1. The forum will be closing soon permanently. Please read the announcement here

    Note: User registration has been closed. We do not accept any new accounts.

Re-Entry Effects? Please?

Discussion in 'Suggestions and Feedback' started by Ribs, Jan 31, 2016.

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

    Ribs Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    189
    Planets have been out for a while. I thought re-entry effects could perhaps be, well, standard?

    The effect would be a simple burning sphere around the ship, that would expand as the ship is bigger. Arguing about realism is not necessary this is hardly a realistic game and it doesn't try to be.


    A secondary suggestion would be that falling asteroids should make a burning effect like when armageddon mode when passing through the atmosphere.

    Thank you.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  2. Fragman

    Fragman Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    294
    It's cool, but I wanna see only effect. That was be cool!
     
  3. KissSh0t

    KissSh0t Master Engineer

    Messages:
    3,785
    A kind of Turbulence could be interesting when coming down out of space..
     
  4. A_Person

    A_Person Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    58
    "Space Engineers is inspired by reality and by how things work."
    "Space Engineers strives to follow the laws of physics"
    https://www.spaceengineersgame.com/about.html

    ^couldn't help but notice the above
    (Although you could argue "To be honest, for the sake of intuitive gameplay, we had to make a few sacrifices to “realism elitism"", but I doubt many people would find full on re-entry effects 'intuitive' at ~100m/s, but perhaps purely aesthetic instead)
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  5. Ribs

    Ribs Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    189
    No, It wouldn't.
     
  6. KissSh0t

    KissSh0t Master Engineer

    Messages:
    3,785
    Ohhh my bad I was completely unaware falling from space to earth was a completely smooth experience....



    -----------------------------

    This video is also interesting...

     
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2016
    • Like Like x 2
  7. Greyson_XMG

    Greyson_XMG Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    132
    A mod exists to address this issue.

    It works well enough, but having it go vanilla would be better.

    AND a rudimentary form of wing and aerodynamic should also exist in one form or another.

    Modders are also addressing this... successfully. Why not keen?
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  8. Ribs

    Ribs Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    189
    Apologies, you meant that the ship would shake when approaching the planet? If so, then yes.

    However, I am against making it damage ships. There's no reason to do it, and it would be more annoying than it sounds.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. pathogen69

    pathogen69 Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    21

    They are full of shit.
    Here are a few things about this game to prove that:
    1. You can go from the surface of a planet with 1G gravity to "orbit" and 0G gravity using just your jetpack. I've done it a lot.
    2. A multi-planet system in which the sun orbits the planets and all the planets, moons, and asteroids are completely motionless in space. Yep, that totally conforms to the laws of physics.
    3. Thrusters don't generate thrust relative to their own placement but instead the thrust is shifted to the center of mass of the vessel. Hence the reason you don't have to balance thrusters. Also why you can only spin a vessel if you have a gyroscope instead of being able to use differential thrust. Which also happens to be the reason you don't need any kind of Reaction Control System for spaceships. Yep, super realistic there.
    4. Huge station antennas only broadcast a max 50km radius. Seriously? Large ship and station antennas can use up to 200kw of power. For comparison, an FM radio station in the U.S. broadcasting at 100kw can be heard 160km+ away. 200kw with only 50km range is just awful. Especially out in space where you can't use the excuse of a blocked line of sight. EDIT: Meanwhile, a beacon can get the same range using only 10kw!
    #2 you can argue that it's due to processing power. However, 1, 3, and 4 you can make no such claim. Those are purely due to how they chose to design it. So no, they do not "strive to follow the laws of physics", #3 being by far the biggest offender.
     
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2016
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Late Late x 1
  10. KissSh0t

    KissSh0t Master Engineer

    Messages:
    3,785
    The most unrealistic thing that I am sooooooooooo outraged by... it really really makes my blood boil.... like for serious....

    When I die in the game I respawn.

    How unrealistic is that... completely outrageous... when you die in game you shouldn't be able to play it anymore.

    this is sarcasm.
     
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2016
    • Funny Funny x 3
  11. SenorZorros

    SenorZorros Master Engineer

    Messages:
    7,063
    okay... is that the fallacy of relative privation, the nirvana fallacy or simply a slippery slope

    I personally would like re-entry effects as long as they don't make my pc look like it had a re-entry itself

    also, relative reference frames for a bit more speed.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  12. doncdxx

    doncdxx Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    439
    #1 I think they said they intend to change that one. They didn't want people getting to space in a jetpack.

    #2 & #3 are processing power. It's much faster to calculate from center mass then each specific thruster placement.

    #4 yeah, that one bugs me too.
     
  13. Sad_Brother

    Sad_Brother Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    198
    There is a mod for it and it works good.
     
  14. SenorZorros

    SenorZorros Master Engineer

    Messages:
    7,063
    small question, can the jetpack accelerate to escape velocity in seven seconds?

    also, 2 is indeed processing power (though relative reference frames could solve this)

    with 3 and 4, yes it is unrealistic and I believe that it should be changed ut that does not mean that this suggestion has no value.
     
  15. dragon boy

    dragon boy Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    103
    I would like to see one of those overgrown spiders enter atmosphere just so I can see it burn up into dust.
     
  16. Captain Broadstairs

    Captain Broadstairs Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    469
    Have you tried any of the Rentry or dynamics mods ? They do a pretty good job of adding thses effects, if you're playing locally or with a few mates these are great, can't help much if you prefer to play on servers though

    You may already be aware of it, but on the off chance you're not, may i suggest this https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=575893643&searchtext=realistic+thruster It pretty much fixes the exact problem you've mentioned

    I've found its a lot more rewarding to play when i've had to balance my ships properly, and I prefer to play planets with this mod as it prevents the use of impossible aircraft like vanilla does

    Making functional RCS systems was fun, But its tedious to have to control them via the number keys as i forget which one is which
     
  17. sioxernic

    sioxernic Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,535
    Because Keen are focused on a lot of other things. I do think it is more than fine to just let modders deal with all these smaller features people have been requesting for ages and honestly some times they find more efficient ways of doing it than keen would.
     
  18. Grit Breather

    Grit Breather Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    874
    Were you able to actually use this successfully?
    It does what it claims in that force is actually exerted out of the thruster and not the centre of mass. But no other support system in the game knows how to relate to these forces, most notably the inertial dampeners. While I would love to have this mod going all the time, it ended up making simple flights impossible due to the complete lack of even the most basic balancing logic. I had to do everything manually and we all know how bad SE is at manual controls.
     
  19. Spavvy

    Spavvy Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    188
    Re-entry heating happens due to compression of the atmosphere underneath the vessel. Here you have controlled re-entry. You can stop falling and hover mid-way, for goodness's sake, and the top speed you can reach is 100m/s. Theres no way you can achieve such heating. We're already stretching our suspension of disbelief with 120km in diameter planets having 0,9-1,1G and an atmosphere. Also thats the part of having high-tech spaceships - not having the re-entry heating problem. We're technologically past that, its solved.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  20. Captain Broadstairs

    Captain Broadstairs Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    469
    I think " successfully " would be an exaggeration, but it did turn the ship in the desired direction. The process of setting up the required RCS groups was extremely tedious and not something i would do on every ship, I considered it a proof of concept in a way.

    Without built in support for RCS thrusters based on relative position to the center of mass and its own keybindings ( think KSP ) its far from becoming my standard design feature.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  21. Draygo

    Draygo Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,297
  22. KissSh0t

    KissSh0t Master Engineer

    Messages:
    3,785
    This suggestion is not for a mod.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  23. Leaping Tortoise

    Leaping Tortoise Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    212
    Ok, no. And here's why: Entering an atmosphere does not inherently cause extreme heating. The plasma you see around most objects entering the atmosphere is generally caused because these machines (eg the shuttle orbiter) are slamming into the atmosphere at enormous velocities. Think Mach 25. In space engineers you cap out at Mach 0.3.

    Also take a look at the redbull space jump. He free fell into the atmosphere and didn't experience a plasma bubble.

    You have to make concessions in a game so that it's fun. So here's to addressing your issues.

    1) Escaping a gravity well it's about thrust and mass. If you have a enough thrust you can get out. So the question of reaching space with the jet pack is one of fuel, not thrust. At present you have enough fuel to do it. I'd prefer that you didn't and I believe that's where Keen will go.

    2) Space engineers was never designed to have planets, and voxels were never designed to move (you could slam a huge ship into an asteroid but it wouldn't move). This is entirely a processing power thing. But the people demanded planets so Keen are kind enough to provide, and they had to adapt the engine as best they could. Can you imagine trying to calculate the movement of every voxel on every planet, asteroid and moon, every tick of every game? You'd never be able to play.

    3) I'm not sure why they went down this path but my guess is that it was an incredible pain to try and balance ships if you're a noob, and given that you can't exactly place thrusters there will always be done imbalance. I personally hope they add the option in vanilla for thrust like this, and have the system auto adjust thrusts to give you perfect forward movement. But this was another gameplay decision.

    4) Originally world's were limited in size. Very limited. The 50km range was more than enough to see everything. Them we'r got procedural world and they've been focused on planets/bugfixing. With they way the current HUD works you'd end up with too much clutter with larger ranges. Hopefully this is addressed in optimisation.
     
  24. sioxernic

    sioxernic Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,535
    1) Realistic, if you dislike it make a mod that reduces the amount of hydrogen you can carry and/or remove hydrogen bottles
    2) Yeah, that is just so easy to change to do with the current voxel. Would require them to make substantial changes to the game.
    3) Well.. go get a mod.... Already one out there.
    4) Yeah... Gameplay has nothing to do with that... If you have a problem with it, make a mod. Probably already one out there.

    It is so insanely easy to mod the game at this point so go ahead man. I am even willing to make you the hydrogen and the antenna mods if you want.
     
  25. pathogen69

    pathogen69 Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    21
    I am aware of that mod but I prefer not to mess with mods. The game is already so broken, especially on Thursdays, I don't want to have to figure out if it's the mod or the game itself causing problems.

    This too.

    I was not saying I want those things to change, merely that their statement of sticking to real physics is bull, especially when you consider the thruster balance thing. I don't care much about 1 or 2, but I do think 3 & 4 should change. Or at least adjust the power requirements for the antennas to more realistically reflect the stupidly short radius. With a 50km radius, you can't even see a planet base from the asteroids as (at least in the star system map), the asteroids tend to be about 100k from the surface of the start planet. You have to set up a relay. Which I did, and then it stopped working and I didn't set a GPS marker for it so yeah. It's out there somewhere.

    Again, I don't want to play with mods while the game is in such a horrible state. Maybe if it ever gets completed... but I don't think that's going to happen. I think Keen will stop development on it before then.
     
  26. sioxernic

    sioxernic Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,535
    Don't complain the game doesn't have these features if you are unwilling to use them. It's that simple. We can't add all features that people personally want because they don't wanna use mods.
     
  27. pathogen69

    pathogen69 Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    21
    WTF are you talking about? I'm not requesting new features.
     
  28. Malware

    Malware Master Engineer

    Messages:
    9,867
    You can blame the community for this one, who couldn't handle the jetpack restrictions on the planets.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  29. Ribs

    Ribs Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    189
Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.