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

[url]https://twitter.com/SpaceEngineersG/status/466577275052625920[/url] [IMG]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BnmdjoqIEAASCEY.jpg[/IMG] so apparently an update to easy start 1 is coming tomorrow as well as [URL="http://www.reddit.com/r/spaceengineers/comments/25jd3v/twitter_spaceengineersg_coming_tomorrow/chhrkjx"]"lots of goodies"[/URL]

The updated redship now was weapon systems it would appear. Infact all those ships look updated.

I bet they improved solar panels too.

I hope the goodies include performance optimizations

[QUOTE=lexus04;44807147][url]https://twitter.com/SpaceEngineersG/status/466577275052625920[/url] [IMG]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BnmdjoqIEAASCEY.jpg[/IMG] so apparently an update to easy start 1 is coming tomorrow as well as [URL="http://www.reddit.com/r/spaceengineers/comments/25jd3v/twitter_spaceengineersg_coming_tomorrow/chhrkjx"]"lots of goodies"[/URL][/QUOTE] I can't tell very well from the low resolution but I think the missile turret on the top of the red ship's right engine is functional, it seems to be aiming nearly straight up in the top-right image and it's aiming slightly up on the bottom-left image.

[QUOTE=ViralHatred;44805009]Except you don't use a pure oxygen atmosphere.[/QUOTE] Why wouldn't you? It's easier to filter methane and co2 out of, and having only one gas to store allows for greater breathable air capacity.

We shall see when it comes. [editline]14th May 2014[/editline] hopefully they fix grinders memory leak problem.

I'm still waiting for that scalable railgun idea someone mentioned awhile back.

[QUOTE=Magman77;44807659]Why wouldn't you? It's easier to filter methane and co2 out of, and having only one gas to store allows for greater breathable air capacity.[/QUOTE] Nobody can breathe pure oxygen.

[QUOTE=Magman77;44807659]Why wouldn't you? It's easier to filter methane and co2 out of, and having only one gas to store allows for greater breathable air capacity.[/QUOTE] Because oxygen toxicity is an issue to humans and having an atmosphere consisting entirely of flammable gas isn't exactly the best idea.

[QUOTE=Psychokitten;44807922]I'm still waiting for that scalable railgun idea someone mentioned awhile back.[/QUOTE] that'd be rad

Mother of God [video=youtube;726_ax3qfu4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=726_ax3qfu4p[/video]

[QUOTE=Magman77;44807659]Why wouldn't you? It's easier to filter methane and co2 out of, and having only one gas to store allows for greater breathable air capacity.[/QUOTE] Pure oxygen is effectively lethal. SCUBA divers generally just use pressurized air.

[QUOTE=Carnotite;44808143]Because oxygen toxicity is an issue to humans and having an atmosphere consisting entirely of flammable gas isn't exactly the best idea.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=GeneralSpecific;44808094]Nobody can breathe pure oxygen.[/QUOTE] Sure you can, every spacecraft used from project Mercury through the end of the Apollo program used pure oxygen environments at 5 psi. You just can't breathe pure oxygen at sealevel pressure for very long. The Mercury and Gemini projects even pressurized the pure oxygen environment to 16psi to drive out the nitrogen-oxygen atmosphere before launch. However after Apollo 1, the atmosphere at launch was kept as nitrogen-oxygen and then cycled out for pure oxygen after achieving orbit.

[QUOTE=GeneralSpecific;44808094]Nobody can breathe pure oxygen.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Carnotite;44808143]Because oxygen toxicity is an issue to humans and having an atmosphere consisting entirely of flammable gas isn't exactly the best idea.[/QUOTE] High amounts of oxygen per se aren't dangerous, high partial oxygen pressure is. In this case the entire atmosphere is oxygen, so the partial pressure is equal to total pressure - which means that having a pressure high enough for diffusion but not too high to be toxic is probably attainable.

[vid]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/7939899/Images/gifs/SEgravgens.webm[/vid] I love gravity generators.

So i have a legitimate question for all of you Everyone has like, that one fighter that they use and land on their carriers and stuff. But my question is; How often do you guys upgrade that fighter? You know, adjust armor, weapons, thrusters, reactors, and gyros? Because i've just hit the 6th iteration of my RF-32 series... which is on par with my RF-20 series, having 5 direct upgrade marks and 1 off-shoot used for "electronic warfare". I have a lot of fighters. Is that normal? I almost feel this unignorable pull to UPGRADE UPGRADE UPGRADE all the time. Originally i made the Mk. I and the next day i changed it from a dual engine design to a tri-engine design, making the Mk. II. A loooooooong time late came the Mk. 2.3 A/S, a dumb idea to make an RF-32 that could, in theory, be used in an atmosphere. After that i decided it was time for a direct upgrade to the Mk. II and the Mk. III was born. The Mk. III iteration of the RF-32 lasted maybe a week and a half before it was phased out for the Mk. IIIe, which i was forced to make about 5 days ago for use in survival mode(to reload the guns and fuel the reactors), then came the Mk. IV just today. A month from now i'm going to be at the Mk. VII...

All the time. My shipyard saves are full of variants and upgrades

i tend to notice extremely tiny changes i could do to make the ship more efficient, and over time that accumulates until it's basically a different thing. and then i'm not sure if it counts as a different ship or not

I don't have any small fighters that both look good and work well, it's either one or the other :v:

On the whole explosion thing, the way I see it, gameplay > realism. The game isn't realistic at all, so why not implement the fun explosions? If the game was trying to be a realistic space sim, it would be way different anyway.

[QUOTE=lexus04;44807147][url]https://twitter.com/SpaceEngineersG/status/466577275052625920[/url] [IMG]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BnmdjoqIEAASCEY.jpg[/IMG] so apparently an update to easy start 1 is coming tomorrow as well as [URL="http://www.reddit.com/r/spaceengineers/comments/25jd3v/twitter_spaceengineersg_coming_tomorrow/chhrkjx"]"lots of goodies"[/URL][/QUOTE] [img]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BnmdjoqIEAASCEY.jpg:large[/img] It is available in higher res on twitter. (If people didn't click on the twitter link.)

[QUOTE=ossumsauce;44812414]So i have a legitimate question for all of you Everyone has like, that one fighter that they use and land on their carriers and stuff. But my question is; How often do you guys upgrade that fighter? You know, adjust armor, weapons, thrusters, reactors, and gyros? Because i've just hit the 6th iteration of my RF-32 series... which is on par with my RF-20 series, having 5 direct upgrade marks and 1 off-shoot used for "electronic warfare". I have a lot of fighters. Is that normal? I almost feel this unignorable pull to UPGRADE UPGRADE UPGRADE all the time. Originally i made the Mk. I and the next day i changed it from a dual engine design to a tri-engine design, making the Mk. II. A loooooooong time late came the Mk. 2.3 A/S, a dumb idea to make an RF-32 that could, in theory, be used in an atmosphere. After that i decided it was time for a direct upgrade to the Mk. II and the Mk. III was born. The Mk. III iteration of the RF-32 lasted maybe a week and a half before it was phased out for the Mk. IIIe, which i was forced to make about 5 days ago for use in survival mode(to reload the guns and fuel the reactors), then came the Mk. IV just today. A month from now i'm going to be at the Mk. VII...[/QUOTE] I recently upgraded one of the first fighters I made, but it took me a long time to get around to because I'm always busy (not) building large cool ships. Pre-Thruster damage version [thumb]http://cloud-3.steampowered.com/ugc/468684256400299397/7BF45438CB11AF91121E3E95D5C1C984B78A4ED1/[/thumb] [thumb]http://cloud-3.steampowered.com/ugc/468684256400300280/BE09AAD299C26A5C3236BEC356E27E8BD4AC1106/[/thumb] Updated version [thumb]http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/468684256400300798/E0525004F33075D53347FBC25112399C55EC97B6/[/thumb] [thumb]http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/468684256400301569/69A251AEC5606A670F409A73E54406B473F5993C/[/thumb] Does it look alright to you guys?

they look better

I hope they'll fix the critical grav lev bug this time, I only reported it 7 hours after the artificial mass update.

Found this old save from ages ago, decided to upgrade it a little bit. [img_thumb]http://cloud-3.steampowered.com/ugc/685967544722682349/841F785AA2E4684968A64045B6A2257B49EAAA40/[/img_thumb][img_thumb]http://cloud-3.steampowered.com/ugc/685967544722890996/F32247AB24581AD77E6B117E512BC91E48707125/[/img_thumb] This was the result: [img_thumb]http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/468684175439185895/09D174412245A7692295C9EB4D4123FE01635927/[/img_thumb][img_thumb]http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/468684175439188483/F85BE7541EBF2F88CBF2A2E018802F89E2C8C812/[/img_thumb][img_thumb]http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/468684175439190707/9180BEEFE2FDB463679FC0C43BEC5EA089B2EED0/[/img_thumb]

Taking a little break from managing dorfs, playing around with a few designs for certain ship sections I have floating about in my head. First is a central corridor piece, idea is everything else would be built around it. Probably needs to be modified for more z-level movement. Second is an evolution of a bridge design i've been fiddling about with for a while. [t]http://i.imgur.com/GAJbyyZ.jpg[/t][t]http://i.imgur.com/irPYZq2.jpg[/t] [t]http://i.imgur.com/iQJv3S6.jpg[/t][t]http://i.imgur.com/ezFhnkB.jpg[/t] [t]http://i.imgur.com/tb20Q5h.jpg[/t][t]http://i.imgur.com/BwW2kjV.jpg[/t]

[QUOTE=ossumsauce;44812414]So i have a legitimate question for all of you Everyone has like, that one fighter that they use and land on their carriers and stuff. But my question is; How often do you guys upgrade that fighter? You know, adjust armor, weapons, thrusters, reactors, and gyros? Because i've just hit the 6th iteration of my RF-32 series... which is on par with my RF-20 series, having 5 direct upgrade marks and 1 off-shoot used for "electronic warfare". I have a lot of fighters. Is that normal? I almost feel this unignorable pull to UPGRADE UPGRADE UPGRADE all the time. Originally i made the Mk. I and the next day i changed it from a dual engine design to a tri-engine design, making the Mk. II. A loooooooong time late came the Mk. 2.3 A/S, a dumb idea to make an RF-32 that could, in theory, be used in an atmosphere. After that i decided it was time for a direct upgrade to the Mk. II and the Mk. III was born. The Mk. III iteration of the RF-32 lasted maybe a week and a half before it was phased out for the Mk. IIIe, which i was forced to make about 5 days ago for use in survival mode(to reload the guns and fuel the reactors), then came the Mk. IV just today. A month from now i'm going to be at the Mk. VII...[/QUOTE] i've determined through my extremely rigorous psuedoscientific process that a really tiny ass fighter is the best kind of fighter, at least until they implement alternate rocket pod firing so i dont need to fire so many at once, especially after something with a limit of 4 fires before rearming. So its so tiny theres not much to do with it, i feel like i've already perfected it. Issue is, a fighter between certain sizes has a big problem with incoming rocket fire. For a fighter design, you either need to be above 18 blocks diameter or you risk your (dead center) cockpit/reactors/gyros being all killed in a single rocket hit. And if your fighter isn't that size, then you want it to be as small as possible to minimize surface areas for rockets to contact. tho this is with the current balance of terrible gatlings and weird rockets.

I'm back from work and no update yet? What's this madness!

[QUOTE=scratch (nl);44815821]I'm back from work and no update yet? What's this madness![/QUOTE] Space madness. We all have it.