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.

Add back Safety lock To rotors

Discussion in 'Suggestions and Feedback' started by Te.name, Nov 18, 2017.

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

    Messages:
    2,122
    Still waiting for Keen to mention the fact that you can no longer have a "nonmoving" sub-grid anymore. Or at the least tell us that they are now working on a way to keep them from jumping around... or you know, anything. Heck, even a "It's never changing again or coming back" might even settle my nerves so that I won't have to worry about rebuilding all of my designs from scratch.

    Blocks I can change and replace (begrudgingly), but I will flip my lid if I have to go back through any of my timers and rotor settings AGAIN to fix something that never should have been removed in the first place. Not to say that changing the settings on them now is helping any at all anyways. The stupid things still don't stand still or fuse the grids in place.

    They say that the safety-lock didn't work so well with their "fixes". Well, non of the things I make now work so well with their fixes either. And I refuse to revert back to a day and age where I had to chose between using some giant landing gear, some grid-identity crisis inducing merge block, or some connector (which I never even consider/ed as an option in the first place) just to keep the sub-grids from shaking; and imparting forces on the main grid. Before the safety-lock was added, I had to resort to the tried and true method of ensuring that rotors and pistons behaved the way they should; I stopped using them. And now, it seems that I am probably going to have to go back to that method as non of my current and planned designs will function correctly without it or at the least some form of Assured Braking mechanic.

    The way I still feel about it is One massive step forward, two steps back. And there is simply no "fixing" my designs until those sub-grids stop bouncing around.

    And I mean, I don't even care if the grids fuse together. It would be nice, like really nice to be able to set a large section of hull at a specific angle using rotors and not having it cause the ship to drift due to center of mass.

    But Center of Mass I can work with.

    The biggest problem however is when I try to rotate the main hull using gyroscopes and all of those separate grids start to play around like they are jumping around a moon walk (or swinging around like a catapult); all the while pulling and pushing the main grid and reducing, what would otherwise be a functional design, into something that has no other choice but to be setup as a stationary structure.
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2017
  2. Arcturus Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,649
    1. Havok rigid body welding/safety lock had known issues. NOT having it also has known issues. A proper discussion would weigh/compare both.

    2. They know of, and can't solve the problem where huge hull pieces (fins at 30° angles?) dance on rotors, or so on. Playing with inertia tensor might fix it. If the tail is too heavy, it can wag the dog. At least the people who just want to put a few tools on a rotor/piston arm can be happy since the update.

    3. "Shared inertia tensor" is a concept that requires 1st year university level math (linear algebra) and physics or dynamics to fully understand. "Make the small part as hard to rotate as the big part" is generally what it does. There's probably a better way to describe it that is understandable to a wider audience. KSH ought to open a UI text/word choice specific suggestion megathread.
     
  3. sioxernic Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,535
    @Te.name
    That wasn't what I was responding to you checked.
    He said landing gear had to be used.
    I said, connectors do the same.

    They are also not less stable nor are they buggier, because they just "safety lock" the grid.
     
  4. Levits Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,122
    It's the "back to square one" thing that compiles the annoyance. They said that the safety-lock didn't work with their fix, but they did not remove the means to fuse grids together, they simply removed the practical and simple solution to do so. If I want to now achieve the same thing I had before, they did not do anything to stop me from doing so, they just made it beyond annoying to do it; by reverting me (and others) back to square one before they "fixed" it.

    There was no conversation about the idea of removing safety-locks either. They could have mentioned SOMETHING, Anything. I've spent hours setting up timers to work with safety-lock for months now (< ok, maybe a couple days worth of hours in-game) (figured BETA would be a bit safer to actually make plans), while planning and staging even more designs to work BOTH better with improved rotor/piston performance AND safety-lock (because frankly I didn't hold out much hope that they would be able to improve the rotors and pistons as much as they have).

    But they removed a massive part of rotor and piston stability without so much as a peep and in removing that feature, it reverted many, previously, fully-functional designs into nothing more than set pieces now. And all of the timing events that function specifically with safety-lock and that apparently STILL NEED safety-lock to keep the things from negatively impacting their designs.

    They could still have safety-lock WITH their fix and it would not hurt the performance any more than me adding 20+ landing gear or other such blocks to my ships and crafts.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. Malware Master Engineer

    Messages:
    9,663
    They had way too many problems with it. They were using a hack to get it to work, as Havok isn't supposed to work this way, a hack they desperately wanted to get rid of, so it will never come back. However they might have to consider an alternative to it. As you say, the effect of it is just too useful. On the other hand it may simply not be possible, and they might elect to tolerate a few disgruntled builders over bug reports on the same thing every week, bug reports on something they simply couldn't get to work right. Because it was doing things it shouldn't in the first place.
     
  6. Levits Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,122
    I still don't understand this, there has been no example of "things it shouldn't' be doing". They showed a space squid that had some of its limbs exploding for whatever reason. <Now, I don't know about anyone else out there, but I don't build space squids.

    And I've seen no other examples of problems with the locking feature other than them saying that it has something to do with "Performance". <and again, there has been nothing shown that hints at any major impact it had on the game. How does locking a grid in place, negatively affect anything in the game? It's the same as having a landing gear attached to something.

    Are they going to remove landing gears now?
     
  7. Malware Master Engineer

    Messages:
    9,663
    Because it's technical, internal. They were forcing Havok to do something it wasn't designed to do. There were examples of phasing (someone even made a "phase engine" where they could phase a ship through a wall on purpose), there were shifting items, crashes, all manner of things. I'm surprised you don't know about this to be honest. You're probably rather talented at building in a manner that doesn't conflict. Some people have an innate instinct in building in a manner that doesn't stress out Havok. Unfortunately, most people are not.

    Oh, the actual locked state wasn't really the problem. It was the transition that was the problem. But since you need the transition in order to lock it... As for the landing gears, I cannot speak of what I do not know. But why would they remove them? They didn't remove rotors and pistons. It's true that the more complex builds suffer. I don't trust it enough to build small ship interior pieces just yet. But... I can build proper landing gear now, and not have my ship fly weirdly or blow apart. This is what we common folk build, and we see that this works a lot better. In the big picture, complex builders are few and far between. Just like us scripters. We're on the low end of the scale. We don't have as loud a voice. I had to get involved personally in order to get work done on the scripting side of things, or nothing would have happened at all.

    They would not spend so much time replacing it if there weren't some significant issue. Trust me: They did not just remove it for the heck of it. I'm not entirely sure how much time they spent on this, but it was significant. Several weeks at best, months at worst. It wasnot just the flick of a switch. This is something we're just gonna have to accept. It will not be reversed no matter how loud you scream. This is one of those set-in-stone kind of deals. The best you can hope for is a replacement, something alike to the lock but using a different technique. The lock, as it was, is gone forever and there's nothing you and I can do about that.
     
  8. Levits Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,122
    Saw the phasing gimmick, but also saw someone create a OP driving using rotors and merge blocks too. In terms of actual problems with players finding ways to break the game, I assume that those incidents are not very wide spread. And ultimately, I don't mind them trying to find ways to fix those problems but when they remove stuff that has been a central part of many a design, I expect some word on what they plan to do.

    In the end I don't expect the locks to be added back, but I sure as heck expect that they should have a means of allowing more complex builds and designs without the wonky effects of the past. They put that lock in place and as far as anyone has told me, that WAS their solution to the problem. I expected once they moved to BETA that it would be sticking around and thus based several works around it. And, at least for me, there was never a problem with it; nothing that seemed to warrant it's complete removal without some form of replacement to keep said works from becoming useless.

    But I guess I wasn't here for the whole "Ladder" incident either and so I can't say just how much warning players were given for their removal that time too. But I can say for certain that the function of some ladder block is not the same as rotors and pistons in terms of crap that needs to be reworked if they are removed.
     
  9. Malware Master Engineer

    Messages:
    9,663
    It was. But it failed.
     
  10. KissSh0t Master Engineer

    Messages:
    3,553
    I remember that phase engine, I forget who made it though.... basically it let you pass through anything, including getting under the voxel of a planet, so you could fly inside the planet and find peoples hidden underground bases.
     
  11. Levits Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,122
    Well, I've said my peace about this. I'll be back to bump this thing once a week until someone or something comes about that will fix my blueprints or gives me a answer of some kind. A "maybe" or "we'll see" will suffice.

    A little communication wouldn't hurt on IF they are even working on a solution to the particular problem of the grids bouncing and waving around... at least then I wont have to leave those designs in limbo and simply delete the damn things.
     
  12. Dan2D3D Moderator

    Messages:
    1,004
    Hi Guys!
    I'm curious so I would like to see and try to fix your ''Broken'' ships ... when I have time for a challenge :tu:

    Quote me and paste your workshop item link in your message.
     
  13. GrindyGears Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,787
    Not doubting your ability in general cases here Dan, but most of the people complaining were people who could easily use rotors and pistons before they were fixed. I can't speak for the others, but I have exhausted just about every half reasonable option in terms of fixing old builds.

    I'm rather fortunate that mine don't just outright explode on spawn, but I have certainly lost a great deal of functionality to the locks removal, the inertia tensor doesn't work with crap compared to the safety lock in terms of structural strength. It might make them more resistive to angular accelerations, but it doesn't entirely stop them, especially when you have a high loading on them.

    Plus in cases like mine, even if it can only move one or two degrees off axis, at the end of a 100m long rod that's some pretty substantial wiggle, jiggle, and flex that wasnt there before that tends to foul everything up with collisions that shouldn't happen.

    I do appreciate the new features, but I agree with @Levits a public statement regarding how this will likely be going forward will go a long way
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. Allammo Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    337
    @Te.name your request met response and proper action, safety lock is reintroduced! Yet another reason to think and speak better about outstanding developer team! If only there ware more teams like this one we wouldn't have so many failed early access games, I think it's a good time to purchase deluxe edition... However I'll have to hide this somehow behind my girlfriends back, haha... I love her, she's a gamer to but she don't understand why do I love this game so much, why do I spend so much time building things within its environment :). Anyway, I hope everyone are happy now.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  15. Commander Rotal Master Engineer

    Messages:
    4,979
    Ahem. I don't really have a Workshop link for you, just videos, a log and the most honest to goddess FUN i've had with SE-related bugs in a while.

    Example A: just a VERY quick and dirty attempt to see if what detonates the new physics without the Rotor Lock also detonates them with the new version.



    It does.

    Example B: i tried to reproduce the above scenario in a couple of ways; it's a bit random but generally there seems to be some super hyper tension in the grids that eventually WILL unload if given the chance, and sometimes even without being given the chance. Sometimes, it just takes it's chance. (There also seems to be issues where placing blocks on small ship grids produces movement and tension, as if the blocks were dropped on it instead of placed. This is not technically a new issue, though.)



    (Log for the second video, forgot to copy the one for the first.)

    I'm not sure what you want the Rotor Lock to do but it sure isn't locking any Rotors :D
    -> Bring back the original Rotor Lock.
     
  16. Levits Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,122
    Thank you. I will get them ready (at least partially completed) and send them over to the workshop. Most are still works in progress with the hull barely fleshed out but many of them have the fundamental designs of either slanted armor plates that can be repositioned (mostly set and forget) and/or large pop-up style platforms. <one specifically used for a large-caliber pop-up turret.

    If you wish I can send over the actual, specific rotor/piston designs in a modular form OR I can quickly fabricate a hull frame around them so that they will have the actual ship-shape and reaction (<center of mass influence and "shaking" effects imparted on the actual hull).

    The Vespree Battleship is one example (albeit a massive one), But the key problems that are now apparent are shown throughout it's design. <if that is too large, let me know and I can provide smaller examples. Have a carrier of similar size that has the same issues as that specific design as it has two rather large pop-up turrets.
    --- Automerge ---
    wait wait... is it back?

    Well, at least it's a start and I have to at least acknowledge that the Devs are on track. Still have to download the update (ran out of data so I'm down to 70kb/s) but I'll see what Rotal is talking about. Hope it's nothing that cant be worked out... or at the least worked around...

    ...Aye Dan, do you still want to take a look at those ships ;) never did get those Vespree thruster pods to align and lock properly automatically.
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2017
  17. Dan2D3D Moderator

    Messages:
    1,004
    Guys,

    I'm just curious and wanted to see your stuff and hoping, maybe, to try ... Nothing bad, tho I'm French so may not express myself properly sometimes.

    I'm the kind of guy that avoids ''exploding concepts''. so I always try a New concept when it's not working :)

    At least Commander Rotal shared something cool, hehe Rotal what you are trying to do is not working for sure :(
    --- Automerge ---
    EDIT

    TESTING my ships

    Well, well, well it seems that Keen team found a solution for the rotor, hehe I missed the update or what?

    My Sol Invictus is fixed >> **Workshop item if you want to try : http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=700709367

    I had to disable the ''Position Lock'' and all good, I can fly now and my rotors does not move = Many thanks Keen Team! :)

    **If you try my Workshop item > Disable the ''Positon Lock'' before flying cause the item is not updated with that new ''Position Lock'' Off.

    You should revisit your ships Guys!

    It's new!?

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2017
  18. Levits Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,122
    OK NOPE.

    Handles worse now than when it was bouncing around. Vespree is officially a Station now. Strap as many gyros as I want to it, it will not turn, will not rotate... Will be sending you links.

    Either it's the tensioner thing or something isn't locked or something... there is no telling what it's doing now.
    --- Automerge ---
    http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1126778359
    This is the link to the Vespree. It's big but it is not over-engineered. Very simple concepts and designs that did work completely before while still being flyable.

    I can get other blueprints but if you can find out what is wrong with this thing, it covers just about everything that I am attempting to do with other ships. Safety lock was added back so I don't have a clue why it is not working properly now.

    If you need a smaller ship or blueprint to work with, I can rip this thing apart into pieces if need be. Or again rush one of the other WIP's and put it up.

    Going to clarify, it has rotors for each of the main guns, rotors for the lower hangar, a rotor for a inversion platform in the belly, two rotors stacked onto one another for the thruster pods, a piston-based sliding door, a single piston for a elevator, and two more rotors for the large guns on the sides. Basically rotors all over the place and a piston or two. Roughly 21 rotors in total and 5 pistons...
    --- Automerge ---
    Gave it a quick look over and it seems that all the locks are back in place. The pistons however seem to not have a lock... The timer-block settings don't work (that's going to be a pain but expected I guess) but the thing just doesn't handle like it did. <as in there is some massive resistance to the gyros attempts to turn the ship.
    --- Automerge ---
    OH! and the original (as in the world that I was using to build the thing) the original ship is now... twerking... I thought I raised it better than that but god only knows where I went wrong.

    Those thruster pods are bouncing up and down and putting Miley Cyrus to shame... >_<
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2017
  19. Dan2D3D Moderator

    Messages:
    1,004
    @Levits

    I'll say > You have to redo the 2 VTOL engines, I see 2 rotors on top of each others = not a good concept cause it's not working.

    Try with 1 rotor per VTOL, that should fix and it's the only thing I saw that was moving when flying.



    EDIT

    So cool, seriously it's Much better, Love you Keen Team!


    I like to fly :)

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2017
    • Like Like x 1
  20. Arcturus Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,649
  21. Levits Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,122
    Thanks Dan. Don't know why it acted like that while supposedly locked but it seems there is a new rule.

    DO NOT stack rotors on top of other rotors. Locked or otherwise.

    Though the two rotors on top of each other worked before (with the original rotor lock), that does not seem to be the case now with this rendition of rotor lock... oh well, it's working now. At least it's able to move around again and without bouncing around.

    Now for the fun part of reworking the timer blocks...
     
  22. GrindyGears Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,787
    Unfortunately this new lock is only as effective as setting upper and lower limits is... For me it's still effectively useless for most of my intended purposes, I guess I'll keep complaining in hopes we get something proper to give us a rigid weld.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  23. Allammo Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    337
    So it is not same as it was before? It's really hard to see the difference cause I haven't noticed any problem with rotors for a year or even more. Hmm, maybe it's because all my creations are dynamic? Once, while pasting one of my projects I've put it a little bit into the ground, it became static and all rotors started to act weird, Sim speed dropped, I've cut misplaced ship and pasted it correctly and everything was fine. This was the only time I was worried about rotors, but I've ignored it. Well back to square one I guess, hope devs will figure out what's wrong.
     
  24. VenomBG Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    31
    I was using the rotor lock speed as another condition, like for example, i want the rotors to activate only when a ship reaches a certain speed, because i could not know how long it would take in order to use a timer for it.
    So yeah, even if we dont need the option for stability purposes, it was still useful creationwise.
     
  25. Dan2D3D Moderator

    Messages:
    1,004
    @VenomBG

    This suggestion is already in game = We can lock the rotor!


    Also this thread is getting old > you may create a new one when you see it's old 2017.
     
  26. GrindyGears Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,787
    Dan that crappy angular lock is nowhere close to the old safety lock, it doesn't serve the same function and never will
     
  27. Dan2D3D Moderator

    Messages:
    1,004

    Maybe he should have reported it as a Bug then!

    Cause the new ''Lock'' works very well for me and even if I don't use on some ships = my rotor stops moving without it :tu:
     
  28. GrindyGears Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,787
    It's not a bug, its the nature of any Havok physics constraint, anywhere you have a constraint if you apply enough force it will move regardless if the lock is on, chaining constraints (stacked rotors for example) will make the problems more apparent. Whereas the safety lock "welded" the grids meaning they can never jiggle
     
  29. Dan2D3D Moderator

    Messages:
    1,004
    "will move regardless if the lock is on"
    Oh! I did not noticed, I will try.
     
Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.