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.

Thruster and Torque

Discussion in 'General' started by Thales M., Aug 17, 2015.

Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.
  1. mdenz3 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    125
    De-power the gyros, and by leaving the current thrusters as-is you can find a median between the two methods.

    The new player in a survival game who is just trying to get his first mining ship to work at all can do so without the added tedium of thruster placement being crucial. The intermediate players can utilize maneuvering thrusters to start improving their ship designs for better agility, use them with rotors for thrust vectoring and more efficient designs. Advanced players can use them along with scripts and waypoints to do precise automated maneuvers.

    By leaving the standard thrusters there is also no need for the "fly-by-wire" silliness.


    And I want to be able to use a couple maneuvering thrusters, advanced rotors, collectors and timer blocks to create a stone throwing wheel of death, but I also want my ships to be useable without spending hours fine tuning the center of mass, thrust balancing, and leverage.
     
  2. Stardriver907 Master Engineer

    Messages:
    3,368
    The community pool is already split. Why is that a bad thing? SE players are definitely not all on the same page.

    If Keen implemented thruster torque this Thursday and did not provide "automatic fly-by-wire", you can rest assured that by no later than Friday evening there will be six mods or more that will do so.

    At no point does this game approach "real engineering". The biggest draw for this game, in my opinion, is that for the most part you are required to do most of the work. I like the fact that two people can take two completely different approaches to the same goal and both can be right. The more the game does for you, the less likely you will see creative solutions to complex problems. The game provides some options for the sake of saving time, but if at any point you characterize your time in the game as "work" or "a chore" you need to ask yourself why are you playing Space Engineers and, perhaps, there might be some other game that is equally satisfying yet less demanding?

    I'm not an engineer, but this game let's me be one anyway. This week I broke 900 hours working on the same five ships. I'm over 60, job, wife, kids, pets, vehicles, mortgage, the whole works. I have no problem sitting down with SE after a hard day's work and putting in another 4 to 6 hours or more. You get out of this game what you put into it. Every time I stream I pick up followers because they appreciate the level of detail my builds have. OK, and they like watching me screw up, too. It's all good because we all learn.
     
  3. tankmayvin Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,864
    1) Fractured player bases are extremely bad for the health of a game. This has been proven by countless titles over almost 2 decades of online gaming.

    2) Relying on mods to "fix" game issues is absolutely awful game design/development.

    3) This game most certainly does approach "real engineering" when you start needing to script control systems for ships. That's pretty much the definition of real engineering, at least real software engineering. You can enjoy a game without liking every aspect of it. Inventory management and cargo pushing/pulling is a game chore. That's fine, all games need chores and programmable blocks solve a lot of those. But automating control and ballasting is "another level" of chore solving compared to pushing cargo to guns/production blocks and storage, or automating sequencing of blocks. At a certain point all games draw a line at how much complexity they want to model, for me requiring players to write their own fly by wire software is beyond the point of reasonable for what is basically minecraft in space.

    4) What you want out of a game is obviously a personal choice. I like games that require "fungineering" but I don't like coming home to more "work". It's like the old joke of the German forklift operator that comes home and plays a forklift simulator.
     
  4. Stardriver907 Master Engineer

    Messages:
    3,368
    The current player base for SE is unavoidably fractured. The game is still in Alpha. Nothing is set in stone yet. By adding or deleting a single item Keen could lose the entire established base. Means nothing because the game is in Alpha. When the game goes gold players will have to decide whether or not they like the game as released. At that point there will be less fracturing because you will either like the game and play it or not.

    In order for the game to have some kind of unique identity, Keen will have certain features and will not have certain others. These are not "issues". Keen understands that not everyone shares their philosophy with respect to what is in the game and what isn't. Therefore, they have made the decision to allow anyone that has the will and expertise to modify the game to suit their tastes. That way everyone can play the Space Engineers they want, and Keen can establish a starting point for those that aren't sure what they want or what to expect. I don't see any flaws with that sort of game design/development.

    Yet you can play the game your way, and I can play my way.

    We have different approaches to gameplay, yet we both like the same game. See how that works?
     
  5. tankmayvin Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,864
    1) Games with extended "early access" periods tend to NOT gain substantial player bases post full release. Screwing around with your early access player base is detrimental to the survival of your game at and post release.

    2) Indeed, which is why discussions about core features are so important. Relying on mod content to satisfy players is a bad policy, it requires a huge and active community (see point #1 on that). One of the most critical things that SE needs identity wise is a reason to do things. Survival really just doesn't have a soul right now, and that's a bigger problem than thruster torque. I love SE, I can play with making ships and building toys and I like doing it in the context of some sort of resource and energy economy. But SE survival isn't really a "game" because it lacks the critical concept of interaction beyond the purely mechanistic of creations mechnically doing things or crashing into/shooting at each other.

    3) Sure, but as we saw with first pass implementation of cargo mass, this can break the way people play unintentionally (see what happened to ships using cargo volume multipliers).

    At the end of the day I don't see that thruster torque, and all of the complications of needing thruster output controls and ballast controls is on the right side of the fun vs effort/work line. That's just my person opinion mind.
     
  6. BlackUmbrellas Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,818
    Bullshit. Space Engineers is absolutely a game; it's just one that shines more in multiplayer right now. Although, given the Scenario Creator, it's pretty decent even ignoring that.
     
  7. kcjunkbox Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,132
    I liked what one of you said, and I'm not going to bother going and finding and quoting, about arcade mode vs realistic mode. Maybe that's what keen does when they get closer to release. Make an arcade mode with no thruster damage, no mass, higher inventory volumes and no thruster torque. Then they make a realstic mode that has all those turned on. Now we don't have 1000 options and the two types of players get what they want. I'm sure they track all the options that people use and have lots of data on what percent of people use what options and I have a feeling that the realism players currently turn all those on that they can and the none realstic don't. Problem solved, no need to argue further.
     
  8. tankmayvin Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,864
    You quoted the wrong person. And you're wrong.

    Multiplayer is a complete shitshow because of the sub-par netcode and poor simspeed scaling which renders meaningful player metagaming rather impossible.

    The scenario editor relies on players to create the content, which is pretty much coming it at the bare minimum for the "interaction" criteria. I'm not worried because it's an Alpha game, but we're talking about an Alpha and what it's lacking to make a finished product.
     
  9. BlackUmbrellas Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,818
    I'm not sure how I quoted the "wrong person", and I'm definitely not wrong.

    Claiming Space Engineers "isn't really a game" is factually incorrect. The term "game" covers a very broad range of material; Space Engineers handily fits into it.
     
  10. tankmayvin Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,864
    Fine, it's not a "complete game". Amounts to the same thing.
     
  11. BlackUmbrellas Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,818
    ...no, it really doesn't.

    "Not a game" evokes a whole massive argument about loads of other subjects. Having complaints that Space Engineers isn't finished yet is a whole other kettle of fish.
     
  12. Malware Master Engineer

    Messages:
    9,866
    Ehm... you did quote the wrong person there. I never said that. It's also very much not reflecting my opinion :)
     
  13. Stardriver907 Master Engineer

    Messages:
    3,368
    I can totally see something like "arcade mode" in the Xbox version. I can imagine the PC version having three settings ranging from easy to hardcore, with a fourth "custom" setting. This way a player would only have to deal with a wall of checkboxes if they wanted to.

    Yes. Every Patchmas something happens (or fails to happen) that causes at least one person to post their "resignation" from Space Engineers. Gamers are notoriously noncommittal. We might have our favorite games but we love to play the field, so to speak. We're always on the lookout for greener grass. Thing about current SE players is that we already own the game whether we like it or not. We have had just about all the impact on sales we're going to have. Whether or not we continue to play because of something Keen did or didn't do doesn't matter.
    There's a EA group of players, and there's a Finished Game group of players. The EA group has already paid and got the game cheap (I got mine for six bucks). The more significant group would be the Finished Game group that will be paying full retail for a polished, bug-free game where Keen has explained and documented what you should expect and experience. That group matters.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  14. buggsy Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    86
    Gyros would have to accelerate to infinity to do that.
     
  15. jhnwgacy Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    81
    Yes, i know, but since we have unlimited thrust given by electricity... ;-)
     
  16. Dr. Novikov Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    263
    Because not all people are smart enough to deal with the torque. Some guyss just want to sit on a sofa and push buttons on a console controller.

    Btw, there is an awesome game with torque, thrust, constructable missiles and torpedoes, etc. Called "From the Depths".
     
  17. GrindyGears Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,787
    I can faintly hear @RotalHenricsson sobbing in the corner when this gets added because the massive WIP ship might not have suitable com... I personally don't care if this feature is added or not, I'll be a little miffed all of my ships suddenly don't work. Because of a single cargo container being one block lower than the main thrusters... Or trying to dock my ship decides to roll because of aesthetic concerned thrusters. That being said planets will likely break everything as well so meh...While I don't think this will lead to nothing but flying cubes, I think it will quite severely impact creative freedom in game.

    To address gyros: I don't care about realism. I think they could give us a large /small gyro, which would cost say 50x more and be 50x stronger for being 27x the volume and that would solve alot of problems.

    I think they could make all parties happy here with the feature being not an on/off but rather a percentage slider. For example if I set the slider to 20 percent the ship would be able to fly straight using thrusters that have a certain offset from the COM so at 0 any off center thrust gives torque and at 100 it flies as it does now
     
  18. Dr. Novikov Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    263
    Lol. The game has the word "Engineers" in its name for a reason. You should be the problem solver. Not a bigger gyroscope.
     
  19. GrindyGears Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,787
    You are most certainly correct, I do agree, however under current game engine I offered a solution. But I find that reaction funny considering you'd just as fast strap some of these magic manuvering thrusters on the ship then call that engineering... Pot calling the kettle black of you ask me. It's not ideal, nor do I think it's the best course of action, doesn't mean it shouldnt be suggested.
     
  20. a2457 Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,366
    it would not work thatway.
    your ship would still be just as functional as now.
    maybe you will have a not ideal COM and due to that it may loose some performance.
    gyros would compensate for thruter imbalance without your interaction.
     
  21. GrindyGears Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,787
    To what end? will i suddenly be unable to reach max speed because of a slightly off vector? or will i be unable to stop correctly? maybe if navigating a cave i'll crash because im unbalanced left to right? I get that gyros are suppose to fix these things, but my builds are usually disproportionately heavy due to being a skeleton with functional components and minimal hull components, I do usually try and make my ships with bare minimal requirements (atleast early game) and i feel that this would pose a potentially nasty problem to that. Technically the best engineered things are usually the littlest amount actually required to achieve a given task. I float around engineering firms as a consultant, and let me tell you, most are quite unhappy when you propose something that isnt the bare minimum required, why you may ask? Because Shareholders.... at the end of the day they don't care if something isn't as safe as it SHOULD be, they care that its just safe enough to justify pinching pennies to the point where a lawsuit wont cost them more than what they saved, its nothing personal, just business. Prehaps this spills a little too much into my space engineers.... (in survival anyway)

    Then lets not even get into what can be deemed acceptable losses...

    Anyway, my point being: I think my earlier suggestion is fair, and should in theory keep literally everyone happy, it gives you the most options without stepping on anyones toes... I admit, somewhere between being kept awake for 36 hours due to illness, that i haven't eaten much in that period making me cranky, and the lack of coffee/caffine (i dont drink coffe/tea) means i really cannot be bothered to formulate a much better response...

    TLDR: See earlier post...
     
  22. Commander Rotal Master Engineer

    Messages:
    4,979

    Oh, don't you worry about the Tapping, she's a big girl :). No, i wouldn't be particularly happy about that change but i guarantee you neither would a lot of other people... who probably don't have enough space in their massive WIP ships to hide as many Thrusters and Gyros as needed in the right spaces to compensate.
    The ship's size is it's main defense against this kind of patches; if push comes to shove i'll rip out the Crew Quarters and stick a couple hundred Gyros in their place.

    [​IMG]

    As for the center of mass: i tried checking where it's at right now but the game doesn't really want to display it (google says i need to be within 30 meters of it; screw crawling around the ship to find that; is there a mod out there that changes the visual range?). Once the Secondary Hull is done (it's mostly empty right now) it should probably be somewhere in the neck-area though, close to the Main Impulse Engine.
     
  23. a2457 Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,366
    less acceleration. nothing more.
    you will reach the same maximum speed.
    you are in engineering, you should know better.
    you won't crash, gyros will compensate so you have no drifitng.
    when turning to the direction where thruster torque could help, it will be more agile.
    when turning toward the opposite, you will be less agile.

    your builds will be less efficient, not ruined.
     
  24. GrindyGears Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,787
    I guess my point being that it's not really engineering a solution if you just jam more gyros to compensate, I don't really care about the efficiency as I usually build more commercial vessels that are meant to be slow and lumbering, but that being said how many extra gyros are needed? An old hauler has say 30 which might not even be enough by some standards, but if I need even 15 more the resources needed become far greater.
     
  25. Scya Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    266
    No, you're getting it wrong. Don't forget that against the unbalanced thrust will fight not only the gyros but even lateral thrusters (thrusters on yours ships sides, up and bottom and even in the front! if necessary). But these lateral thrusters start compensate the torgue only in the case where the gyros can't do it on their own. So don't need add more gyros even on heavily unbalanced ship, it will only use more thrusters = energy to compensate.
     
  26. GrindyGears Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,787
    So.... You want it to fly exactly as it does now... Except slightly lower efficiency because of off center? And see some extra flames to show that thrusters are working to keep you balanced...? I really don't see the point in that (aside good engineering practices) or in my sleep deprived state am I reading this wrong?
     
  27. BlackUmbrellas Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,818
    What he's saying is that adding thruster torque doesn't have to break ships built without it in mind, just make them less efficient than ships that are built to make full use of thruster torque.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  28. GrindyGears Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,787
    But if everything is just going to keep itself in check, ie the self balance, you are really achieving nothing by adding this feature... Simple lateral docking becomes difficult for most ships, because the port and starboard thrusters might not be in the middle, or heavy cargo containers closer to the back with a hangar at the front. Your forward thrusters can only compensate so much before they start pushing the ship forward which when docking could prove troublesome... I realize you want things like gyros to balance it, but why add a feature if it's made useless by literally building the ship however you like anyway? I just don't get the rationale.
     
  29. a2457 Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,366
    Nope, docking would not be difficult.
    it would work just like now.

    so then why want this feature if things would work the same ?
    no they would not work the exact same as now.

    what would be the difference?
    Efficiency, and design consideration when goal is efficiency.
    potencially small fighters could get more agile, large ships can get away with LESS gyros then now.

    but, you don't have to factor any of it, in exchange a ship with no consdieration given from engineering aspect will have less acceleration, and might turn slower is some/all directions.
    It would be more simular to real life, design -anything- with only form in mind, and functionallity may suffer.
    but allso, it gives a new challange, design with efficiency and style in mind, so i would not think its a bad feature.

    As long as its not mis-understood, naturally.
    so again, won't break ships, won't require tonns of gyros, and certainly does not force anyone to design with COM in mind,
    allso would not make it troublesome to do anything that is possible now with a ship.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  30. GrindyGears Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,787
    You know, you'd almost have convinced me that. then im reminded by the voice inside my head saying "speed cap" "practical turn speeds" and similar thoughts. If it takes my big ugly ship an extra .5 seconds to get to top speed im not really buggered am i? Finding a balance between Loss of efficiency vs loss of creative freedom would be incredibly finicky at best.
     
Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.