Engine intake and exhaust considerations

[OmniAdept]

You could probably build an escape pod as a separate construct, so you wouldn't have to have engines to destroy blocks. 

true, but then you would have to run to the escape pod.  

 

If you include the core unit in the bridge that separates, the rest of the ship will be dead in space. Someone will have to come along and build a core unit back in and reprogram the controls.

 

I suppose in the build process they can display a no build zone that you can override, if you really want to.

[Anaximander]

true, but then you would have to run to the escape pod.  

 

If you include the core unit in the bridge that separates, the rest of the ship will be dead in space. Someone will have to come along and build a core unit back in and reprogram the controls.

 

I suppose in the build process they can display a no build zone that you can override, if you really want to.

The Core Unit deploys a voxel grid around it. Detaching the Core Unit from the rest of the ship can't be done without editing the rest of the construct out.

 

It's a technical thing.

 

Just have life pods through key points on the ship. It's not like your original idea would save you in battle  

 

 

Dettachable bridge or not, you would still need gridwork, thrusters, fuel and warp cores to wrp out. Your dettachable bridge would not keep you any more safe than a pod, you would just be easiter to hit / more difficult to haul

[gyurka66]

The server has to scan the construct at least once per change. and it's easy to check if something is behind something. I hope they will spend a half hour for this.

[AccuNut]

Let me start off by saying that I am NOT suggesting thrusters should be capable of being operated while completely hidden.

While I think a "no-build zone" would be the simplest route, I don't believe it would be the best, mainly from a design standpoint.

What I mean is, certain ship designs would be impossible if you couldn't build in front of / behind the engines.

 

Say, for example, that I wanted to build a ship with hidden atmospheric thrusters. (For design purposes, or maybe to preserve a design with a small radar footprint.) If I wanted to build some kind of doors in front of and behind these engines to keep them hidden, (while not in use,) a no-build zone would prevent me from doing so.

 

Or, if I want my thrusters centered on the back of my craft, but for design purposes I want the intake on the leading edge of the wings; also impossible with a no-build zone.

 

I really like a couple ideas that have been suggested already, such as running on O2 reserves when oxygen is absent, and being able to route the intake from the atmosphere to the engine through some kind of ducts.

 

Thrusters causing damage, while realistic, could make things a little complicated. I am not referring to the computing it would require, because I have no clue whether it would be simple or a nightmare: I am not a game designer.

I am talking about the issues that could arise from it in-game, like landing pad damage, (yes, I know, use your landing thrusters, but still....) or even ship self-damage.

Some people (myself included) would love to be able to build ships with engines forward of the ship's rear, maybe even all the way up front. If they actually deal damage, however, it would probably never happen, since the "jetwash" from the thrusters would be constantly dealing damage to the front and / or sides of the craft.

 

The only way around this would be to make a material that is immune to burn damage / cumulative heat damage.

If they do that, I would be fine with engines causing exhaust damage.

 

Another way to discourage operating a thruster with the exhaust blocked would be that it simply doesn't produce any thrust.

[CaptainQuoth]

Ships have bridges. Star-fighters have cockpits.

 

You could just add explosives and total a ship's bridge just to piss off the pirates and escape on a star-fighter you got on the ship.

Space engineers did that but but their implementation was terrible the cone was more of a cylinder that started right at the engine so everything adjacent to it was getting fried.

[Anaximander]

Space engineers did that but but their implementation was terrible the cone was more of a cylinder that started right at the engine so everything adjacent to it was getting fried.

Well, I meant more of a "no build zone", as it's more plausible than a damage cylinder.

[Robert_Brightstar]

You could probably build an escape pod as a separate construct, so you wouldn't have to have engines to destroy blocks. 

 

Perhaps instead of a construct the escape pod could be an element like the engine or cockpit.  It would release upon activation and descend down to a designated area on the planet or in space.  Hopefully, the escape pod will be small enough and thus hard to hit (and increase the chance of survival).