Discussion in 'General' started by Bullet_Force, Sep 7, 2018.
And PCUs are reduced, too.
Y'alls claim that this is an engineering game fall flat when you realise that there is little or no actual engineering in the game. How many of your creations, pretty or functional would spin out of control if thruster placement mattered? how many would collapse under their own weight if structural integrity mattered? how many would melt and fall apart if atmospheric friction mattered?
SE is little more than virtual space-lego, there is nothing wrong with that, I enjoy the game for that but am not under the illusion that engineering is involved in anything other than the name and a few quotes in the loading screens.
Nope, nope, nope, good friend - I see your point - but nope. I, for example, try to build for believability. But - and there's my "nope" - those functions you ask for are simply not in the game and so there is no need to build for them. I just built an atmospheric fighter and I had to force myself to think aerodynamic and attach wings and shit so it would fit the lore of the story - but the SE-gamer in me thinks "too much pointless weigth!" and tries to persuade me to build differently. Structural integrity... yes, I alway thought that it might matter at some point so I built sturdy - similarily to ME style building with SI on. But it simply is not there atm. None of those features. Ask the crowd again if there is a need for it - and they will deliver, I am pretty sure of it.
Is structural integrity relevant in space, I mean, in environments without gravity? - No. No gravity pulling on the construction. You can build very long beams of armor without having to fear they will collapse under own weight. If you install a gravity generator, it is only affecting the avatar, but no other thing which is still drifting around if not attached by landing gear or pulled down by 'artificial block' weight.
On the other hand, something like structural integrity, or the loss of it, shows up with every collision, when material is being deformed.
The American Engineers' Council for Professional Development has defined "engineering" as:
The creative application of scientific principles to design or develop structures, machines, apparatus, or manufacturing processes, or works utilizing them singly or in combination; or to construct or operate the same with full cognizance of their design; or to forecast their behavior under specific operating conditions; all as respects an intended function, economics of operation and safety to life and property.
There are some things in Space Engineers that don't matter. What does matter is that if you construct something successfully given the limits imposed by the game engine, it will function predictably. You imply that there is no engineering possible with Legos? Or that engineering only occurs if something should burn up or fall apart?
Engineering is a process. It literally means "To contrive clever devices." It's simply making things that work. Sure, most things made in SE would not work in real life. That's not the point. They only need to work in the game.
You're forgetting inertia and thrust. Any force, not only gravity, will challenge the integrity of a structure. This may not be imposed in the game, but it is a fact in our reality.
I can sum this thread up in one word: Adeline Industries - “Style over Substance”.
Future tech materials should bear that. It is fine for ME to deal with structural integrity, in a time of wood, iron and stone with their limited capabilities. But we have better materials meanwhile, hardened steel, carbon fibres and what else. Last century they were shooting rockets into space, built in the technology of their days, sitting on tons of fuel thrusting them into orbit and beyond. So I think in the era SE is seen materials ought be even tougher and don't need the simulation ME is providing in regard of structural integrity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irresistible_force_paradox cannot be solved, so structural integrity will always be an issue as it is just property of the matter, how atoms bind. Just the forces involved are increasing with material upgrades ...
You can make some really silly things regarding the lack of any structural integrity. For example, two very large masses joined together by the flimsiest possible stick you could think of. Unbuilt armor blocks, interior pillars or conveyors. Doesn't matter. If you ram something with this, and hit one side onto (for example) an asteroid at high speed the flimsy joint will not break. In reality such a thing would snap very quickly due to various twisting or shearing forces, something (to my understanding) even medieval engineers does not deal with.
But I don't think it matters. Sure you can do silly things like that, but it doesn't help you at all really.
How right you are. When it comes to structural components, connectivity and joints (especially joint continuity) are always the biggest challenges.
Indeed, despite there being no engineering requirements for structural integrity I always make my builds as if there were. I could just stick a thruster on the side of my ship held on by nothing more than an interior pillar but I like to make it look like it is supported with pylons. I know that I only need 1 landing gear but like to have a minimum of 3, usually 4.
There used to be a mod that changed how thrusters worked in that they no longer automatically applied thrust at the centre of the grid mass so placement was important. I can't seem to find it any more though.
It isn't like it doesn't help in sticking your thruster pods on with more than interior pillar. If you did that, first thing anybody would want to do is shoot it off and you can count on it that that pillar would get wiped out by a stray missile even in a turret brawl.
Except PVP doesnt happen and NPCS target priority has thrusters way down the list but yeah, they would not last long.
There will never be strong enought materials to meet the requirements to fulfill mankind's imagination. Just take the orbital lift, the space elevator. We don't have one. Not because there is no interest in one or its costs, but the lack of strong enought material that wouldn't colaps under its own weight. BTW, I builded an orbital lift in SE, and it only broke the sim speed...
There are at least 2, Digi's Realistic Thrusters (https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=575893643) and Knsgf's Thruster Physics (https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=660333966) which adds a bit more complexity.[/QUOTE]
I think there are plenty of physics challenges to be had. Taking off of a planet and entering space without hydrogen thrusters creates an engineering challenge. It's not some radical problem. But you have to design with thrust to mass ratios that continually skew across different altitudes and planets/moons.
One of the other challenges I have added to my games is the Scarce Resources mod: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=831739660
It spreads ores around giving a reason to go to the other planets / moons. Starting on the Earth-Like suddenly requires more planning of power usage rather than finding a Uranium vein and being "set for life". That 0.3 you get from the drop-pods suddenly becomes highly valuable.
I agree completely. I played a workshop by Xanapoo that had no uranium (https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1337986775); that was great fun figuring out priorities. I made it more fun by adding the AI fix for wolves and spiders.
I created a local mod that made uranium refining inefficient (the amount of power generated from the refined uranium was less than the power needed to refine it). So all power slaved whatever was being generated via solar. This created a nice balance for growth. You couldn't expand your grid(s) faster than you could collect solar power. Reactor power becomes a premium use as well as large arrays of ion thrusters. Power management and efficiency become crucial factors in the game (as Spiff stated).
I like that challenge!
It's pretty easy, just edit the yield/speed for uranium in the refinery as a mod. In a test world I set up a refinery with a reactor and turned off the reactor with the reactor set to not use the conveyor system. In the reactor I placed 1kg of uranium. I then placed uranium ore in the refinery and turned everything on. Once the reactor has used up the 1kg of uranium ingots, check the refinery output for how much in uranium ingots were generated. If the yield is less than 1kg then you're on the right track. You can adjust yields and and speed of refining to taste. I find this the easiest way to tweak values as the refinery uses energy to refine the ore and running the math is always a pain versus using a practical trial.
Function over form, form over function. I want to see ships that can talk the talk and walk the walk. I generally try to make my ships accomplish what they set out to do well and look pretty while dosing so.
I generally try to make my ships accomplish what they set out to do well and stop there. I don't build 'em to be looked at.
But it can be said there is an ugly, clunky way to accomplish a goal, and an elegant, marvelous way to do so.
Therein lies the Beauty of engineering.
A rover could just be a brick with the wheels on the corners- and would be considered "ugly" -not just because it is simple, but because is it inefficient, impractical, wasteful, and may roll over or fail to go up a hill or over a pebble effectively.
A rover chassis that has more thought put into it, and can in fact scale over a boulder no problem, may be blocky and Orky still, but is now suddenly a beautiful thing.
To me; its not about graceful arcs or curves. Its about "wow! look at that contraption go!". In the end, a 1 wheeled Brick that can scale a cliff wall is what I call "a beautiful machine". That one thruster gyro chair = a beautiful deathtrap (but actually works.. if ya got the guts for it), etc
I think we all get that point. But the crux of the argument is great looking ships that don't perform... especially in vanilla. You get heavy armor ships that can't accelerate unless you have a couple of spare days. Then you have battleships that can be torn through like tissue paper. Designs that can be easily crippled in a shot or two... or have their interiors turned into a soup of free floating gyroscopes.
Yup, and you end up with the Starship Enterprise being just like toilet paper...both going around Uranus wiping out Klingons.
It's weird some people can't make a ship look good and preform at the same time. Without things like structural integrity, sloped armor, thrust induced torque, etc... actually mattering, the "engineering" requirements aren't all that steep in this game, and a ship's aesthetics are largely superficial in nature. Therefore, appeasing one shouldn't compromise the other unless you never cared about the other in the first place.
Form and function found: WHY?
Separate names with a comma.