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

[QUOTE=ZnT00;43253811]They do.[/QUOTE] Really?!? I would have sworn I tried everything and they wouldn't engage.

[QUOTE=sgman91;43253566]I don't know... I made a small ship torpedo bomber that can easily carry two large ship warheads. It then essentially dive bombs the large ship and releases the torpedo which continue on their own. It's very maneuverable and easy to aim. I don't see how anything that's decently sized would be able to dodge it. As a side note: I REALLY wish small ship landing gears would attach to other small ships.[/QUOTE] judging from the assault rifle, you're probably going to have to armor up your bombs pretty considerably if you don't want to get entirely vaporized by a stray bullet from a gatling sentry

They should add very heavy blocks that maybe are rocket-propelled somehow so you can have a kinetic weapon?

[QUOTE=PredGD;43253518]make me proud[/QUOTE] well, you take that same construct and shove it in the ENEMY railgun. then the enemy railgun implodes. sabotage.

Next update (coming very soon) is going to expand on an already existing core feature. But what could it be? ooOooOOOoooOOo

I hope it's more colors to paint the blocks with can't wait

[QUOTE=darth-veger;43254956]Next update (coming very soon) is going to expand on an already existing core feature. But what could it be? ooOooOOOoooOOo[/QUOTE] [video=youtube;fq3abPnEEGE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fq3abPnEEGE[/video]

Will I finally be able to realize my dream of a space orgy?

welding tool + frameworks for blocks, basic survival mode functionality?

I tried making a 'railgun' of my own with ass loads of grav gens, but i found the results unsatisfactory so i crashed the monstrosity into the red ship [t]http://puu.sh/5Tdv6.jpg[/t] all of the grey things are grav gens that got disconnected from the railgun :v:

I'd rather we got multi point thrusters.

Space Engineers is solid proof of a certain trope. while railguns may fail to do diddly, [url=http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RammingAlwaysWorks]Ramming Always Works[/url]

[QUOTE=Joazzz;43255424]Space Engineers is solid proof of a certain trope. while railguns may fail to do diddly, [url=http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RammingAlwaysWorks]Ramming Always Works[/url][/QUOTE] Given that our terminal velocity is 104 m/s, the subtrope of "ramming not being effective enough", sadly, doesn't really apply. What have the devs said about terminal velocity actually? I find it a bit silly that it's so low. Do the devs not want to simulate energy transfer at extreme speeds? Can it literally not right now? Do they plan on raising it?

I really hope the speed limit is removed or, at the very least, raised to a large value. While it's true that collision detection and response can be difficult with object moving at high speed, it is by no means impossible and so I hope we can look forward to moving very, very fast indeed.

[QUOTE=Mbbird;43255526]Given that our terminal velocity is 104 m/s, the subtrope of "ramming not being effective enough", sadly, doesn't really apply. What have the devs said about terminal velocity actually? I find it a bit silly that it's so low. Do the devs not want to simulate energy transfer at extreme speeds? Can it literally not right now? Do they plan on raising it?[/QUOTE] I think it's currently lowered because of limitations with the physics. like when you use loads of gravgens and a rock it'll just clip through since it goes too fast

if you go to fast issues like that will happen since the collision is too fast for a physics tick or something I have no idea why you'd want an increased speed limit anyway...

why should it stay low though? i'd rather it's higher so we're not limited by a low top speed.

[QUOTE=krail9;43255594]if you go to fast issues like that will happen since the collision is too fast for a physics tick or something I have no idea why you'd want an increased speed limit anyway...[/QUOTE] Because 104m/s is unarguably hilariously low. I'm not looking forward to 3km/s velocities, but maybe 500? 900? Right now we have a "sportscar and crapsedan on a 60mph freeway" problem, where only acceleration to a very low speed matters, after which both vehicles operate at the same speed. [editline]20th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=PredGD;43255552]I think it's currently lowered because of limitations with the physics. like when you use loads of gravgens and a rock it'll just clip through since it goes too fast[/QUOTE] This is really why it's low, so the logical question would then be "How can we justify improving the physics engine right now to allow for more reliable high speed collisions?" not "Why do you want higher speeds?", krail.

[QUOTE=Mbbird;43255642]This is really why it's low, so the logical question would then be "How can we justify improving the physics engine right now to allow for more reliable high speed collisions?" not "Why do you want higher speeds?", krail.[/QUOTE] well it matters when time, effort and money are limited commodities and there needs to be a payoff for the effort I'm [I]not sure[/I] that a higher limit would actually be useful, I want to see how multilayer survival combat plays out before that, since it would change the balance significantly

It usually isn't too much extra work to allow for fast moving objects to collide properly, using a technique such as swept volumes will work in a lot of cases, and I think the gameplay would benefit greatly from such a relatively small change.

[QUOTE=Joazzz;43255424]Space Engineers is solid proof of a certain trope. while railguns may fail to do diddly, [url=http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RammingAlwaysWorks]Ramming Always Works[/url][/QUOTE] What mad man links to tvtropes without a warning.

[QUOTE=krail9;43255728]well it matters when time, effort and money are limited commodities and there needs to be a payoff for the effort I'm [I]not sure[/I] that a higher limit would actually be useful, I want to see how multilayer survival combat plays out before that, since it would change the balance significantly[/QUOTE] Change balance significantly? It would change things but for the better, seeing as the whole "you need more reactors and more surface area for more engines thus more armor, thus more size and weight" problem still exists. Given that, it's almost impossible for it to not add anything to gameplay, especially if exploration is to play a role and the "worlds" are to be large.

[QUOTE=krail9;43255728]well it matters when time, effort and money are limited commodities and there needs to be a payoff for the effort I'm [I]not sure[/I] that a higher limit would actually be useful, I want to see how multilayer survival combat plays out before that, since it would change the balance significantly[/QUOTE] as of right now, you have no ability to chase someone if they get up to top speed before you do. What would MP be if that's the case

I wonder how they'll do worlds in the future. sounds logical to do procedural generation

[QUOTE=PredGD;43256183]I wonder how they'll do worlds in the future. sounds logical to do procedural generation[/QUOTE] I don't honestly see why asteroid generation isn't limited procedural right now. They're getting some decent progress, but they've made like 3 games now about asteroids, you'd think they'd have something like that by now.

call me Pessimist Pete but worlds in this sounds so orgasmic that it'll prolly never happen but man, if it did and we had smooth space to atmosphere to ground transitions... ...imagine the joys and wonders of orbital bombardment

[QUOTE=Joazzz;43256598]call me Pessimist Pete but worlds in this sounds so orgasmic that it'll prolly never happen but man, if it did and we had smooth space to atmosphere to ground transitions... ...imagine the joys and wonders of orbital bombardment[/QUOTE] We're talking about instances of asteroid chains and you're talking about planets. [editline]20th December 2013[/editline] Orbital bombardment is so far out of the scale of this game it's not funny. [editline]20th December 2013[/editline] Also these are the same devs that made up an entire storyline for 2 entire games around how our planets don't exist so that they wouldn't have to make them. I don't even need to refute "PLANETS PLS" arguments because it's not going to happen.

[QUOTE=Mbbird;43256951]We're talking about instances of asteroid chains and you're talking about planets. [editline]20th December 2013[/editline] Orbital bombardment is so far out of the scale of this game it's not funny. [editline]20th December 2013[/editline] These are the same devs that made up an entire storyline for 2 entire games around how planets don't exist so that they wouldn't have to make them.[/QUOTE] im pretty sure everyone knows its impossible, its just fun imagining stuff, gee [editline]21st December 2013[/editline] seriously not every idea needs to stir up a super serious argument about how unviable it is

Honestly, I'd settle for larger asteroids with gravity...

also there's the whole [t]http://puu.sh/5Tnwu.png[/t] [editline]20th December 2013[/editline] Asteroids with fictionally high amounts of gravity would be cool, feasible (all the proper framework is in place...?), and fitting of the scale of the game. [editline]20th December 2013[/editline] Onto things actually on the horizon: I'd really like to see ship-sized weapons (missile tubes, cannons, etc) or constructable battle-ship like turrets soon.