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.

Things that make planets unplayable in survival

Discussion in 'General' started by Pyronymer, Nov 15, 2015.

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

    Messages:
    200
    I managed to jump inside to the center a planet using the gps coordinates. Turns out the origin (0,0,0) is the core of the earth-like planet. And you can warp to it for some reason. :D Live and learn...
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  2. BobbyHill Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    216
    I second this. This was a completely valid point that seems was over looked by BlackUmbrellas entirely. I thought this was a discussion not a venue to say you're "stupid so go away".

    So this open cockpit design idea... can it have a windshield? Pyronymer, will you be taking this to the suggestions page then?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. ben2150 Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    78
    Ok, first of all, Alpha and Beta are meant to be times when suggestions/opinions are shared openly. It provides feedback to the devs. Not everyone enjoys playing the game the way that you do. Now, onto the points.

    1. I completely agree. I think it should last around 30 seconds total with one tank. I agree that it shouldn't be the main form of transport on planets, but it should be a tad more useful than it currently is. Or at least slow you down after a reasonable fall.

    2. It wouldn't hurt to boost these a bit.

    3. I do think that batteries should have something done to them. Having all of the battery units turn to scrap seems a bit much. Maybe get the component materials back? Like ingots of what was used. Maybe for just 10% starting power as a balance. I can't imagine any decent engineer wasting such valuable resources.
    It also seems strange that this mechanic is only applied to batteries. Not that I am suggesting it for other devices. It makes little sense that batteries produce scrap.

    4. It wouldn't hurt to have the base just outside of drone range. That way, people can choose, or accidentally call attention to themselves.

    5. I agree that drone spawning needs some work. With certain numbers being drawn, at certain, or random intervals. Ideally, it would be interesting if the pirates varied their attacks based on the power of the player.
    Something similar to how Left 4 Dead worked. Also, exposure to the player. Or similar to how many games like Grand Theft Auto work. Where a player gains a reputation. With more hostile reactions depending on what the player does.

    6. This one would be tricky to change. I can't think of any good ways to improve this. Other than adding a slider that controls the speed at which the sun rotates. With the way the engine works, other solutions just don't seem possible.

    7 & 8. I don't know exactly how the devs set up ores. Ideally, there would be more ores near the surface with mountains. Since they kinda are supposed to be where the earth's crust has been moved up.
    Ore detection could certainly use some work. It would be great if there was some better form of ore detection for planets. The Minecraft method is just too boring and time consuming for this game.

    Balance, everything needs balance. We need to talk about what we think is unbalanced, and let the devs decide what should be changed. I really have been enjoying planets, and the game in general. The devs certainly deserve accolades for such a great job.
    That said, it does us no good to stifle constructive discussion of things people think are problems. All it will do is drive people, and money away from the game.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  4. BobbyHill Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    216
    I'll be honest this was the first thing I thought when I saw Pyronymer's complaint, but that is less intuitive than simply pressing T to operate it. additionally that means 2 block spaces which is a lot for larger ships. I don't know how much the chair and remote block weighs but it seems to be a better option to add an open air cockpit that's available on both small and large grids. Buuuuut then again we also can very well disagree which is also fine :D
     
  5. Ash87 Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,977
    Well apparently there is some hydrogen usage bug, where you can use the jet pack almost indefinetely on planets. That said, when used properly, yes, we have next to no use for jet packs on the planet.

    It should likely be increased.

    Well, they are undoubtedly more focused towards making downward facing thrusters over forward facing ones... and the controls can take some getting used to... but since the components to make them are so plentiful at start, and so cheap anyway... I haven't had any problems using them.

    They do consume a great deal of power... but then, power is much harder to produce on planets, since you don't have the crutch of Nuclear gens. So I can't really say whether they are Objectively worse than EMP Engines in deep space.

    This is categorically incorrect. You are given like... 400 solar panels, you need 128 solar panels to make 2 solar gens. You can recycle the other solar panels to get more than enough Si to make the batteries you need.

    Now the thing about "This is a temp ship" popping up even when they wont despawn, is annoying.


    I can't address 4 or 5, because I didn't waste my time with easy start (I prefer building all my own stuff, thank you).

    Haven't had any problems here. When it's night time, stick to the ground. That is what I've done.

    Now, there is the underlying... "There isn't much one can do in the sky out of risk of planting into a mountainside" that I am not going to deny... maybe we need like... night vision?

    ...Or you could just use a hand drill.

    Did you then get out a hand drill and look for the deposit when you were down 60m?

    Hell, why did you tunnel straight down, instead of making a shaft mine?
     
  6. Croolis Var Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    23
    Yes, I can agree about the cockpit. It's not so much a bug, as an oversight. It's easily managed, so I'm not sure why so whiney about it, but I agree that there should be a control panel tickbox to "depressurise". Of course, should you then fly into space with this box ticked then you should die like a fool :) . I also would like to see the red pulse around the edge of the screen to show you're taking damage, because for some reason unless I'm being blind you don't get that in the cockpit when taking suffocation damage, so you only realise you've forgotten about it when you get the audible "health low" message. I would also like to see an open air small ship cockpit.

    Someone earlier used the label "fanboy". Stop being ridiculous, most of the points raised by Pyronymer can be argued against quite sensibly without bias. As stated in my post earlier, I've owned this game since its first release (two years or more is it?) and I've played 86 hours, with about 25 of those hours since Friday. Hardly a fanboy.
     
  7. mhalpern Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,119
    I have to disagree about the cockpit thing, if you choose to use a cockpit (as opposed to RC and passenger seat) you can use an air-vent set to depressurize- on small ship ground vehicles, putting it on the front conveyor of the classic cockpit gives the appearance of a grill- making it both a small (but pleasant) aesthetic and serve a practical function, SE has a distinct lack of blocks that in addition to being functional provide that extra little detail that can give the most basic creations a little extra charm. Also the air vent mechanic gives pure atmospheric craft an advantage over exo-atmospheric craft provided there's oxygen in the atmosphere, you don't need to dedicate much space or mass to oxygen.

    Hmm now I wonder if they'll give any of the planets or moons a hydrogen atmosphere? If they do it will definitely be a hostile variety, and a very valuable asset- need lots of hydrogen for attacking an enemy planet? Go to a hydrogen moon, but stay too long and what you gain in hydrogen you may loose in ships or (if you're lucky) significant amounts of ammo, not someplace you'd stay for very long. I'm all for adding more risk vs reward situations, which is part of the reason I love all the challenges planets present, pirates excluded (Sabroids are at least a choice), on one hand, most of your power will come from solar, on the flip side of that coin wheels are a rather viable means of transport and they use very little energy, jet-packs aren't as useful- but you have plenty of surfaces to build from (be it actual construction or scaffolding), Natural gravity pulls ships down, you don't have to worry about powering gravity generators and mining with the hand drill is easier, you cant jump drive in or out (or your not supposed to be able to) is both a pro and a con, I wont discus mining difficulties because I believe its only a matter of time before that prospect is a non-issue.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  8. Argotha Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    134
    This is a game. This is not a simulation.

    This is an important distinction that many of you have failed to understand.

    Pyro's complaint about cockpits and air vents is valid. It is bad game design. It should be fixed. The idea that it's "impossible" to vent your cockpit because it's airtight is stupid. As was mentioned, an air vent can be used to pump air into it. Thus, there is a place in the cockpit that can be opened to let air through. Given that on the planet, there is air pressure, it stands to reason that simply opening said place would allow the natural air pressure of the planet to push the air into the cockpit.

    Someone mentioned that there are no jetpacks currently in existence in the present-day real world and implied that this fact makes it impossible for players in the game, Space Engineers, to fly a jetpack for longer than 7 seconds. That, is also stupid. In what year is this game supposedly taking place? Today? Pretty sure that's not the case. We have a device that can produce direction thrust solely from electricity. We have the capability to artificially create something that for all intents and purposes appears to be gravity. We. Have. A. FUCKING. Jump Drive.

    Ok, enough realism. Again, this is a game and not a simulation. Pulling the realism card is annoying, given that you clearly have no understanding of it's purpose, which is two-fold; to assist in the suspension of disbelief, and to enable players to relate to and intuit the mechanics of the world.

    Jet packs should be capable of longer-than-seven-seconds-of-flight. The normal movement system sucks. I don't mean to imply that is it merely subpar. It is horrible. Survival was initially designed with jetpacks in mind, so it is justifiable that the basic movement controls are horrible. Understand, I am not complaining about that horrible movement controls. I'm stating that they are simply so you might understand why jetpacks need to be more viable. Also, note, I have said more viable. I fully understand that jetpacks are not meant to be as powerful as they are in space and I also understand the goal to incentivize players to build craft to make normal tasks less tedious, so drop it. I am not asking for an absurd three-hour flight time. I'm asking for something between 30 seconds and a minute flight time, or making hydrogen bottles count as onboard fuel instead of us plummeting us to the ground for three seconds before the game realizes that the tank is empty and it should probably check to see if you have hydrogen in your inventory.

    Regarding scaffolding. Duh. However, again, the basic movement controls suck. Scaffolding does not always enable you to reach a given spot on a ship you're trying to build. In many cases, scaffolding is sufficient. However, there are cases where it is not, which is in part due to the lack of range when grinding/welding. Additionally, constructing the scaffolding often requires use of the jetpack in order to extend it to where you need it to go. This is due to the lack of a non-death-threateningly-perilous method of placing a block on the side of a block that you are standing on.

    Oh, and then there's drilling. The drill isn't long enough. I can't look straight down. Moving while crouching is stuttery. These three facts make mining by hand in gravity particularly annoying. When you're in space and you're mining, do you stand on the asteroid within your starter ship's gravity field, crouch, and look down so you can mine? No. You use the jetpack to orient your body parallel to the surface of the asteroid so you can mine it. This is a perfect example, and in fact the best, for how the jetpack enabled us to forgive the horrible basic movement.

    Well, I'll just build a ship and never do anything by hand ever again! Wait, I need to build a ship first. Ah, shit, I crashed my ship because <insert appropriate bug that causes your ship to randomly explode> happened. Now, I have to build another ship. Well, I'll just use my ship to make it easy to build the other ship. Wait, I can't do that because I DESTROYED THE FUCKING SHIP.

    Now, before you jump in here and say "well, you can solve that by doing this thing," note that I have not once said any of this is impossible. I did all of the above. I've destroyed my ship and had to cross a fucking mountain to get back to my main ship so I could build a crappy "just get me there" ship so I could haul parts over to repair the ship I broke (it was mostly salvageable, just needed to lift it up with pistons and slap some wheels on it). I play this game, too.

    So, jetpacks need to be more viable. The alternative is to overhaul the movement system and increase the range of drilling/welding/mining, by perhaps more than a meter. I thought just increasing jetpack time would be easier.

    But, let's say you just hate jetpacks because they're evil. Ok, how can we fix the movement system? Crouching needs to not bounce you up and down while you "walk". We absolutely need a way to place blocks on the side of a block we are standing on. The ability to grab the edge of a block and pull ourselves up be useful. Hell, grabbing the edge of a block could replace the need to place blocks next to a block we're standing on if we could actually just hang there and weld from that spot. A significant run speed increase would be really nice, or hell, give us rollerskates or skis and we can use the jetpacks to propel us across the ground more efficiently. But, dammit, you go a long damn way in a SHORT amount of time in a vehicle and when/if it blows up, you're just fucked. Have any of you actually RUN 19km? Over a mountain? That's how far my ship was when I crashed it. Also, the ability to walk up a step the size of a small ship block, or two blocks. And, for fuck's sake, the ability to ever-so-slightly adjust your momentum while midair. OMG NOT REALISTIC. I don't care. It needs to happen. I play with a keyboard. I have move-that-way, move-that-way-faster, and don't-move-at-all. The controls don't allow for my character to make precision jumps, but it is often needed when trying to stand on a small ship you're building, especially since if there's a SINGLE small ship block in your way, you have to JUMP to get over it.

    Or, you know, give us more jetpack time.

    Planets are awesome. Seriously, I love that they were added. But... There are issues right now. Again, I can and HAVE dealt with these issues and I have mostly overcome of them, so don't think I'm in here saying "it's too hard, I'm such a pussy". Cuz I'm not. I'm perfectly capable of performing the steps required to getting my first ship. I'm saying it's not fun.

    When I get a working ship, it's fun. I have a blast. Till I break it. Which, you know, happens sometimes.

    Btw, the night IS too dark. Is it consistent with certain areas of the real-world planet on moonless nights? Sure. But it's too dark. Just a LITTLE brighter, please. A.K.A. not pitch black.

    There's something else I wanted to say, but I can't quite remember it, so fair warning: I'm probably gonna come back and rant about other shit later.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  9. Argotha Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    134
    Oh, hey. I remembered.

    Remember how this is a game and not a simulation? When given a choice between two methods of acquiring resources/progression/currency/what-have-you, how do players almost invariably choose which method to use? The answer: The easiest or the fastest. Or, hell, both.

    Pyro brought up a hugely important point; asteroids are definitively better than planets. The resources are more easily accessible. The resources are more plentiful. The cost of attaining the resources and general maintenance (like fuel) is cheaper. In fact, once in space, we all know there is nothing that will force us to go back down to a planet.

    So, remember this is a game, where is the incentive to go back to a planet?

    My initial thought as far as fixing this is to change the way minerals are distributed. Specifically, make certain resources far more plentiful on planets than on asteroids, and simultaneously make the other resources more plentiful on asteroids. Which minerals go where needs to be carefully considered...

    If we start on planets, by default, then it stands to reason "early-game" resources should be plentiful on planets. Thus, "late-game" resources should be on asteroids. However, I think a mineral that is particularly useful in space should be more plentiful on planets to encourage you to go back. I'm just not sure which mineral.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  10. BlackUmbrellas Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,818
    No, it's not, and no, it shouldn't.

    Stick a goddamn vent on your ship. That's it. That's all you need to do.
     
    • Agree Agree x 8
    • Disagree Disagree x 6
  11. mhalpern Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,119
    I disagree with your jetpack arguement- why? because it provides one more challenge to engineer around, I also disagree with your cockpit argument, it's one thing to have a separate cockpit that isn't airtight, however, pressurized cabins have to have as few potential leak areas as possible to meet aerospace safety standards- that means either your grounded and its open or your flying and it is sealed no opening windows or anything else that would directly compromise the containment of air in the the cabin. the 7sec of jetpack is enough to stop a fall- if you time it.

    However the basic movement system does need attention. but you don't nessesarily need midair controls to get past a small ship block- there's a simple solution in the hand grinder.

    edit also the small vents add a nice touch that I love but wouldn't add if they weren't functional.
     
  12. BobbyHill Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    216
    I'm sorry but I have to disagree here this doesn't seem logical enough to demand requirement in the long run. You're telling me that a person who can build artifical gravity generators hasn't figured out how to roll down windows to let some air in? Also If you disagree with the argument that's fine and you can say so, which you already have by the way. You don't need to continue restating your point with hostile connotations. this behavior tends to get pepole heated and distracts from the original topic.


    EDIT: I think I have a different solution than adding in a new cockpit. What if when built without the bulletproof glass both cockpits lacked windows and airtight integrity. This adds a layer of realism for you realism junkies and solves a simple problem for the rest of us who just want to play without a lot of unnecessary "engineering"
     
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2015
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Argotha Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    134
    BlackUmbrellas, you're wrong. It's a game. Are they looking for GAME programmers or SIMULATION programmers? Trust me, there's a difference. I have a Bachelor's in both.

    mhalpern, as I said, I would probably be ok without an increased jetpack duration if the movement system were significantly improved. No, the grinder doesn't always solve the problem. What if the one-block-high obstruction is my battery? I'm not grinding that away. The better solution is to put a slope block against it to walk up. Still, there is no justification for being required to "engineer" around the oh-so-insurmountable-"problem" of stepping up a one-block-high obstacle. Besides, this extends to terrain in general. I noticed this in particular when trying to climb that mountain. I could walk up unbelievably steep slopes with ease, but a jut in the side the size of a soccer ball would force me to drill it away. Which, of course, then forces me to drill more because I just made it too deep to... Man, come on. Jetpacks or a DECENT movement system.

    As far as the cockpit thing, I would love to see a separate block for an open-air cockpit. I bet we could make some cool looking dune buggies... But there is still a problem with losing health with nothing telling us why. And there is DEFINITELY a problem with not being able to put on our helmet while in a cockpit. <- THIS, BlackUmbrellas is not disputable. Realism or no. There's no justification for it.

    --edit--

    About the mid-air movement control. When I was climbing that mountain, the most often-occurring problem was not that I couldn't jump over the soccer ball. It was that I had to back up and get a running start and make sure I was far enough away that the arc of my jump got me over it before I touched it, because if I touched it before reaching the peak of my jump, I would stop.
     
  14. zDeveloper10 Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    742
    for realism vs. game, i can only say it's a matter of how firm the reality of the game is desired to be. too loose, and the game becomes laughably silly to play(not that many things aren't to a degree already,but at least they're somewhat fun). to tight, and it becomes a strict simulation which is also not fun.
    so balance the reality breaking or scifi stuff, to the stuff that "just works".
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  15. BobbyHill Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    216
    Guys I'm sorry to repeat myself but I'm afraid you might miss it otherwise

    I think I have a different solution than adding in a new cockpit. What if when built without the bulletproof glass both cockpits lacked windows and airtight integrity. This adds a layer of realism for you realism junkies and solves a simple problem for the rest of us who just want to play without a lot of unnecessary "engineering".
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  16. mhalpern Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,119
    1 You have any idea how much more DANGEROUS a cockpit that sometimes has to be air tight and pressurized gets when you add the option to open a window? those seals have to be cleaned regularly if you intend on using it in a vacuum, just a tiny amount of dirt/dust can be the difference between a comfortably breathable cabin and suffixation, that's why they design such cockpits with as few sinle points of failure as possible, a widow that can be open when the vehicle is in operation is one HELL of a failure point while possible, its generally filed in the "lets not risk it" folder.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. Killacyte Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,659
    The problem really isn't that the engineer can't figure out how to make a roll-down window. It's just that that's a HORRIBLE idea to do on a flight-craft, especially on a space-worthy craft.

    Any vehicle moving as fast as the SE speed limit (which equates to about 200 mph) does not want expose the driver to that air resistance. 200 mph winds will easily break stuff (probably the engineer as well) if you let it into your ship. Even if you didn't, that constant wind would certainly be jarring enough that you wouldn't be able move easily and operate controls. You probably wouldn't even be able to see.

    At low speed, an open cockpit doesn't pose a problem, but when flying around it most certainly does. I'm with BlackUmbrellas on this one, just put a vent on your cockpit.
     
  18. Pyronymer Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    153
    You know I was going to mention the annoying crouching while mining thing. Totally forgot to. Good catch there. Argotha.

    However what I'm going to talk about now is the Jet Pack.

    Because I think people are wrong about something. There is I am pretty sure a reason the jet pack is (intended) to last just 7s (you know, not that it does). And it isn't actually realism.

    It's tied into the reason why even if you equip hydrogen bottles they don't become a sensible intuitive steady supply but instead result in a fairly long enforced cut out on your jet pack whenever they are used to refill it.

    It's because Keen doesn't want you flying into space by jet pack, a clearly stated goal of theirs.

    The simple fact is that with speed limits, the limited distance into space from even a 1g world surface and the required thrust and speed of jet packs... they HAVE to be insanely useless on planets in order to prevent escape.

    To be any sensible use, even as a second rate occasionally used fall back, during planetary construction jet packs need to be at least 30 seconds, maybe a minute or two in uninterrupted run time WITH dampers on. But any jet pack fuel time that good pretty much guarantees jet pack space launches with minimal difficulty.

    Now while I do see "no jet pack space launches" as a good goal to have... it's not a good enough goal to undermine so many basic requirements of functional game play in the core element of your construction game. Keen had a choice between jet packs that could space launch or jet packs that were useless and made the planetary game play especially early game painful and borderline unplayable. They went with the second one and it was the wrong choice to make.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  19. PeTeTe809 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    113
    I love planets, even though my FPS is dead and It has a share of bugs. I will survive.
     
  20. mhalpern Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,119
    its not the wrong choice though- its just one that forces us to adapt and exposes some areas where the basic movement system lacks
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  21. Dreokor Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,606
    So, given the number of people complaining here I decided to start a survival game.


    Scenario: Star System
    x3
    x1
    x1
    x2
    x2
    Day Length: 2 hours


    Started on the darkside of the planet, was kinda scary to land since I couldnt see much. When trying to find where to land I figured out I was in a mountain or hill. So I tried to look for a flat place, when I thought I found one I check my horizontal display and notice I'm not aligned.....I align the craft to the display and proceed to look for a place. Soon I think I found one and try to land with some success. I managed to get most of the boarding ramp area of the Atmospheric lander destroyed, after looking at the damage I grabbed the Steel Plates and hop down, made a ramp and got started on making some solar pannels. I get into the flight seat and shut down all non-essential things, only leaving lights and batteries on. I grabbed all the extra tools, rifle & bullets and put the assembler to dismantle them and then turn it on-I wont be needing any weapons for the time being. After that It's time to make those solar pannels....I decided to put them on the side of the Atmospheric lander and make a small scaffolding to do so....after a lot of jumping I get the pannels done just in time for the early morning.


    While waiting for daylight I decided fix the ship a little, everytime I do so some metallic bump is heard, I ignored it and proceed to remove all blocks that I know I wont need for the time being....The Programming block, the timer block and the LCD pannels, soon after grinding down the programming block I hear another metallic bump-much louder this time- I go around the check what happened and find out most of the floor of the ship is gone with 2 batteires aswell.


    Uh oh...I set up a bunch of ramps so I can move again and mourn the loss of the batteries...late figuring out that the cause of that explosion was the fact that station ramp was too close to the ship and bumped constantly then I continue to grind the rest of the non-essetial blocks.


    After checking my Ore detector I notice there's no Ore around..... Time to move to better grounds I guess but the ship cant fly like this, A rover will have to do. I start looking for a somewhat flat ground, luckily there is one pretty close to the ship. I made a 5 x 5 light armor floor, put some ramps here and there and create and small ship, placing the the initila landing gear on the far side of the box making a line of light armor blocks upwards and then to middle of the 5 x 5 box and finally a bit down and start making the skeleton of the rover. After working for a while on it It's complete just in-time for the night, with 2 batteries, a solar pannel, an ore detector and antenna, an airvent, 2 gyroscopes and 2 lights this thing is ready to move. After playing around with the wheel settings and figuring out most of it I get the rover ready.


    That's all for now....I will start my search for ore later.





    So yeah I ended up using all the hydrogen due to the automatic "Press X after welding" that I'm so used to, but other than that I did not have any problems yet, jumping seems to be enough. I did all this in about 1:30 or 2 hours. Maybe because I'm taking a different aproach to things, kinda thinking "how would they do that on earth?".

    We'll see how it goes later.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
  22. noxLP Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    729
    I think i should repeat it, who the hell need ladders or more jetpack?

    [​IMG]
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 2
  23. Argotha Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    134
    That tower looks like a huge pain in the ass. You're point != proven. You're just showcasing the limitations of the movement system with those extensions you placed from the ground up so you could place the steps.

    How did you get 4-wide on the top, though. I see you have the extra two blocks so you could reach blocks on the way up, but you couldn't place the 4-wide from underneath.

    --edit--

    On that note, who the hell needs a jump drive? Just turn off dampeners and go afk for a few days while traveling to another planet. No problem there. Totally rewarding gameplay.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  24. Azzanine Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    289
    Aren't most modern jet planes equipped with oxygen supplies and pressurized hulls? Either way "cracking open the window" should be an option but with the caveat that if you go over a certain speed things go wrong. It does seem absurd that you can't set the cockpits door actuators to close and lock to 90%. I think the option should be there but still make it so the vents are a good idea. Like you can't get past the max speed of your average bi plane with a cracked open cockpit.
    And if you think about it from a realism perspective; currently you can do the remote control/seat thing, go max speed and feel no ill effects. While it's probably not intended cracking open the cockpit door is at least internally consistent with the games current mechanics.
     
  25. RedAceFred Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    98
    I haven't played much because Fallout 4, but planets have pulled me back into SE for a couple hours. I disagree that survival is broken on planets.

    I made 80% of my current HQ and a basic survey rover, just by salvaging the planetary lander from the star system scenario and found plenty of ore to get building, even found 3 uranium sites. (basically 1/3 of the solar power station, 90% of the depot and 100% of the platform was built only from salvage).

    My only complaint if any is how rare Iron seems to be, but that's probably because I prioritized landing on a flat clear plain over near ore deposits.

    Addendum: Also had a perfect landing, not even a scratch of paint on the hull, but I had to use my gyroes to slow myself down and then I just had to hover on my target spot.
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2015
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  26. mhalpern Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,119
    Just because it's more work doesn't mean its not still a perfectly valid solution, if you are over level ground I would go with a piston elevator on wheels approach.
     
  27. Argotha Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    134
    I did not imply the solution was invalid. I clearly stated it is a pain in the ass. Valid does not equate to fun.

    Also, again, how did you build the top?
     
  28. mhalpern Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,119
    yes and you notice how much they reinforce the area around the doors or how small the windows are with the exception for the cockpit? and you notice how they use as few of those doors as logistically possible save for in an emergency or in tests? or how the cockpit (in many) has its OWN pressure seal. it isn't just about speed though, pressurized cabins are like metal (or composite) party balloons when at altitude, a small hole or weakness can become a very big hull breach rather quickly, this is known as explosive decompression, any time there's a large pressure differential between the inside and outside of a container of gas or liquid, this can happen.

    Edit: anything you can open - even if its closed, can very easily be like a needle poking a hole in that balloon
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  29. Pyronymer Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    153
    I'm going to ask you to keep that the hell out of my thread.

    I'm not saying you shouldn't do it, I'm not even saying that your little rigged counter example nuh uh log idea might not have at least some validity, I'm just saying you should make your own thread (link it and discus it here if you like) just please don't clutter this one up with a gigantic excessively detailed logs of the sort you are starting out with there.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 3
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Late Late x 1
  30. Zyfe Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    64
    This whole thing about the jetpack is nonsense. If you want to spam jetpack, build in space. Why should planets be just a new environment without their own sets of challenges? Are you people actually arguing that planets should have the exact same feeling as space? lol.

    Having to create structures in order to build things on planets is the fun part. If you don't like it, then it's probably not meant for you. Either mod it, or turn off planets.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.