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

[QUOTE=Mbbird;43615672]I love making small large-ships. [t]http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/505828638823877267/1A8BBD3A08FF553E33AF19DCACB0868D5613F396/[/t] They're so cozy and nimble, while being extremely lightweight and efficient. I could make [B]8 of these[/B] with the materials that went into my 7000t ship; 8 vs 1 is not a cheery prospect. I have a feeling much of survival mode will revolve around ships of this size, for better or worse, unless mining/construction is friendlier than I expect. [editline]20th January 2014[/editline] I hope for ramp-shaped hull pieces though. Like I reallyyyyy hope that's something the devs plan on doing.[/QUOTE] I totes agree I look forward to getting me and some buddies in a group of small large ships and shrek peoples bloated monstrosities.

[QUOTE=Spor;43618933]I took a long walk, bought the game and played for few hours. I can now completely understand why people don't want mandatory center of mass to be a feature. I'm really sorry for the shitstorm and elitism-spouting I caused here.[/QUOTE] I think people like the convenience of placing thrusters opposite the direction they want to go. COM already exist and applies to every force but thrusters. I think thrusters should act like other forces but that their power output is automatically controlled to create balanced movement. A toggle to turn off the automatic control would be cool too.

Whoa wait, when was multiplayer added? When I last played this was in November. :v:

Is there a way to use blocks like these? I only find plated ones in inventory. [img_thumb]http://puu.sh/6sYSQ.jpg[/img_thumb]

Not yet, those'll be present when pure survival mode is in and you have to manufacture blocks from mined resources then 'build' them in place.

Apparently the latest update fixes a lot of the sync issues in MP. Anyone want to try it out?

oh guys why do I think about you when I see this [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzXfVgYCxWI[/media]

Well I tried the update and there are still a lot of sync issues between doors, lights, basically all devices still.

[QUOTE=Spor;43616901]You guys realize that spaceships are built like skyscrapers, not like submarines/ships. 'Down' is the direction of the trust, not perpendicular to it. Why reinforce the stupid stereotype, it looks stupid for anyone at least familiar with how real things work. I was checking out the website and pleasantly surprised by the frequency of updates and the functions they add, like the rotors. Thought it was all static. Might actually buy it today, but I want to ask first: Is there any hardcoded thrust/controlls/etc limits that could prevent me from building more realistic, skyscraper designs instead of horizontal star-wars-like ones? Does it have/planned to have solar panels and heat radiators? [img]http://puu.sh/6sMaj.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] Late, but was on phone when this was posted and I can't help but respond: Different games for different purposes. Suspension of disbelief is a thing if you didn't know. I [I]love[/I] realistic movies, realistic books, realistic games, realistic characters, realistic emotions, realistic art design, realistic anything, to the point where I find it difficult to enjoy the majority of mainstream art, yet I find Space Engineers interesting. It's a game, and while I strongly believe that those 3 words do not excuse [I]anyone[/I], you have to remember what that means. You play a game to work around problems. Conflict is interesting, and those problems provide the conflict. But the kinds of problems one works around in a realistic game are different than those in an unrealistic game, and that's why the two types exist. They're [I]different[/I] from one another. I love designing neat, multistage interplanetary vehicles in KSP just as much as I love designing armored warships in SE. I can appreciate the wonders of The Fermi Paradox and the depressing constraints of the speed of light just as much as I can a space battle with different intricacies of its own.

is it just me or do rotors provide different torque when they're rotating in the negative or positive directions? The mirror rotors for my hangers on my ships always rotate at different speeds even with the same RPMs, and some of them have a hard time keeping the hangar door closed when maneuvering.

[QUOTE=Shogoll;43622617]is it just me or do rotors provide different torque when they're rotating in the negative or positive directions? The mirror rotors for my hangers on my ships always rotate at different speeds even with the same RPMs, and some of them have a hard time keeping the hangar door closed when maneuvering.[/QUOTE] probably you can't get them to be the same velocity? like if you set one to 1.15 the nearest you can get with the other is -1.26 or something, because the slider isn't fine enough

[QUOTE=krail9;43622709]probably you can't get them to be the same velocity? like if you set one to 1.15 the nearest you can get with the other is -1.26 or something, because the slider isn't fine enough[/QUOTE] another reason we need improved rotor functionality

[QUOTE=krail9;43622709]probably you can't get them to be the same velocity? like if you set one to 1.15 the nearest you can get with the other is -1.26 or something, because the slider isn't fine enough[/QUOTE] the difference is really big, like one of the doors open at literally twice the speed of the other

[QUOTE=Shogoll;43622617]is it just me or do rotors provide different torque when they're rotating in the negative or positive directions? The mirror rotors for my hangers on my ships always rotate at different speeds even with the same RPMs, and some of them have a hard time keeping the hangar door closed when maneuvering.[/QUOTE] Generally, you need to mount them to the ship with landing gear at some point in order to fly at any real speeds just doing the math on what a simple door ends up weighing versus the total breaking power of the rotor, it's not really a surprise that at a high velocity like 80 m/s there's no way to hold on to it with just a rotor. [editline]21st January 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Shogoll;43622727]the difference is really big, like one of the doors open at literally twice the speed of the other[/QUOTE] muh automerge. did you construct them totally identically?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;43622738]Generally, you need to mount them to the ship with landing gear at some point in order to fly at any real speeds just doing the math on what a simple door ends up weighing versus the total breaking power of the rotor, it's not really a surprise that at a high velocity like 80 m/s there's no way to hold on to it with just a rotor. [editline]21st January 2014[/editline] muh automerge. did you construct them totally identically?[/QUOTE] They should be totally identical, unless I fucked up something really bad, but I counted blocks on both sides to ensure they're identical and rotor positioning was played with symmetry so. Also I really need to implement the landing gear holding system, but the way physics kinda bugs sometimes I find that it usually ends up just like denting the door in and it's really annoying.

[QUOTE=Shogoll;43622617]is it just me or do rotors provide different torque when they're rotating in the negative or positive directions? The mirror rotors for my hangers on my ships always rotate at different speeds even with the same RPMs, and some of them have a hard time keeping the hangar door closed when maneuvering.[/QUOTE] Make sure both torque and breaking torque are maxed out and then adjust your velocity settings accordingly, also rotors cannot keep objects completely closed so you'll have to install a some landing gears to keep them shut when maneuvering like I had to do. [editline]21st January 2014[/editline] also use arrow keys to adjust the sliders *slightly* more accurately.

[QUOTE=Mbbird;43622111]Late, but was on phone when this was posted and I can't help but respond: Different games for different purposes. Suspension of disbelief is a thing if you didn't know. I [I]love[/I] realistic movies, realistic books, realistic games, realistic characters, realistic emotions, realistic art design, realistic anything, to the point where I find it difficult to enjoy the majority of mainstream art, yet I find Space Engineers interesting. It's a game, and while I strongly believe that those 3 words do not excuse [I]anyone[/I], you have to remember what that means. You play a game to work around problems. Conflict is interesting, and those problems provide the conflict. But the kinds of problems one works around in a realistic game are different than those in an unrealistic game, and that's why the two types exist. They're [I]different[/I] from one another. I love designing neat, multistage interplanetary vehicles in KSP just as much as I love designing armored warships in SE. I can appreciate the wonders of The Fermi Paradox and the depressing constraints of the speed of light just as much as I can a space battle with different intricacies of its own.[/QUOTE] I agree with you. I dislike star-wars style spaceships, but for some reason in space engineers I don't feel that. I fly them without any negative feelings. That post was written before I actually played the game.

[QUOTE=Shogoll;43622892]They should be totally identical, unless I fucked up something really bad, but I counted blocks on both sides to ensure they're identical and rotor positioning was played with symmetry so. Also I really need to implement the landing gear holding system, but the way physics kinda bugs sometimes I find that it usually ends up just like denting the door in and it's really annoying.[/QUOTE] Try closing the door slower and building a control mechanism closer to the door so you can see if you're about to close too fast

So I just created my first big ship [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/iQBKE8F.png[/IMG] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/PnOeqFq.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/PEqqXoJ.jpg[/IMG] I haven't put the weapons on or finished the interior but it's built for Ramming! Which lead me to name it [i]Say My Name[/i] It's surpisingly agile and fast!

[thumb]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6035324/2014-01-21_00008.jpg[/thumb] [thumb]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6035324/2014-01-21_00009.jpg[/thumb][thumb]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6035324/2014-01-21_00017.jpg[/thumb][thumb]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6035324/2014-01-21_00011.jpg[/thumb][thumb]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6035324/2014-01-21_00012.jpg[/thumb][thumb]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6035324/2014-01-21_00013.jpg[/thumb][thumb]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6035324/2014-01-21_00016.jpg[/thumb] [img]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6035324/2014-01-21_00018.jpg[/img] Completed Gaia super carrier. Didn't bother putting turrets on it since they don't even work anyways, but its otherwise complete. The armor on it is pretty strong just from sheer mass, I found that firing 5 rockets at once at it from the prometheus couldn't make a hole in the hangar doors, nor could it really make holes into the interior from most angles. The hangar door also survived being rammed by the prometheus at terminal speed without being penetrated, which is pretty major considering it weighs like 170,000 kg. Overall pretty strongly armored ship, though I wish that heavy armor blocks would be implemented, since it's still pretty flimsy in the face of massed small ship fire.

[QUOTE=Spor;43618933]I took a long walk, bought the game and played for few hours. I can now completely understand why people don't want mandatory center of mass to be a feature. I'm really sorry for the shitstorm and elitism-spouting I caused here.[/QUOTE] Hey wait a fucking second, you mean you [I][B]didn't even play the game[/B][/I] before saying all that?

[QUOTE=NoDachi;43619047]I totes agree I look forward to getting me and some buddies in a group of small large ships and shrek peoples bloated monstrosities.[/QUOTE]Good. Small ships mean I dont need to make the jaws quite as big.

[QUOTE=Squeegy Mackoy;43625325]Good. Small ships mean I dont need to make the jaws quite as big.[/QUOTE] :C please give people live demonstrations of your cool shit when MP improves

I'm warming up to this whole small ships thing [t]http://cloud-4.steampowered.com/ugc/486688429825905522/F57E2CC92026E88F146732D73C648AA79FBE2538/[/t]

[QUOTE=Wickerman123;43617565]And KSP is way more realistic right? [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfMxa8WhM_k[/media][/QUOTE] Technically this is realistic, think of each aileron as a fan, when you wave a fan you push air in one direction, and thus there must be an equal and opposite reaction force, creating thrust

Rockets blow up my fps :c

[QUOTE=SpartanXC9;43624664]So I just created my first big ship [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/iQBKE8F.png[/IMG] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/PnOeqFq.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/PEqqXoJ.jpg[/IMG] I haven't put the weapons on or finished the interior but it's built for Ramming! Which lead me to name it [i]Say My Name[/i] It's surpisingly agile and fast![/QUOTE] its like a super angular space yamato [editline]22nd January 2014[/editline] [img]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6035324/2014-01-21_00019.jpg[/img] multiplayer stress testing

[QUOTE=Shogoll;43625702]its like a super angular space yamato [editline]22nd January 2014[/editline] -snip- multiplayer stress testing[/QUOTE] That beacon near the bottom-right.

Edit: Not sure what compelled me to post this. Please excuse my stupidity. I apologize to those involved.

[QUOTE=Shogoll;43622617]is it just me or do rotors provide different torque when they're rotating in the negative or positive directions? The mirror rotors for my hangers on my ships always rotate at different speeds even with the same RPMs, and some of them have a hard time keeping the hangar door closed when maneuvering.[/QUOTE] I have noticed the same thing, and some people on Reddit have also pointed it out. I think there is a noticeable difference in torque.