Space Engineers - Say goodbye to Starmade and Blockade runner. - Games

[QUOTE=ZnT00;43105741]I'm trying out the new update, but i don't know how to make the motors move :v:[/QUOTE] Done through the ship/station's control panel, but sadly each part becomes it's own ship.

I decided to make a slimmed down efficient version of my League of Legitimate Nigerian Businessmen warkroozer for MP survival. It still might be bigger than I could be bothered to build though. [thumb]http://i.imgur.com/VzhQ8fO.jpg[/thumb] [thumb]http://i.imgur.com/96xR0E2.jpg[/thumb] the same package for 1.3m kg. Less mass to shoot through but oh well its quite fast and maneuverable and nothing ~exotic~ like large reactors n shit. Well except two large thrusters.

Finished a TIE/D Defender - the pinnacle of Sienar Fleet Systems engineering, boasting the speed of an interceptor and the combined firepower of the same and a bomber! [t]http://i.imgur.com/R9benoW.jpg[/t] [t]http://i.imgur.com/bWeM3r0.jpg[/t] A universal* hangar is also being developed to enable high capacity fighter storage along with rapid launch capability. *For all TIE series fighters. Safe docking for third-party ships is neither assured nor recommended.

[QUOTE=krail9;43104993]why does everyone want life support now? seems a bit tedious also kind of pointless given everyone is in spacesuits all the time[/QUOTE] Well it's unrealistic that the suits have an unlimited oxygen supply. I know astronauts use re-breathers sometimes but still, they won't last forever.

Life Support makes Space Station 13 laggy. If you added a life support system to Space Engineers you would make it unplayable.

[QUOTE=Kyle902;43108175]Life Support makes Space Station 13 laggy. If you added a life support system to Space Engineers you would make it unplayable.[/QUOTE] SS13 isn't exactly well known for its superb optimization there's always smoke and mirrors you can use to make it actually work

[QUOTE=Wickerman123;43108161]Well it's unrealistic that the suits have an unlimited oxygen supply. I know astronauts use re-breathers sometimes but still, they won't last forever.[/QUOTE] to this and mbirds post [I]nothing[/I] in this game is realistic, we are talking about a game where I fly around in a space suit and build a massive, working ship with nothing but the rocks I hand-drill from an asteroid so aside from realism, what does life support add? if it doesn't improve the gameplay somehow it's just a waste of time do we really need the ships to be even more fragile than they are already, where one damaged block shuts down the whole thing?

I wish we could go balls to the wall with this game and discover planets and shit.... and then promptly ram ships into them. Seriously, finding a planet and having to establish orbit or land, and have atmospheric fighters.... .... oooh can I dream?

From the game's website. [quote]Space Engineers is inspired by reality and by how things work. Think about modern-day NASA technology extrapolated 60 years into the future. Space Engineers strives to follow the laws of physics and doesn't use technologies that wouldn't be feasible in the near future. [/quote] So yeah.

Now I kinda hope the missiles will have visible RCS puffs flying off madly as they turn.

[QUOTE=krail9;43105142]also, instead of a sphere, the gravity gens should conform to the layout of the ship it could just be a trace 'downwards' from the player, if it hits a block connected to the grav gen in x meters, then gravity[/QUOTE] you know what, I hadn't thought of this it doesn't even have to be that complex, just literally check the bounding cube (well, rectangular prism) that probably already exists for each ship - if gravity-effected entity intersects, add/apply the force due to gravity to it can also keep the existing generator range limits so that you still need more than one gen for a huuuuge ship multiple gens in the same ship would be identical, the forces adding up on any entity within the bounding volume an entity sitting in two ship's overlapping bounding volumes would experience the sum of both ship's gravity fields (again, exactly as it happens already) [I]but[/I] it'd have to be like a toggle for the generators; 'internally confined' or some shit idk, since the gens as-is have their uses (see: mining) [editline]8th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Pilotguy97;43109181]Now I kinda hope the missiles will have visible RCS puffs flying off madly as they turn.[/QUOTE] they'd still be burning their main engine while turning (otherwise you've got a missile flying along, but sideways ;v), so you could just say they use thrust vectoring and ignore the RCS I hope that if they go with the 'missiles always have their engines burning when flying' trope, the missiles at least are always accelerating, not just reaching a speed and chugging along at it while still burning furiously that, or they make em only do (short) burns when speeding up and adjusting course (former kinda physically makes sense for missiles that have large turning circles) man, missiles in space would be so different to our in-atmosphere ones, even ignoring all the orbital maneuver stuff like space engineers has. they'd probably only burn for a short time after launch to align and get up to speed, then later to re-align if the target course changes

Would love some launching like this. [video=youtube;cUVMsuLW2EE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUVMsuLW2EE[/video] It looks so much cooler with the missiles actually traveling a distance before aiming for it's target, and I don't want to worry about missiles hitting my own hull.

missiles soft-launching from the sides of a space ship it has to be a fetish

Eve has both straight launching missiles for smaller things and soft launch missilesfor i.e. capital ships. atm we just have straight launchers for capital ships and just soft launchers for fighters, so it is the other way around :v:. I can imagine the soft launchers being added to capitals. It would make much more sense as aiming a 50 meter rocket using a turret is kinda difficult. The small ones would be used against fighter.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;43105738]There is going to be no fantasy magic like shields and force-fields.[/QUOTE]I'm not quite sure how the gravity generators function but I can't picture it being exceptionally realistic.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;43111625]I'm not quite sure how the gravity generators function but I can't picture it being exceptionally realistic.[/QUOTE] they're only there so that your character doesn't get muscle atrophy and osteopenia. it's kind of a necessary concession in a game like this

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;43111625]I'm not quite sure how the gravity generators function but I can't picture it being exceptionally realistic.[/QUOTE] Well the devs said they were put in as a last resort to make the game playable, since they couldn't get a working realistic solution. My point was there is going to be no magic for magics sake.

It sounds stupid to be honest, you can make localized gravity but can't make a barrier between two objects.

[QUOTE=GHOST!!!!;43111984]It sounds stupid to be honest, you can make localized gravity but can't make a barrier between two objects.[/QUOTE] You're seconds away from understanding sci-fi. Where things are invented and added to do away with narrative problems. Gravity was invented in space engineers to make it fundamentally playable. Shields were popularized in things like startrek because its a cheep way of showing the enterprise in lots of fights without actually anything being damaged. Imagine if it had to be drydocked for an entire season every time it got into a little scrap, not to mention the expense of the set design. Its a conflict driven narrative based around one ship, it needs shields to explain why its back in every episode. Space engineers doesn't need shields ergo, they don't exist in its universe. On the contrary, shields would detract from the whole 'smash shit up' philosophy of the game, so they doubly don't make sense to add.

although having said that you can totally make a shield device using gravity generators, or at least something capable of deflecting most railgun projectiles. so theoretically it's possible for stations and other static objects to have shields, but it remains to be seen if they also affect regular bullets

I don't think gravity will ever affect 'ship objects'. As the devs said before, it'll just result in ships blackholing into each other.

I'm having difficulty making relatively small ships using the large blocks, i.e. small freighters or large boarding vessels. I could do with some pictures of people's "small/medium" large block ships for some ideas on how not to make it shit :v:

[QUOTE=GHOST!!!!;43111984]It sounds stupid to be honest, you can make localized gravity but can't make a barrier between two objects.[/QUOTE] [img]http://i.imgur.com/zIxiB22.png[/img]

[QUOTE=scratch (nl);43112133]I'm having difficulty making relatively small ships using the large blocks, i.e. small freighters or large boarding vessels. I could do with some pictures of people's "small/medium" large block ships for some ideas on how not to make it shit :v:[/QUOTE] Well these are some cutaways I've made. [thumb]http://i.imgur.com/O6VnNde.jpg[/thumb] [thumb]http://i.imgur.com/Dwq05hu.jpg[/thumb] [thumb]http://i.imgur.com/zoqspCs.jpg[/thumb] hell they're all pretty small compared to most peoples [thumb]http://i.imgur.com/hBGMQcm.jpg?1[/thumb]

My symmetry mode seems to be broken? I can place the symmetry things, but when adding blocks they don't get placed on the other side of the "mirror". It even happens on ships where the mirrors were added before it didn't work. EDIT NVM you can turn it on/off with [B]n[/B]

[QUOTE=Cone;43112034]although having said that you can totally make a shield device using gravity generators, or at least something capable of deflecting most railgun projectiles. so theoretically it's possible for stations and other static objects to have shields, but it remains to be seen if they also affect regular bullets[/QUOTE] It's a real pipe dream, but I hope those bullets are treated the same way railgun rounds are and they actually deal brute damage as opposed to hardcoded "bullet" damage.

[QUOTE=scratch (nl);43105377]Having an atmosphere system sucks for when you just want to make fancy ships without having to care about open holes or hangar bays. Some games profit of a system like that, but I don't think Space Engineers would.[/QUOTE] i think it could be pretty cool in a different, more realistic game mode. people would be forced to make ships with different sections and stuff, so doors would close automatically in case theres a hull breach so the whole ship doesnt get compromised, stuff like you see in sci fi movies, theres definitely a certain charm to that kind of thing obviously not thinking about the possibility of that being implemented exactly like i described it, just saying why it could be a cool thing to have

[QUOTE=Cone;43112034]although having said that you can totally make a shield device using gravity generators, or at least something capable of deflecting most railgun projectiles. so theoretically it's possible for stations and other static objects to have shields, but it remains to be seen if they also affect regular bullets[/QUOTE] Someone has already done this: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01DxmVRi0Ao[/media] [editline]8th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=scratch (nl);43112133]I'm having difficulty making relatively small ships using the large blocks, i.e. small freighters or large boarding vessels. I could do with some pictures of people's "small/medium" large block ships for some ideas on how not to make it shit :v:[/QUOTE] You could always jsut build a big ships out of small parts. I'm sure there's a way of changing the cockpit model into the chair if you really wanted.

[QUOTE=Kyle902;43108175]Life Support makes Space Station 13 laggy. If you added a life support system to Space Engineers you would make it unplayable.[/QUOTE] You're seriously gonna compare byond to an engine that isn't shit?

well the devs themselves have said it'll cause performance issues.