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.

Halloween Update 1.184.6 - Skin Crafting & Ghost Skin

Discussion in 'Change Log' started by flexx, Oct 26, 2017.

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

    Messages:
    1,253
    Rexxar also said that the issue is on his to-do list.
    This probably gets fixed at some point but rexxar seemed to think that its nowhere soon.
     
  2. SNBartek Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    4
    Little support for you. DLC and skin. I'm waiting impatiently for next major update.
     
  3. chrisb Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,425
    I'm looking forward to the anniversary update, sounds as though it could be exciting. ;)
     
  4. Ondřej Nahálka QA Lead Staff

    Messages:
    79
    Hey,

    already reported.

    Some grids are not affected by the thrusters, for example small / large armor block on landing gear in front of the hydrogen thruster:



    We are working on better solution for all of you.
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2017
    • Like Like x 5
  5. Ronin1973 Master Engineer

    Messages:
    4,532

    Using a box rather than a cylinder is understandable. Just shrink the size of the box to fit within the previous cylindrical bounding box.

    As far as thrusters affecting blocks below the surface, I can compromise on that... not happily... but yes.

    Being able to place slim blocks in front of thrusters allows for much more pleasing builds. I see this with large ion thrusters since the exhaust port is much smaller than the actual block 2x3x4. It also offers some level of protection for thrusters at the cost of additional mass. I find that to be an equitable and balanced trade-off.

    Would a smaller bounding box also improve sim speed even more (theoretically)? if so, then the compromise is easy.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  6. Mikiy Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    68
    I kinda don't like this silly monetisation in an EA game. I wouldn't mind paying for features tho, but it must be the RIGHT features.

    The right features are exactly those that got the most votes for in your own feedback portal.. in fact that feedback portal shows exactly whats going wrong with the development here. You consider and implement ideas that have almost no votes but you don't consider and start working on those that the majority of people seem to have voted for.

    Looking at some of the most wanted features on your feedback portal that i'd actually want to see too...
    - ladders,
    - compound blocks,
    - bases/derelict ships/etc.. actual reasons to go out there and explore the galaxy
    - expanded NPCs,
    - Biological needs/food/water/radiation survival stuff..
    [..]
    - linux server ...

    Start working on those.. take some months time to develop it properly and release each one as $5 DLC if you must, but i beg you, start working on the features that people actually asked you for.. instead of silly pay skins. Anyhow, i expect to earn disagree votes for saying that here, so go for it peeps ;p
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  7. Jackattack2604 Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    9
    If squares are faster to calculate with thruster Damage. Why don't you make it a smaller square?
     
    • Agree Agree x 5
  8. Thales M. Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    991
    It is not subgrid.
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  9. Whiplash141 Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    957
    Or if thruster damage performance is such a big issue, why not just make the damage a single ray?
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Dwarf-Lord Pangolin Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,597
    That's it. I'm officially done with this game. We've been asking for a proper engine system for years, we've been stuck with these ghastly, placeholder prefab blocks that entire time, and now the methods we've been using to get around this deficiency that should have been fixed before the game left alpha (which it's not ready to do) are broken.

    So yeah, I'm done. Bye.
     
    • Late Late x 3
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  11. Ondřej Nahálka QA Lead Staff

    Messages:
    79
    Sorry, my mistake, I meant small / large grid in special cases.

    Updated. ;)
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2017
    • Like Like x 1
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  12. darth_crunchus Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    239
    Bye :wave:
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  13. Thales M. Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    991
    In my screenshot, it is small block large hydrogen thruster. I just wanted to test it in creative mode.
     
  14. kingkrieg Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    161
    Im okay with this kind of small monetization, since its only on aesthethics, plus itl help the devs gain a bit more funding to keep their roadmap, however i would absolutely refuse this if it became some sort of pay to win scheme. such as special rifles or something that would make the game easier or "privileged".

    On the other hand, im absolutely against the thruster changes, it was already difficult to make the ships with large thrusters to be well protected and this change is just basically asking people in pvp to "shoot me here", i think there has to be another way to fix it, why does it have to be a giant square, or a cylinder on that regard?

    most, if not all of my ships have their thrusters armored, in fact, many of the workshop's creations have this scheme, i will not change my ships configuration.... so, for now ill be disabling thruster damage (much to my dismay) hoping keen decides to rollback or change once again this to something more acceptable.

    having said that, ill be happy to purchase the skin, it kind of resembles the "Calaveras" from the "Día de muertos" here in Mexico, its like paying for a Sandwhich or a Subway, except, this one lasts forever.
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2017
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  15. Jackattack2604 Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    9
    I'm Still Getting 1st person fighter cockpit issues.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  16. Timuroslav Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    163
    Personally, I couldn't care less about the thruster flame damage. Have any one of you people made a bonfire? I mean a REAL bonfire, taller than 3 people jumping? That fire will burn you without touching you from 2 meters away. But, the lack of warning is kind of an annoyance, but I don't believe it is as horrible as people make it out to be. Hydrogen thrusters should have flame cones proportional to their thrust. Then again, I would like a heads up before they did such a feature. I'd want to make some heat sinks.

    Do engineering in Space Engineers? :(
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 5
    • Like Like x 4
  17. krypt-lynx Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    175
    "working" is an universal reply for any issue.
    They need to revert this change, because this change have no sense:
    - it causes to many problems
    - it does not actually solves performance issue
    - I'm not even sure this issue existed at all
    --- Automerge ---
    > I mean a REAL bonfire, taller than 3 people jumping?
    It must work in different way is space, because you have no atmosphere to convect heat/redirect hot air. Also, thruster is directional in its nature. I'm used portative soldering-iron of torch kind: it feels warm in 5mm near the flame. Actually, this soldering-iron heating environment air less then electric one.
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2017
    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. Roxette Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,216
    Actually it works very differently, this is something amusing about this entire argument ... once the atmosphere is left behind, after leaving the nozzle the plume expands greatly in a broad cone, so in fact the potential damage area would be very much greater than the new in-game specification.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    However, making such a dramatic change with its implications for a vast number of long-established ship designs really justified much more notice and perhaps discussion before introduction. It is after all a game, and the change was for computational efficiency, not increased realism. This is Space Engineers, not Kerbal Space Program :)
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2017
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  19. halipatsui Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,253
    I would not mind hydrogen thrusters having something like this for some added power.

    It could be a good way to reward players for clever shape design considering larger damage areas.

    Afterall most of SE engineering comes (survival gameplay) in form of shape creating. Not really makinh something to work.
    Something like larger thruster damage area would be bit of both.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  20. captainbladej52 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    230
    If this will improve the game then that's cool. However what I find absolutely exasperating is that it appears thruster damage distance has yet AGAIN been changed with no official patch note of this change. It appears this is the 2nd or 3rd time this year that it has happened with no official note. The first was in 01.172 in which several players noticed the ion thrusters had been changed back in Feb 8 or around that time in the thread here. https://forum.keenswh.com/threads/0...ion-thruster-damage-distance-doubled.7392761/ Up until that point it was my impression that for Large Grid thrusters they were supposed to burn at 2 large blocks for a small thruster and 5 large blocks for a large thruster. Several other players noticed the issues and offered comments as well. The OP in that thread noticed that his ion thrusters were burning as far out as 4 large blocks in some instances. At the time the dev team did not give a definitive answer as to what it was supposed to be but simply said they were keeping an eye on thruster damage and may adjust if need be.

    Around July I started to notice the changes effecting my hydrogen thrusters on my large grid ships. At the time I was still under the impression that large thrusters were supposed to burn at only 2 large blocks for a small thruster and 5 large blocks for a large thruster. At the time I was under the impression this was a bug and produced a video for you guys that I gave to @I23I7 who told me he would investigate and let me know what was going on. It took him a little bit but a couple of updates after I initially made the report he did finally get back to me. It took a bit of back and forth but I finally asked him whether the official burn radius was supposed to be 2 large blocks or 3 large blocks in the post below. The full discussion can be viewed in the thread here https://forum.keenswh.com/threads/u...layer-feedback.7396639/page-8#post-1287067639

    After I asked the question in the quoted portion I23I7 responded with the following post.

    In his reply he confirmed that what I was seeing was indeed the correct burn distance and that Large Grid small thrusters should be burning at 3 large blocks. This was good because then we had an answer as to what was supposed to be the proper distances and could adjust my builds accordingly. He also made clear he would make sure that if changes were made to thruster damage in the future he would make sure that things were logged.

    Fast forward to this patch 1.184.6 and we get the note of thruster damage being altered. The change noted was the damage area being changed from a cylinder to a rectangular one. Okay cool we have a note on this one. I constructed a similar rig to the one I put in my original video back in July to test the new rectangular damage area. The rig consists of a singular oxygen generator to provide hydrogen for the trusters, conveyors to connect them, a platform to stand on, control panels for each thruster, and a reactor as a power source. For Large Grid Small Hydrogens, at full power as of the response I got in August, they were supposed to be burning at 3 large blocks out at full power according to I23I7. However what I'm seeing is that the Large Grid Small Hydrogen thrusters are burning at only 2 large blocks at full power. In a test I turned the thruster to maximum power and placed a block 3 large blocks in front of the mouth. After 45 minutes of solid burn, no damage was done to the block. When testing the Large Grid large hydrogen thruster, what I noticed was the the burn distance had increased from 5 large blocks to 7 large blocks. In my previous video and previous test from back in July and August they only burned at 5 blocks out under full power. If need be I can make a video to demonstrate my findings.

    So it appears that once more for the 2nd or 3rd time in a year, thruster damage distance has been changed without a patch note to demonstrate this. If the Large Grid Small thrusters are supposed to burn at 3 large blocks as I23I7 said then that one we can all chalk up as a bug unless he or another dev says otherwise so that one doesn't concern me as much. The one that does concern me is the change to Large Grid Large thrusters. Instead of burning at only 5 large blocks it is now burning at 7 large blocks. To test this I turned the large thruster to full power and left it sitting for 45 minutes as I did with the small thruster. If this is a bug then I trust the folks at Keen will roll out a fix as quickly as possible. If this is not a bug and was done intentionally, then that's the 2nd or 3rd time in a year that the damage radius has been changed without an official patch note, which is not cool. If we do not know what the official burn distances are supposed to be then we cannot hope to keep your builds updated properly and to be able to construct a build at all. I will assume this is either a bug or the note was left out on accident if it was intentional.

    Since I have an answer on the Large Grid Small Thrusters I will ask about the Large grid Large thrusters. What is the burn distance for Large Grid Large Thrusters supposed to be in terms of Large blocks? How many Large blocks in front of the mouth is a Large Grid Large Thruster supposed to burn? If this is a bug and it's not supposed to burn at 7 blocks then I will wait for a fix. If this is supposed to be burning at 7 but the note was left out, then that's not cool and I hope the notes will be amended to reflect the change. Either way this does not look good that this issue has cropped up yet again in such a short time span. By no means is this meant to take a shot at any Keen staff members, I simply find it frustrating that this issue has arisen again.
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Funny Funny x 1
  21. halipatsui Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,253
    It might also be possible that thruster values are bouncing around between subversions like welder range did few months back
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  22. Thrak Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    474
    Keen, don’t you think it’s time to post a table showing thruster type, grid size, block size, and damage distance?
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  23. Ondřej Nahálka QA Lead Staff

    Messages:
    79
    I know, just see the videos. :)

    Version 184.1
    -- small blocks are not affected at all




    Version 184.602
    -- large blocks are not affected at all
    (same situation for small blocks)




    The point is that your problem is not caused by the thruster changes. It is different issue.

    Version 185 (next major update)
    -- Here it is fixed; the thruster damage will be tweaked (we are working on it)




    Thanks for your report. :)
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2017
    • Like Like x 2
  24. Roxette Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,216
    Unrelated except seasonally, but because current moods may need lightening, I'll just leave this here...

    [​IMG]
     
    • Funny Funny x 4
  25. Venom415 Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    13
    wait I got a solution... what if we also made heavy armor blocks be immune to the outer thruster damage but not the direct center of the flame, I would imagine that the heavy armor being reinforced and strong; would also be made with stronger materials that would be more heat resistant no?
     
    • Like Like x 4
  26. Sarekh Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,103
    The problem with folks saying about bigger thruster damage radius "It's more realistic that way" is that we do not have sufficient options to deal with the "realistic" way. Armoured thruster areas are difficult enough to build as it is, especially considering their relatively weak thrust power. Now, there are multiple ways to deal with this, for example tiered thrusters or upgradeable thrusters or even modular thruster systems - but as it has been said, this is not KSP and we need a balance between realism and the freedom to build stuff, not just functional stuff but also things that look proper-ish.

    If there is only one version of each large and small thruster type then they need to grant a relatively large level of building freedom. Because this is a building sandbox game.

    If they want to increase the freedom and creativity then it would be able to go for more... let's say restrictive systems as well - as long as you can build around them.

    In any case - it should be always the rule that what you see is what you get - any thruster no matter what should only damage those areas the plume visibly touches - anything else is just not intuitive.

    [​IMG]
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  27. Ondřej Nahálka QA Lead Staff

    Messages:
    79
    From the change log:
    • removed delay of camera from forced first person view
    Before



    After



    Note:

    For now, it is fixed / only / for this case.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Informative Informative x 2
  28. Lander1 Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    44
    Going to add my two cents worth here on the thrust damage issues. We have materials that can stand up to the heat output of thrusters in the present day, I'd expect science would have improved even on this in 70 years time... What are the thrust cones on the thruster made out of for instance? Why don't they burn too?

    Very nice that Blast door blocks will be impervious but they're not very aesthetic are they? They're meant for making doors... not runways, and certainly not Engine cowlings... I'd suggest that in addition to the blast door blocks you make Heavy armor blocks AND Catwalks impervious to the blast. Catwalks could have cooling channels and heat sinks like the thruster cones do... or perhaps they are coated in a thermal layer like aerojel...

    Also printed timer blocks aren't keeping their actions.
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2017
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 2
  29. Meteo Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    37
    I do not understand this, I do not know where these developers want to go. I do not see why we have to present ideas of what they should do, when it is clear that the community is disgusted with the change in propellants. The only thing that has to be highlighted in this update is that they have had a bad idea, the propellers as they present them now eliminate a lot of gameplay, and we all know the gameplay has very little already. So I see a great work of people presenting ideas, schemes and drawings, but after all these developers do what they want, they do not care about realism, optimization or gameplay.

    What is clear is that they no longer know what to do so that the game progresses and they come up with these things that break even more the game, in order to say that "now the game works better than before."
    Well, gentlemen, no matter how good the game is, a lot of realism that you metals and everything that happens to you ... is of no use if the game does not entertain, has no gameplay, has no content, stays no more or less than in a mediocre and boring game.

    That is what you get with these sudden and absurd changes, confusing and further angering people. You take a lot of shit in development, the game is getting worse and has less and less playability ... And above you have to enter the forum to give you examples of what you do wrong, it seems that neither yourselves know what you want to do in the game, you have hit bottom and you do not know how to get out of there. And while the big community that you have is frustrating and mosqueando still more, follow this way ... now you break the creations of your community, multiplayer pitiful, the AI in your game is the worst thing that has seen in decades (and that your boss has a company subentioned with the money from the sales of the SE that is precisely about creating an AI) ...

    I love the Space Engineers, but really every week that passes is more painful to see what this has become ... and after 4 years you no longer have excuse to justify you do wrong and you do not learn that as the time progresses it still you are worse, and the community you have neither cares nor cares ... and my friends this community is the only one concerned about the game clearly. BRAVO AND SEGUID ASI DE MAL, to see if finally the Space Engineers are canceled and finally those who love the game we can rest in peace without having to continue imagining in which day it was finished.

    PS: By the way that you charge for stupid skins that there are not enough reasons already in the development of the game to be able to see how bad you are doing the development, and if we are few we really say what we think, but not because let's not be a majority, if not because those who think like me or surround what I think directly have surrendered and even go from telling you once again how bad you are doing. And it fucks me a lot that a game like the Space Engineers is in your hands, I hope Ken (who is never for what has to be) sell the game to another company that really has an interest in drawing the full potential that the game can offer. Because if it continues in the hands of those who are currently developing the game will never see the day of its departure in which everything works as it should and has content and playability to be considered a game. Meanwhile nothing goes on doing the goat with the development of the game ... sorry "beta of the game".

    Sorry my english I use google translator
     
    • Funny Funny x 3
    • Agree Agree x 1
  30. Captain Broadstairs Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    469
    Although this move is counter productive when Its encouraged me to replace all large grid large thrusters with internal Gravity drives. Whats the increased computation footprint there I wonder?

    Certainly more than thruster damage being cylindrical I would think?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.