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.

No point anymore

Discussion in 'General' started by Dwarf-Lord Pangolin, Oct 3, 2017.

Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.
  1. Dwarf-Lord Pangolin

    Dwarf-Lord Pangolin Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,597
    I've been waiting to release this tank for months, but between the wheels needing too much space again and a new blast door collision bug, I don't see any reason to keep trying. "Tank treads" using the bug that let us stack them really close to each other were unrealistic in implementation, but the effect was a realistic, and more importantly fun, vehicle; the bug should have been left in. And blast doors, once more, take up more space than they ought to; in fact they take up more space than they did before, even.

    I've got nearly 6,000 hours logged in Space Engineers, and I've been carrying a torch for this game for years, but I don't think there's any point any longer. Keen's dedication to the game's physics system has taken precedence over the game itself; they're unwilling to fudge things in the name of fun. Here's (one of) SE's problem in a nutshell, and please read this carefully, because this is a complaint I've heard from a lot of the other players, which is why I'm making this larger to stand out, because if you take nothing away from anything I've posted over the years, please take this:

    The physics system is sufficiently inaccurate that what it attempts to simulate by more realistic means results in ends that are less realistic than what can be achieved in games using less realistic means.


    Vrage + Havok just isn't good enough. Its limited means compromise its end. It tries to achieve realistic gameplay results by more realistic means than other games (e.g., wheels actually have individual friction and grip), but that system's failings are deep enough that the results are actually less realistic than games with less realistic means.

    I'm preparing to move to another game, that has a vastly less-realistic building system, because in that game I could build more realistic things.

    Keen, if you want to fix this game, just make it work, and fudge it a little.

    PS
     
    • Agree Agree x 7
    • Like Like x 2
  2. Logi

    Logi Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    170
    They could waste years of more dev time trying to get the physics system working better and all that time would just be wasted potential of what this game...(or sandbox as some like to call it) could be.

    I still have hopes for the survival revamp, being in development for so long, but I have this feeling that it's been in development for so long because most of the team is doing something else, like trying to fix things that can't be fixed.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  3. FoolishOwl

    FoolishOwl Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    523
    I look at the feedback site, and mostly, it makes me sad. It's like a contest to see who can imagine the change that would be simplest to implement.
     
  4. damoran

    damoran Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    608
    Pretty much what I've been saying on various threads for two years.

    1) Figure out your functional blocks, if you can't get it to work, replace with something that does.

    2) Give us something to do with our creations, i.e. work on the game world and/or survival gameplay challanges

    I'd be absolutely ok with this being two games, firstly, a ship designer/builder game and second an open world survival game in which to use and test those designs against various challenges. Ultra realistic physics simulation is cool but not worth ditching all the other major gameplay aspects to me.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  5. Ronin1973

    Ronin1973 Master Engineer

    Messages:
    4,965
    The real challenge in the game is working around all of the bugs.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Funny Funny x 1
  6. FoolishOwl

    FoolishOwl Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    523
    As @Dwarf-Lord Pangolin pointed out to begin with, it's not that it's realistic. It dispenses with realism in obvious ways; e.g., speed limits.

    That one's not so bad to deal with, but it's not long before you bang your head into things that seem conspicuously missing, that are missing because of the peculiar overemphasis on specific aspects of the physics engine.
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2017
  7. FlakMagnet

    FlakMagnet Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,551
    Wheels are a REAL case in point.

    1) Friction.
    Whatever they are modelled to be made of, it certainly isn't rubber. This wasn't an issue when they first introduced them because nobody built anything with them much and there were no wide open spaces to drive on. So they gave us planets....and we realised wheels were horrid. The years have rifted by and they are still horrid. They have no grip. Test this in a simple way by building a small rover and trying to drive up a slope. Before you get to a steep slope....you find you cannot get up. Then build a simple rover using wheels attached to rotors instead of the suspension units. Now you can climb hills......

    2) Stopping on a hill.
    Real life vehicles come equipped with a parking brake. A clever device the driver can engage that stops the wheels going round when he gets out. That combined with 'rubber' for tyres, rather than teflon, means you can park on a resonable slope....and get out. Your truck will stay where you left it. No. Not in this game. Your truck will roll away. At one point...they stopped rolling away briefly and just slid away. Now we are back to rolling and sliding. Again....use rotors and wheels and when you stop the truck stops. Just do not turn off the power.....

    3) Voxel collisions.
    Drill an area of ground, and you get a surface you can barely drive on. I understand the collision model uses lower detail voxel layers for collision detecton where the ground is altered. It's like driving up and down stairs.

    It just means wheeled vehicles are impossible to use on large parts of the world, and unpleasant to use in a lot more. They do NOT work as expected. Ask anyone who has EVER driven offroad whether it's actually as SE models it. You can get up slopes, and with vehicles purpose built for offroad ( we have no damn roads....but that's another complaint ) it should not be this bad. Fix them....or remove them.


    Compare this with Planet Nomads. Another block building open world survival game. With deformable voxels. The wheel mechanics are much simpler, but the things WORK. It's fun to drive. Steep slopes slow you down, and when they get too steep, the wheels stop gripping and you start sliding backwards. It's a cruder simulation of driving without the setting options, and they have much less complexity in terms of block damage etc. But As the OP posted....complexity and detail are useless if the thing DOES NOT WORK.

    In terms of developer interest....I have not heard/seen any evidence that this is even being looked at.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Late Late x 1
  8. halipatsui

    halipatsui Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,253


    Now you have (teaser)
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. Dax23333

    Dax23333 Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    657
    Most vehicles i've made the parking break is bad. One, oh dear oh dear is it awful. A giant 8 wheeled rover, complete with refineries, assemblers etc and I have to stop in a dip or it will roll down undetectable hills with the break on. Parking sideways on a hill has become normal for space engineers vehicles, because if you park up it you just slide back down. Its very annoying, you can see the wheels turning around as the useless break does nothing.
     
  10. FlakMagnet

    FlakMagnet Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,551
    Sorry...but no I haven't.

    That 'teaser' shows what exactly? Improvements to friction, grip or parking? nope. They drove a buggy on flat ground with debug graphics showing. They have shown nothing since on the subject and it got no mention on the follow up KSH stream Xocliw mentioned, becuase I watched it. I would love to think they have re-worked wheel physics, but I sincerely doubt it. The fundamental issue was the use of a spherical collision model for wheels in Havoc, not a cylinder. It will never model grip correctly. The cylinder was too 'facetted' and gave a bumpy ride. Our wheels have a tiny contact patch. I have no clue why the brake is so horrid though...but even if you stop the wheels, the lack of grip will have you sliding down the hill with the brakes on anyway.
     
  11. Farindark

    Farindark Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    418
    Greetings

    Well I guess so many people shouldn't have screamed about SE NOT having enough realism? I've sat and watched SE get crippled by realism demands for correct physics and science. Soo many posts in these forums with calculations and links to scientific principles and spreadsheets. I still play but much of the casual fun has gone and I no longer play it anywhere as near as much sadly. It's not a Simulation it's a game...at least it was. :(
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  12. halipatsui

    halipatsui Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,253

    In teaser you can pretty clearly see improved wheel physics. They just have not been implemented yet.

    Skins came like bolt from clear sky they were not even teased as far as i know.

    I think keen keeps many things for themselves to create that BOOM when they make updates.

    They just want to do it again.
    We for dxamplr dont know awfully lot about survival revamp.

    Just sit back. Report bugs if you play and enjoy the game.

    For me it seems like keen is doing their work nicely since i dont know how complex some of the longer persisting bugs are.
     
  13. FoolishOwl

    FoolishOwl Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    523
    I'd been meaning to look at GoodAI; I'd wondered if there might be hints about working decent NPCs into Space Engineers, for instance. But, it was not what I expected.

    All the complaints about the lack of a roadmap for Space Engineers? Look at this roadmap for creating human-like artificial intelligence, "as fast as possible."

    Long rant deleted, this suggests to me that at least one person important to the development of SE is prone to wildly unrealistic projections.
     
  14. Forcedminer

    Forcedminer Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,227
    wildly unrealistic projections can be fun though...they can give or take hope.
    and ever since i played event[0] the thought of AI comforts and saddens me.
    since event[0]'s main selling point was its AI. more less advanced chatbot but immersive enough to pull me in.
    [also it was set in space so...yeah go space!]

     
  15. FoolishOwl

    FoolishOwl Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    523
    There's that. I may have made too much of it.
     
  16. FlakMagnet

    FlakMagnet Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,551
    The real issue is the degree to which a particular issue affects a player, compared with the perceived level of ease to fix.

    Some bugs people accept are hard to fix. Like multi-grid interaction. People may get annoyed at how badly things work in MP when the game tries to spin/slide or otherwise control the multiple grids moving in multiple directions....but you can understand how tricky it can be to balance that with acceptable performance. It works OK in single player most of the time...but when you think about the issue...it doesn't come across as an easy thing to sort.

    Speed limits annoy others, but enough people realise it's a game engine limitation imposed to avoid problems and that it cannot and will not be 'fixed' as it's done on purpose. There are workarounds, and people have to accept that they will be glitchy. It's understood and common knowledge.

    When it comes to things like wheels for me .... I don't understand why it isn't fixed. I don't understand why it is so difficult to resolve. Perhaps if it was explained, it would be easier to accept.
     
  17. FatalPapercut

    FatalPapercut Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,197
    I can certainly sympathize with game issues preventing the release of builds, but for me it's actually on a much simpler level than physics wonkiness. I've been on hiatus for a while just watching as SE has continued development as soon as I noticed the trend, and honestly...I just don't see how things are getting better. Don't get me wrong, the game appears to run a lot smoother than back when I was in and building every day, but recently I simply have no confidence that anything I make will remain a reliable build week after week.

    Take for example a small grid shuttle I made; the Falchion-B. Fairly simple personnel transport with gull wing doors to the troop bay and folding wings for tight storage spaces (both operating via the conveyor hinge mod). For the longest time, I could copy paste the shuttle anywhere that had at least the hinges mod, and expect it to fly exactly as intended. Then one day, I hop back in game and load the world where I save my Falchion variations, and every single one of them had their hinged doors violently ripped off, floating nearby, and significant damage done to the ship all before I had even fully loaded in. Pasting a new blueprint caused the ship to convulse and the doors to break immediately so I couldn't see if there was some kind of collision issue, and trying to load the world with damage off refuse to even load at all. Worst of all, the damage also destroyed the cockpits, meaning that simply rebuilding the doors wasn't an easy fix option. What's even stranger is how the hinged wings were unaffected, and a similar (though not identical) hinged door setup on a different build had no issues at all.

    Was this a bug? Some kind of new rule for how blocks interacted that I was unaware of? Is it something that would be hotfixed out the next day, or would I have to scrap the design altogether? Hell, if something that had been stable for so long could break like this, how could i be sure that ANYTHING i made wouldn't suffer the same fate, where I would load in to a world and find weeks/months of work tumbling around as unrecognizable debris, for, from my perspective, no discernible reason?

    I have some stuff I'd like to put on the workshop, but with things the way they are, my warships, which would come with an included Falchion, wouldn't be accurate to what I wanted to present to people. I know in-development games need some leeway as they're put together, but shouldn't the foundation of those games be rock solid and locked in before anything else is added on top? I can understand how physics bugs and inconsistencies can ruin some builds that rely on specific mechanics, but if the simple act of building the most basic of moving parts can't be counted on, then really what do we have left?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. FlakMagnet

    FlakMagnet Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,551
    On the one hand ...people will say 'it's early access .... things get broken and things get fixed.'

    but on the other hand .....

    A little bit of care for the existing playerbase wouldn't go amiss....and i am seeing less and less of it. Keen streams, update videos, and regular streaming from Xocliw on features, bugs, bugfixes and development. All used to be regular, now not so. There was a focus on testing and fixing...but it's pretty much just Red active on the forum fielding replies.

    As it's in Beta, the focus should be on bugfixing and optimisation. Nobody knows if this is the case. So people get disheartened and drift away.
     
  19. halipatsui

    halipatsui Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,253

    How can it be unclear they are focusing on bugfixes and optimizations?

    They have made quite significant improvements like multi threading in last few months.

    They drop a new feature every now and then. Quite interested to see what anniversary update will bring with it
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  20. Captain Broadstairs

    Captain Broadstairs Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    469
    I can tell you why that happened.

    Whenever a rotor was pasted ( you may noticed it since I assume the rotor was destroyed ) it was having +11cm displacement added to it. I spawned a lot of my creations with damage disabled to get to the bottom of the mystery and every time i reset the rotors and got it working again, any time the blueprint was pasted the same thing would happen again.
     
  21. Carrion

    Carrion Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,409
    [​IMG]

    You see this? just look at it its a total brick. you see the gun turret at the back thats rotated around? thats PRE rotor rotation, the lengths i had to go to to make something spin on a pin was something to behold. yeah this build is dead and gone because they have improved things THAT MUCH,. hell this image was a case of finding a place where the ramps didnt glitch out visually.

    or how about

    [​IMG]

    this was a piston mining rig of old. that needed a whole hoast of landing gears to hold things in place seriously that slab was cutting edge and boy the issues we built around. Hell conveyors wernt even working then.
    followed by

    [​IMG]



    And wow when we got wheels and rotors. i mean we had locomotive forceif you had the wit to apply it. not very usefull forces i grant as it was speed and on/off with no limits or power levels. but Wow look at it. i mean we had conveyors and ejectors and collectors so at least we could mine with it as long as the collectors didnt fail due to quantity of materials being let loose and refuse to play Oh wait that was fixed. and then they game me Pistons. Glorious Glorious Pistons. My prettys, My preciouses. I shalt carry on bending you to my evil will. Anyway.

    as to automated production in survival. Well my laddies and lasses. this was at the time black magic. i mean managing 3 axis controls from a SINGLE control station. no remote controls then. Oh wait there hasnt been any improvements in the game at all. and all is doomed.
    [​IMG]

    I remember in the first MP release chasing a Dysincing Dildo shaped ship around because the material costs were so high as random pirates just got given some guns and we couldnt hit the side of a barn due to the desync issues. seriously we spent about an hour trying to get it to slow down enough we could take control. and more respawns than i want to consider.

    Oh wait thats improved as well.

    No guns, no colours. bare bones models, no o2, no lights, no beacons. BEACONS with GPS we dont use them but WOW the first beacon release. . it was light a shining star of brilliance quite literally . you couldn't even look near it for brightness same as the first release welders. Jesus i get Arc Eye just remembering it. it was Helishly bright and you needed to cover the screen to weld something. realistic. Yep playable. Nope.

    Projectors? Wow what a god send. no more having to remember where to put shizzle. it was there. merge blocks? Wow i can unbreak my ship. you wont appreciate it because its been a long slow improvement hill. but yeah. things are only getting better. this Blast from the past brought to you By Me.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  22. FatalPapercut

    FatalPapercut Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,197
    The joint was a conveyor hinge from the mod, not a vanilla rotor.


    I've always known the hinge to be a solid block, infinitely more so than the rotor, with no wobble during movement, and best of all no displacement to worry about. The hinge mod had become a staple in every new world I made, and I essentially boycotted using the rotor due to its legendary unreliability.
     
  23. Ronin1973

    Ronin1973 Master Engineer

    Messages:
    4,965
    Has anyone looked into modeling larger rotors and pistons? While a 3x3 or 5x5 rotor or piston would limit where they could be placed, it seems a bit ludicrous to hang a million kgs of grid off of something so flimsy.

    Perhaps the problem with rotors and pistons is trying to make a poor design work?

    In the game vehicles and grids are much heavier than their real world equivalents would be. So rotors, pistons and wheels are probably overtaxed and under designed for the masses that they are moving.
     
  24. Oskar1101

    Oskar1101 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    232
    Size doesn't matter, because subgrids(rotor/piston heads) are connected to main body by single joint, not whole side.
     
  25. Carrion

    Carrion Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,409
    i have used wheels in the past as a cylindrical bearing to help to reduce flex. .
     
Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.