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.

What ever happened to "real science, real facts, real physics"?

Discussion in 'General' started by vasvadum, Aug 8, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.
  1. eldarstorm Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    725
    If we have to fly strait between planets then they should make it so we can pull up youtube on the Control Chair screen.
     
    • Like Like x 5
  2. Bumber Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,018
    Well, the fact that your theoretical 100% panels are giving out less than double the wattage of the 17.8% efficiency panels raises some concerns. In addition, a 6x6 inch panel with 4.14w of power is 0.17825 kw/m². That's more like 12% efficiency.

    I guess we now know how our ships get rid of all their thruster heat. The solar panels and reactors absorb it all.
     
  3. a2457 Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,366
    this as a feature would be just hilarous,
    i would simply LOVE it.
    if nothing else, at least eh official forum should be accessible from the cockpit, what a unique feature would that be :D
     
  4. LFCavalcanti Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,378
    Some people will want YouPorn instead... :rolleyes:

    Seriously now... some things are really necessary to make the gameplay experience possible. But we already told this a million times before, PI and OP don't want to listen.
     
  5. The_Fool76 Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    15
    I love how in all of these 'realism' threads no one ever gripes about how unrealistic the antennas are. Just goes to show what parts of physics they bother with in school I guess.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  6. Echillion Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,334
    How are Antennas unrealistic? actually if anything their dumbed down! Antennas are like radio/tv masts/radar pylons you can broadcast your text msgs across to other players,detect other ships/bases and remote control your ships/drones with it? all up to 50km if anything was unrealistic it would be the limited range as real pylons/masts have a greater range but 50km is a reasonable range in my opinion unless you want the sci-fi option of viewscreens as well so you can pretend to be captain kirk on enterprise which I wont object to but will probably not be possible?
     
  7. UnitedTerranFederation Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    213
    Oh, I read what you said and I've made plenty a point against you on that front. This is a small detail that takes large effort to do in the engine. Why don't you try it out and see how hard it is to implement? You have full source code access, why not? And really, you want an overlay to increase immersion... Why is your take on how far immersion should go, better then that of Keens? Why is your view on how far realism goes, better than Keens?
     
  8. SenorZorros Master Engineer

    Messages:
    7,063
    the agrument:
    realist: I would like it the devs use the huge amount of gameplay elements that mother nature has provided from us.
    idiots: but... we have gravity generators.
    realists: yes but they are there for a good reason. the game does not need to be 100% realistic. there are a lot of simplifications. but that does not mean that everything can be ...

    screw it....

    why can no one read? everyone who says they are against realism throw around that the game doesn't have to be 100% realistic. to this I have a simple retort.

    indeed...

    what kind of idiot would think 100% realism is the key to success. you are in sitting in front of a goddamn screen. 100% realism is preposterous. only a fool would think this is possible. in fact, only a fool would expect someone to think this is possible. no one wants 100% realism, no one wants 90% realism, no one wants 80% realism...

    realism is not a scale. you can't rate things on them. you can compare, but there is no baseline. I am sick of people too stupid to even consider the existence of a single shade of grey. not all details are important.
    not all details are important.

    not all details are important.

    not all details are important.

    not all details are important.

    I hope you read that.

    no one cares solar panels are too effective. making them weaker doesn't work. it is not important.

    the real problem with this game is that at its core it is static. it was based around astronauts living in a static environment. yes you could move ships but nothing else. even then the ships have the tendency to try to go to the velocity called zero. the only way this game can really become better would be to make it dynamic. allow people to use moving objects. but that would require a whole new engine.

    on the SE engine versus the ksp engine... both are crap at moving objects. ksp only works by limiting the simulation end having only a few objects.


    in short this game may very well never really achieve it's target of becoming a real space game. I kind of realized that when the devs had to use a hack to allow fast travel. but In hope that people are still able to realize what it could have been.
     
    • Like Like x 4
  9. Kuu Lightwing Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,503
    I would argue that "a lot of simplifications" is what KSP is. SE is just pure fantasy like Star Wars or Star Trek or BSG. And the real problem with realism in SE is not gravity generators, is that it never was built for realistic space travel. Yes, static space with asteroid thickets is one part of it, but there's also spaceships made from steel blocks and thrusters that violate laws of physics. It's not like it was realistic before and then it changed. It always was like that.

    Now, suspension of disbelief is a thing, but it only allows you accept the reality of the game or movie or whatever, even though it is unrealistic. It's why people can enjoy Star Wars despite the fact that real spacecraft can not fly like fighter planes.
     
  10. SenorZorros Master Engineer

    Messages:
    7,063
    define unrealistic.

    really, just define unrealistic. what is unrealistic? is it the deviation from reality of one single part? is it a high concept that differs from reality? is it something in between?

    you mention Star Wars. now Star Wars is something I would call unrealistic. however it varies from SE in some key differences. first off star wars is a movie. even more it is a movie centers around it's characters. the internal logic of the universe is not important. plot power and rule of cool are what govern the world. in SE because it's a game the internal logic is vital. also SE itself has taken way more cues from reality even now. the absence of air friction is a great example.
    furthermore let me refute your points. first of thrusters not using fuel has always been a gameplay simplification at worst and a work-in-process at best. it is not like this really changes the way the game works. it does turn your ship in more of a hunk of steel and means you have less to consider but those things do not affect the core of the game, even though they may have an influence on the balance.
    secondly. this is a block building game. off course everything is built from steel blocks. also this is technically not unrealistic since you can make a spaceship like that even now. it's just very unpractical.

    Star wars is enjoyed for othwer reasons than Space Engineers is. you cannot compare a fantasy movie to a Voxel-Buillding Space-sim Video game.

    p.s. a Space Simulaion does not have to be 100% realistic either. starmade can be considered one.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Kuu Lightwing Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,503
    Unrealistic (adj.) - Something that's not realistic. Since I only used this word to clarify the concept of suspension of disbelief, this definition would be enough. I might even paraphrase that: "Suspension of disbelief allows you to accept the rules of universe even though you know that some of them might not be true in real life."

    Gameplay simplification or not, it's not how engines work in real life. Also, it changes the way you build spaceships and you actually can get away with massive steel beasts you build in SE. There's no need to worry about mass fraction of your ship nor there's no different engines with various ISP (which BTW could make for interesting gameplay/design). I would argue that if you had to keep that stuff in mind, that would affect the "core of the game", because the core of the game is spaceships and how you build them, and what kind of engines do you have access to is a defining feature of a spaceship.
    Yes, that would be impractical and that spaceship probably won't be able to get anywhere because it wouldn't have enough dV. But once again, you can get away with it in the game, because there's no orbital mechanics in SE, because you have reactionless thrusters and because you don't accelerate faster than 100m/s, so you literally don't need more than 200m/s of dV to get anywhere. Or you can't use more than that even if you want.

    Now, SE works in its own universe. Yes, there's no "air friction" in space, and it is the same as in real life, but that's just one thing. There's no problem with "internal logic" and rules of the world - the game doesn't violate its own rules and SE spaceships work okay for the static universe with no orbits and with speed limit. But that's not "realistic", because real world is just different from SE world. And that's why I compare that to Star Wars or other science fiction movies, because all of them build their own worlds with their own rules.

    So, what exactly is your point?
     
  12. SenorZorros Master Engineer

    Messages:
    7,063
    1.
    please don't play dumb. saying unrealistic is the same as non realistic is like saying liquids are fluid. also you are dodging the question since the matter at hand is not if the game completely follows reality. we are looking for a threshold at which a game can be considered mostly realistic.
    2.
    In my opinion the core of the game is build stuff, crash stuff. I admit the thrusters do certainly factor into the gameplay and I think a sizable fraction of the playerbase would like to see them improved. also you have to explain how the lack of fuel allows you to get away with massive steel beast considering the thrust would stay about as powerful. however realism is not (only) about pointing at stuff and saying it is correct or incorrect. it is more of a high concept. the idea of having hard sci-fi.
    3.
    3.1 gameplay limits that are obvious. not every gameplay limitation is bad.
    3.2 engine limitations. sadly the devs haven't fixed those yet.

    4. that's a given with a video game. however in my opinion the internal logic can be improved by stuff like banning the gravity drive, raising the speed cap and removing other glitches. you are using a strawman argument when you say real world is different from SE world. no one ever said that wasn't the case. star wars didn't have any rules except that it had to look cool and relateable. and we all know what happened if they brought explanations...

    honestly I am pretty sick of you trying to use strawman arguments and acting like I'm some kind of idiot that want's REAL WORLD SIMULATOR 2000!. I am not calling you out on your demand to instantly get everything you can think of from nothing am I? so lets try to stop acting like everyone is on the extremes.
     
  13. KissSh0t Master Engineer

    Messages:
    3,778
    This thread is interesting because of reasons.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Kuu Lightwing Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,503
    Yes, because you didn't provide any context to your question. Now you asking about a "threshold" and yeah, there's a "sliding scale" of soft vs hard SciFi, but I think SE is at the "softer" side of that scale. I won't set a hard threshold for a "realistic" game, though, because it could be somewhat fuzzy. And no, I'm not saying that realistic game "completely follows reality", you misunderstood that. I just think that SE has too many serious deviations from real life physics to qualify as "realistic". Whether they are because of gameplay or engine limitations doesn't really matter, because that doesn't make them more "realistic".
    Lack of fuel means that you don't care about mass fraction. I think I said that already. Given the thrust of SE engines, it's almost like if Saturn V didn't use any fuel and all the mass of the vessel would be payload. Or metal blocks.
    The "idea of having hard SciFi" doesn't make much sense unless you explain what did you actually mean by that.
    Yes? Now where did I say anything about them being bad? But as I said, gameplay or engine limitations don't really make the game more "realistic".

    It's cool that you know about "your logical fallacy is" website, but you should stop using "strawman" as a buzzword. If you think that I made a strawman argument you should point out where I got your point wrong and what is your real point. And you can't do that, because I didn't address any of your points by that argument. I explained my own point.

    And I'm liking how you using a strawman argument to accuse me of using strawman argument. Please continue. I don't know and don't care what do you want, and I'm actively asking you, what is your gorram point. You are so aggressive, but I still fail to see what do you want to prove. You think that SE is realistic? Fine! I might be interested to know why do you think so, and maybe your criteria of a "realistic" game, but that's optional.
     
  15. erik9631 Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    60
    What makes me pissed about this post is "Realism was never gonna happen" Except they push out a shitty inventory mass update which done-fucks every single design.

    It is like, they could have chosen thousands of ways to make the game more "Realistic" but they chose the one that breaks the most.
     
  16. a2457 Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,366
    nah, it did not break anything. they bumped up the thrusters, so its all just fine. its a bit more realistic thisway.
    we do expect heavy ships to accelerate slower, and honestly i would make the gyro force affected too.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. buggsy Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    86
    South Carolina, what's up.
     
  18. Dr. Novikov Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    263
    Instead of "realistic", I'd use the words "plausible", "logical", "reasonable".
     
  19. LFCavalcanti Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,378
    This thread's still here?
     
  20. Dreokor Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,606
    There's a lot of necromancy going on recently.
     
  21. BardTale Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    160
    Realism is when you have to micro-manage every logistical challenge of your ship.
    Realism is when you need a crew of specialized individuals to help you micro-manage your ship.
    Realism is when you have to make sure you're using the correct fuel mixture or else you could seriously damage the vehicle.

    I could go on and on. But lets face it, this is a video game. I'm sure there are people out there who think it's fun to spend 20-30 minutes for a pre-flight/launch checklist each time they decide to take out their fancy new ship for a stroll around the asteroid belt. A good majority of people, like myself, prefer the simplistic systems that are presented to us in .5 and 2.5 meter block building. As cool as it is to have to make a set of detailed blueprints for each ship, including the wiring plans, it would get tedious for a couple of hours play session.
     
  22. jhnwgacy Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    81
    It's reasonable to have game-offered default setting for all tiny parameters to spare time for most players and the same time to offer a possibility for those who want some hardcore to manage and ajust every parameter manually.
    We all have a possibility to browse BIOS half an hour, setting timings and voltage, each time we press Power button on PC, but who really does it excepts those ones who really need?
     
  23. Nogrim Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    81
    those damn Tardigrades

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tardigrade
     
    • Like Like x 1
  24. D3Seeker Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    86
    ROFL!!!!! Dude, just yes. I await the day this happens for some reason.

    Now for the 'realism' belly aching............. The way science works is that if the math says it's possibly, it IS possibly!!! *even if we are currently incapable of performing such a task at present day.

    Besides I'm sure if you did some deep research you would find what some if not most of the game play features are based on or referencing.

    Otherwise nuf has been said. If it's a simulation you so desire KSP is an option
     
  25. cedi Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    307
  26. WhiteWeasel Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,086
    Can this thread just be locked already?
     
  27. DrVagax Administrator

    Messages:
    822
    Good idea.
     
    • Like Like x 4
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.