almost all of the arguments I have seen have been relating to stats people can't be bothered with the hassle of maintaining, Creative mode with pressurisation would be enjoyable in almost everyone's eyes.
     
  10. Stardriver907 Master Engineer

    Messages:
    3,368
    I've spent a lot of time putting sometimes complicated doors/door systems on my ships and stations specifically to make the transition from an aired to an airless environment possible, even though there is currently no need to do so.

    I understand that KSH has not made air a priority and I believe I understand why. Then I saw this thread and I have to say that I am positively dumbfounded that someone would be against the idea of air, let alone aggressively oppose it.

    How can you have a game that takes place in space and just totally ignore that it is an airless vacuum. A game about engineers. A "realistic" game about engineering in space. People actually insisting that there is no "need" at any point while participating in creating an environment in space that air would be an issue. So much effort from the developers AND modders to make airtight doors and airlocks...

    I'm aware that when you create a world you can decide if meteors show up and to what extent from occasional to armageddon. Why can't you just be able to decide if air matters in your world or not? No need to force it on everybody. I can see where some people just don't want that much immersion. Fine. Turn air off in your world.

    And please don't say this would be some sort of coding nightmare that the developers shouldn't have to deal with. They already have a coding nightmare and they are dealing with it. I swear some programmers aren't happy if there isn't a problem for them to fix. I know this won't happen in the next update but I just think it's weird that you spend so much time in this game creating an environment that could allow you to take that suit off, but you never do, and to me that spoils any realism that was apparently supposed to be one of the foundations of this game. Why build airlocks if there's no air to lock in? Because it looks cool? It's way better if you have to have airlocks so that you don't die from lack of air.

    Can you imagine life on ISS or expedition to Mars where no one ever took off their space suit? Frankly, I would prefer that all my mining operations take place in a pressurized environment.

    In this game if I had to choose between fake gravity and air I choose air because I'm not sure how the fake gravity thing works but they say we need it for the game but we don't need air :confused: If we don't need air why are we wearing space suits?

    If we are going to simulate living and working in space, air needs to be part of the simulation. Lack of air needs to be a problem.

    Unless you don't want it to be a problem, in which case you just uncheck it in options ;)
     
Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.