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.

Engineers vs Beauticians

Discussion in 'General' started by Bullet_Force, Sep 7, 2018.

  1. Smokki Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    76
    I'd say, In SE making a build beautiful is much more challenging and requires way more thought put into the building process than just "engineering" functional build. Even more so if you make a beautifull build that also performs well. If I would just create a well functioning build it would take few hours, if I create a build that looks good and performs well, I can work on it for days or weeks.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  2. Ronin1973 Master Engineer

    Messages:
    4,476
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Funny Funny x 1
  3. May Rears Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    333
    They already did, they ripped off the design for the borg ships in Star Trek TNG :)
     
  4. Stardriver907 Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,415
    I'm not necessarily going to disagree with this, but there's a reason it's so challenging. In a vanilla SE game you build your hull with cubes. If you build your ship from the outside first you can get it to look the way you feel it should look, and most people that saw it would agree. However, those cubes take up interior space, and if you plan on using the interior of the ship as well you will run in to... problems. One can clearly see Keen's initial approach to ship design leaned toward ships intended to be operated by a single player that would spend all of their time in the cockpit flying it third person (Big Red and Big Blue). The "ugly" vanilla ships are the little miner and fighter, and all the spawn ships. The spawn ships have interiors so you can spawn in them, so the interior space came first and the outside look is a consequence of creating interior space. Cargo and pirate ships look cool because they have no interior space. Big Red and Big Blue are "large" from the outside, but quite cramped in the inside.

    Since most of my ships are designed to have a crew, they are large in order to have the required interior space. I'm generally reluctant to cover what works with yet another layer of blocks, so I forego the sleek and aesthetically pleasing shapes popularized by fiction. I do though, whenever I can, use modded blocks to enhance the appearance of my ships both inside and out.
     
  5. Keten Kennek Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    41
    +1 I agree completely. I will admit there is 'architecture' to creating a beautiful ship - my my philosophy is 'form follows function'. Alas, I create bricks (but I'm getting better!).

    What really grinds my gears is the constant deluge of Star Wars/Star Trek/Stargate/Avatar/(insert fanboi genre here) that is over-voted and clogs the workshop.
     
  6. Spaceman Spiff Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    553
    I especially like some of the "grid" ships such as Large Grid 1538 and Small Grid 2674. My personal favorite is Large Grid 5248, although Small Grid 9551 is pretty awesome, too. Oh, and I forgot to mention Static Grid 2327!
     
  7. domingo Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    23
    I propose challenge: get that "Large Grid 5248" to most popular items ;-)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Stardriver907 Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,415
    To be fair, the standard game doesn't give you much to work with. A cube, a corner, an inverted corner, a 1x1 slope, a 1x2 slope, 1x2 corner and 1x2 inverted corner. It got better when they (almost reluctantly) added the half cube and half slope. It's not that you can't make interesting ships with just those blocks. It's just harder to get there.

    You got a problem with bricks?
     
  9. RIPerKilla Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    136
    This topic is something we argue about a lot with my friend, so i couldn't just pass by.

    The thing is, "Only the Siths deal in absolutes". And i see quite a lot of dark side in this topic, lol.

    Don't get me wrong, I don't like ships which only purpose is to look good.

    Though, people who strive for "efficiency over form" seem to equate it to strive for perfection. But true perfection lies both in form and essence.

    Program block aside, there's really not much variance in what one can do with vanilla tools. Number of goals and "top efficiency" solutions is quite finite if you are so unwilling to pursue any form of beauty in your builds.
    You can build a ship with least amount of blocks possible for it's purpose and high chances that it will look like shite. Don't be surprised if people will call it so, then. I, personally, wouldn't even call it "engineering", also in most cases this approach is not challenging at all.
    However, if you start adding requirements for your build such as form, interior features(or simple ..eh.. "walkability" and access to some stuff. Catwalks, etc), dimensions, you actually add challenge and have higher chance to create something beautiful and interesting. Some people also critically miss good handling and other kinds of performance in their "efficient" builds. Too high time cost of task performed by your build can fully negate all your so-called efficiency.

    That said, I can imagine ships without hull at all being beautiful. Or fascinating. Is quarry rotary excavator ugly? Quarry dumpers? Tanks, military trucks? Maybe, and some of them are for sure, but most of them are kinda breathtaking and/or badass anyway (and for sure not "ugly" imo). That's what I call "beautiful" regarding machinery. They don't have to look like new Mercedes. Though some of the builds rightfully can, and it will be good too.

    Also mods. Good mods are love, good mods are life. They don't necessary take away your need to "engineer", they can provide you with the variety and tools absent in vanilla.
     
  10. Spaceman Spiff Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    553
    Mods are wonderful until they don't work, and then they're not. Unless mod creators keep their mods up-to-date with each new release of SE, users are prone to spend a lot of time creating a "thing of beauty" that is broken with the next revision. That's my only hesitation for using mods with SE still being as fluid as it is.
     
  11. RIPerKilla Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    136
    True. Though I, personally, am willing to take the risk. Also I kinda like making revisions of all my builds. Usually it improves them a lot and makes me busy for some time.
     
  12. Ronin1973 Master Engineer

    Messages:
    4,476

    Arguing the walkability or ergonomics of a build is probably the weakest of arguments to tackle. When engineering, you're taking mass vs. thrust into account as well as maximum rotational speed (which involves mass as well as the maximum length from the center of gravity). We do get some 'beautiful" builds that accelerate at 0.1 m/s^2 or warships built with no consideration to surviving a moderate attack. That's the crux of the thread. Beautiful ships versus ones that perform in actual competitive gameplay.
     
  13. Calaban Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    597
    This discussion is interesting in how it shows different opinions on what "beautiful" actually means to each of us.

    Maybe its a guy thing. But this truck:


    Could be a rusted out, Bolt and barb wire mess of junkyard scrap with dog pee on it. But after watching it GO...

    just.. WOW. Bee-Eee-Ayy- EAUUUTIFUL!!!

    but.. maybe its just me. I mean its a tough choice- 2 minutes left before internet dies forever: watch this? or Gwen Stefani Music videos?
     
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2018
    • Like Like x 1
  14. RIPerKilla Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    136
    Tell me, do you really build cubes? Because cube has all equal dimensions which is good for angular speeds, can attack any target with 2-3 turret decks at time, can be fairly good armored and can have equal thrust in every direction. Also it's the best variant for maximum internal volume utilization and it has cockpit in the very center, with only the boarding shaft leading straight to it, aha.
    If we'll follow only "engineering requirements" you just stated, the crux of the thread will be "Tryhard pvp minmaxers" vs. "Those who by any means dislike flying a cube with turrets".

    Also, since you read my post up to "walkability" you sure should've noticed 3rd sentence where I specifically state that I dislike "looks-only" ships.
     
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2018
  15. domingo Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    23
    Spheres are better in almost all your points !
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. Oskar1101 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    197
    Not in cube grid based game.
     
  17. Spaceman Spiff Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    553
    I’ll see your “cube grid based game” response and raise you a “cube-spherical configuration.”
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. Stardriver907 Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,415
    @Oskar1101 ,@domingo , The universe we live in suggests that a sphere is what you get when all forces are balanced, making it the best possible shape for most purposes. The "Universe Engineer" does not use right angles. The Space Engineer can only use right angles, and therein is either the problem or the challenge, depending on how you look at it.

    When you see a ship in Space Engineers that you and a whole lot of other people consider beautiful, you can bet that the person that built it was all like Michaelangelo at the Sistine Chapel. The only way to get around using cubes to make curves is to increase the resolution, which in SE means "build bigger." For some people that means very large small grid ships, which is why Keen made large grid blocks (so people wouldn't make large small grid ships cause, performance) but giant blocks cause their own problems.

    In an attempt to demonstrate, I modified a well-known vanilla ship and published it in a world that only has the four or five mods I used.
    https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1543066152
    [​IMG] Spawn yourself in and have a look at both ships, then think about what you would build if you had more block options.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Calaban Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    597
    Engineers build in cubes because we value the flat level, the straight line, the 90 degree perpendicular angle, etc... so that when we build any sort of shape that loops back around to itself, that reconnected far end -wonder of wonders!- lines up along all 3 axes still. Anyone who has ever built something by hand knows how simply incredible that far end meet up can be- if and when it ever actually occurs.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. iN5URG3NT Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,132
    The Python is not a battleship, it is a destroyer, hence the label. It is also not over 20,000,000Kg, it is less than 5,000,000Kg

    Heavy armour means greater mass resulting in slower acceleration and slower turning speed. I find distributed systems, especially power, to provide decent durability without sacrificing excessive amounts of speed and maneuverability. I generally use heavy armour sparingly, primarily for armouring the CIC and for a skeleton in larger vessels.

    I also find it unusual that you would use the Python as an example of style over substance, as it incorporates a large grid reloadable long range optically guided hydrogen missile system. The first of it's kind on the WS I believe. Not a reinvention of the wheel, but a reasonable "engineering" accomplishment I'd say.

    Perhaps you have a link to your own work? I am curious to witness your own undoubtedly incredible engineering achievements. No doubt I will find myself overwhelmed by their ingenuity.

    +1 For the sentiment about replicas though.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  21. Sarekh Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,038
    burrrrrrrrrrrned
     
  22. Ronin1973 Master Engineer

    Messages:
    4,476
    I like engineering features into ships that offer convenience and logical accessibility. The physical engineering is pretty limited in the game. But logical engineering is always fun... based on presumed needs and activities of the user. I've had a theme of missile launchers that can weld up their own varying missile types from projectors. The recipes for the missiles are figured out, then using TIM (even though now it's kind of broken) and some basic scripting, being able to redefine the load-out for cargo containers on the ship on the fly. So when the end user docks with a supply ship, they can automatically pull-in all the components for their particular mission.

    Example: the load-out for space missiles verses atmospheric missiles is quite different. So the ship can adjust its cargo needs for that particular mission without carrying excessive amounts of redundant cargo.

    I also like setting up custom menu systems with an LCD and using three or four toolbar buttons. Being able to do things like pressurize/depressurize certain areas, open hangar bays, reconfigure thrusters, is a lot easier when scrolling through a menu than trying to remember what exactly the fourth icon on the third toolbar of the middle flight seat does.

    My point is that engineering can also be ergonomic, logistical, or even heuristic to avoid steep learning curves aboard a new ship...
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  23. dispair Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    225
    I refuse to pilot a shoebox. My ships tend to look nice. They all have interiors, most have full airlocks, button panels for easy use. 1 or 2 levels to keep them simple. My ships tend to include what you would think, small ships include a cockpit, larger ships include a full bridge. They have repair ships and tugs. I usually leave out rp stuff like crew quarters.
    All this stuff is engineering too.
     
  24. Stardriver907 Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,415
    When I build a ship, I attempt to make it as realistic as possible (which is why I often resort to using mods). I believe that any ship that is expected to spend extended periods away from any port or support vessel should have crew facilities. For me it's not a matter of whether or not those "facilities" will actually get used by a player. They're there because they should be there. I'm not going to skip that part of the building process in the hopes that it will mean better game performance. If I build a craft that has no crew facilities, it probably doesn't even have a cockpit and couldn't accommodate any human presence (aka a drone). When you build a spacecraft and take human presence out of the equation, you get a ship that has way less parts, is significantly smaller, and can usually be designed and built in a fraction of the time it takes to build a ship that may only have to accommodate one person.

    Incidentally, this is why fighter pilots all over the world are crapping their pants right now. Fighters are easier to build and run if they don't have to accommodate pilots. Won't be long before no nation will put manned fighters in the air if they're going to be shot down by more maneuverable drones that aren't afraid of death. It's very likely that by 2077 if we are waging war in space there will be no such thing as a manned fighter. But, we build them in SE cause fighters are cool.

    Anyway, I just bristled at crew quarters being referred to as "rp stuff". I totally understand why you don't build them into your ships :).
     
  25. Calaban Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    597
    I have never, ever. even once. laid down in a sideways passageway block. Ever.

    I may have once had cryopods coming up from the floor in a long row, though.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  26. Spaceman Spiff Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    553
    I confess. I did it out of desperation.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  27. anders w Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    173
    SE is not only about engineering. its about dreaming, thinking up contraptions and then play around with them.. like legos.. pretty or functional or both. its a matter of goal and taste :)
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  28. mojomann71 Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    728
    I haven't laid in them either but I have placed a few for the "look" :)
     
  29. Stardriver907 Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,415
    I didn't think it was possible to get your character to lay down, much less inside a passage block.

    I have noticed that I can no longer lay down in any of my bunk mods. The animation appears to be gone.
     
  30. Regn Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    74
    Practicality > Safety > Beauty.

    I do like making my hangar and flight deck feel like home, though, because I spend a lot of time in these areas.