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.

Should thrusters need to be conveyored?

Discussion in 'Suggestions and Feedback' started by Igneous01, Feb 11, 2015.

Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.
  1. Igneous01 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    266
    I'm finding it a little too easy with building a ship, because there are very little restrictions on thruster placement. It would be nice if we had a fuel component to the game (maybe a transformed Uranium ingot converted into some sort of fuel source for thrusters).

    Conveyoring thrusters would add more limitations/rule set for us to overcome. It adds another layer of internal engineering for us to work with. Currently its very easy conveyoring a reactor with some cargo containers and a connector. It also doesn't take up that much space to begin with.

    With thrusters requiring conveyors, we would need to plan ahead where our thrusters would be placed, and it also provides a limiting factor as to how many thrusters we can reasonable apply to our ships.

    What do you guys think? Should thrusters be conveyored?
     
  2. Malware Master Engineer

    Messages:
    9,625
    The more engineering required, the better, that's what I say. And I agree that it should help enforcing more realistic ships. I would also like some sort of fuel system for ships. That would also be another thing that makes a difference between an asteroid based station and a ship.
     
  3. Ulfsark Master Engineer

    Messages:
    3,057
    If and when the double block placement thing gets implimented from ME into SE, and stead of the big bulky conveyor tubes we have smaller (for the large grid) fuel lines, then i'm totally on board with it. Also assuming, we get a smaller armor block that can go side by side with the fuel line. In other words, yes, i agree, but I don't want it to be overly bulky.
     
  4. blizzerd Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    478
    How about large thrusters yes, small ones no? Or maybe all thrusters but connecting them is not nessecary, but doing so increases efficiency and output? (so its not absolutely nessecary for some ships where it would be undesireable) You could even change behaviour to thrusters rigged to the "grid" getting power priority over thrusters that are not.

    it would add more "meat" to the difference of applicability of the thrusters instead of just "connect em up, yo"

    I really like this though, and it has real life equivalence in that thrusters or engines almost ALWAYS have dedicated heavy duty and "separate from the other power distribution" drive shafts or power conduits on ships or larger vehicles like tanks.
     
  5. Igneous01 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    266
    this ^ plus it would give us a reason to use multiple medium cargo containers on our ships. Right now 12 small cargo containers is enough to store typical ammo loadouts. This may in turn lead to large small ship sizes to overcome fuel capacity for thrusters to operate. Then Uranium can be spent on just managing power.
     
  6. blizzerd Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    478
    I dont understand your interpretation of my post.
     
  7. Igneous01 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    266
    Sorry, Was responding to your last statement regarding dedicated storage for thruster fuel/power. Was adding that it would give us a reason to want to add more cargo containers to ships to supplement fuel and ammo.
     
  8. blizzerd Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    478
    i was talking about conduits, not storage.

    Basically a large cable used only to move power from the generators to the thrusters because the normal power grid does not allow for such high voltage to be transferred without shortcirquiting everything.

    not storage or generation, just "dedicated power line" (represented by conveyor connection in this game) that ingame would allow the thrusters to work at current efficiency, not connected thrusters would work at "reduced" efficiency and thrust.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 11, 2015
  9. Immersive Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    122
    If you're familiar with Minecraft, the EnderIO conduits would be a good example.
     
  10. Filup Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    23
    If they would have to be the normal conveyour system, then I would say no... just because it's extremely big. Iw they were to introduce a new "cable" or "fuel cord", one that would fit on blocks and still allow you to walk (like for example the lamp, or catwalk), then yes, I would like to see that. Right now the placement of the thruster is too simple. Building large ships is way too simple if you ask me ;)

    cheers!
     
  11. bladedpenguin Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    207
    <3 EnderIO

    Yeah, multiblocks would go a long way toward making this reasonable
     
  12. Killacyte Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,659
    Yeah, this is basically "multi-blocks or bust" for me. I like the added engineering, but not if we have to use current conveyors.
     
  13. Wintersend Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,095
    Put me down for a conditional yes.

    The conditions being that we get compound blocks and the large ship thrusters become half as efficient as the small ones as opposed to like the 10th or so they are at now.
     
  14. Andeerz Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    172
    I like this idea a lot!!!
    For bonus points... perhaps we could have different kinds of fuels with different efficiencies, thrust, etc. which could add another level of depth to the kinds of engineering and resource collection that goes on. Examples include hydrogen + oxygen, hydrazine, nitrogen tetroxide, and others!
     
  15. WhiteWeasel Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,086
    Conditional yes as well.
     
  16. Relkan Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    117
    I gotta vote nay on this idea. The devs have repeatedly stated that the thrusters were convection thrusters. All powered by electricity.

    Adding fuel and fuel lines just seems a bit too much.

    As I am not an engineer, I may have gotten the name of the thrusters wrong...
     
  17. Andeerz Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    172
    Thrusters that are powered by electricity still need propellant, which thrusters in this game do not use, unless we somehow imagine they are using uranium as a propellant, or spitting out enough thermal radiation or something like that to achieve the kind of force the thrusters provide, which at the power the reactors churn out in the game would be absolutely impossible or at least would require some sort of magic.

    No matter how the devs might justify the thrusters as they are now, the thrusters represent nothing even remotely realistic for what that is worth. And they ignore the most basic physical principles of rocketry, which in my opinion, for a game called space engineers, is absolutely absurd.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 12, 2015
  18. SenorZorros Master Engineer

    Messages:
    7,063
    I'd still love to see cables. thrusters requiring propellant also sounds good. however I think it would be better to implement a more efficient/powerfull/more-thrust-per-surface thruster which requires propellant instead of removing the old ones. some people might just want to make a cool looking ship without added complexity.
     
  19. aRottenKomquat Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    351
    I'd say yes, conditionally. For the current ion-style thrusters, no. But if they were to add other thruster types, like simple liquid-fuel rockets or more advanced fusion-plasma rockets, I'd say yes, because it will need to eject some kind of reaction mass.
     
  20. Apollon Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    57
    Where you can get the fuel? About gas-giant speech only on this forum. Extract oxygene from stone (in real life - sand = silicon + oxygene / Silicon dioxide) ?
    Iron ore contain from 25% till 57% of iron, remains is silicone dioxide and other. After extract iron from iron ore, where is remains from ore ?
    Space technology is very economical technology, all part must be used! But after Arc Furnance we have only clean iron.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 12, 2015
  21. Levits Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,122
    I'd also have to say that I'm against basic thrusters needing fuel lines. Not only can you consider the bulky nature of the armor blocks having more than enough room to run such lines, but they can also house all electrical wiring as well within them. Adding another block or line just for the sake of fuel doesn't make much sense to me.

    Now if there was a new, more powerful thruster or even as a booster for the default thrusters, then I'd say yes. Point being and as was said before, the thrusters we have now need only energy to run. Science and Physics aside, that is pretty much it without needing hardly any solid fuel source to run.

    If you wanted to get more power out of them or have a thruster that simply has a ton of torque then burning certain elements or materials would certainly be a way to do so and would also require a proper supply line to the thruster to get that material to them.

    And common, Oxygen and Hydrogen are some of the most abundant elements in the universe. Water and Ice are by no stretch uncommon materials in space and both are extremely reactive. You can go to any rock floating and chances are it's got ice on it somewhere... still not too sure about this helium 3 stuff but I think that's only good for fusion reactors or something.
     
  22. Andeerz Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    172
    Having conveyored thrusters and fuel are not mutually exclusive. In fact, i would be fine with fuel lines and wiring being abstracted out, with fuel just being assumed to make it to the thruster, though i would prefer having to have some connection...

    also, making things look cool without added complexity and having fuel and conveyored thrusters do not need to be mutually exclusive either. Making the requirements here toggleable isnt too difficult to do. Plus there is always Starmade...
     
  23. tankmayvin Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,863
    Making thrusters conveyor-ed with the current size of the conveyor system would be terrible. It might be interesting if fuel lines were compounded inside armor blocks though.

    But if you're using compound blocks I seriously question if the extra complication really adds to a more rich engineering experience, or if it just makes things more fiddly.

    Sometimes elegance/abstraction makes for a better game.
     
  24. blizzerd Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    478
    I dont really care about fuel per se, but connecting them up to conveyor belts to increase efficiency or max power does excite me.

    "because now they get extra power" or whatever lore you want to put on it
     
  25. Apollon Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    57
    Small size conveyor on large ship ? Need also fuel tanks, fuel extractor and fuel refinery.
     
  26. Hatchie Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    194
    Exactly this! Good idea for more engineering required to build, but in this state of the game it would be impossible to build small but good looking ships.
     
  27. DocMop Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    575
    Actually, I would like this as a serverside option.
    Combined with some kind of fuel.

    Or even better, two kinds of thrusters: Electric ones and fuel eating ones with conveyor. The latter should be more powerful while retaining the same size as the electric ones.

    Alternatively, a combined form where the thrusters work with electricity but get more powerful if fed fuel via conveyors.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 15, 2015
  28. KissSh0t Master Engineer

    Messages:
    3,529
    It would by cool if there were "Engines" that you would conveyor/connect up to thrusters...

    This would allow players to be able to make more powerful ships by using lots of engines connected up to specific thrusters.. for instance the thrusters that make you go forward... having too many engines connected up to too few thrusters might overheat and damage the thruster over time. there could be a heat amount that you cant let the thruster go past for example.

    Having more engines would require more power to run.

    You could have different types of engines.. high powered speedsters.. chunky utility types... military grade.. civillian.. all with different specs like thrust, weight, energy consumption, noise produced, noise types.

    It would be cool : >
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 16, 2015
  29. SenorZorros Master Engineer

    Messages:
    7,063
    meh, not complex enough :p
     
  30. KissSh0t Master Engineer

    Messages:
    3,529
    Need moer complex!
     
Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.