Jump to content

Recommended Posts

OK, so I understand that some materials are rarer than others, but are there materials that are stronger than one another?

 

I was thinking of this while I was creating another post: AirTraffcking

 

For example, If I were to make two swords, both out of different materials, will one be stronger than the other and break it?

 

Is there such thing as material durability; Example: If I were making more two ships, both out of different materials, will one last longer than the other and In a sense be more durable so long as no other variables besides space exploration are included?

 

Also, Can one material pierce another material; Say If my ship got shot by another ship, would there be a bullet hole in my ship?

 

Last, but not least; Are materials organized in tiers denoting how valuable they are, or is that decided by players?

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Also, Check out my YouTube Channel: MaxedMASKED

 

(Watch, Like, Subscribe, Share, and Grin)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is almost a gaurentee that different materials will have different stats such as weight and health. I dont recall any exact statement of such, but if there wasnt, why not build the structure out of dirt.

In ome of the last 2 dev diaries we can see him crafting steel feom iron and coal, I dont recall if there were stats showing.

 

As for how valuable each is, Im sure rarity will have an impact, but demand will be the largest driver.

Heres an example.

Lets say iron is used in everything, but its also everywhere so prices stay low.

Trinium is rare, but not used much in components, people use it because its light weight keeping demand, thus prices, high.

Diamonds are really rare, but have no real use except decrotive. So while costly, prices may be low for a rare resource.

Titanium is another fairly common element, but not as common as iron. However it is used in all components including weapons and engines, regardless of tech level. This drives a huge demand for it and drives the cost to that or tritiums.

 

This is a made up example but you can see how in a player driven market, rarety wont be the only cost factor. You can see it in eve, some minerals are harder to come by, but since demand isnt high, prices stay lower.

 

 

As for collisions and piercing, it had not been decided how that will work in DU. It could be as simple as bumping with no damage, having only weapons destroy constructs. Or maybe damage is delt to the ships overall HP based on material strength of each ship. It has not been stated yet. But what is almost certain, due to system resources it takes, you wont see Space Engineers style collisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In real life, there's typically a tradeoff between stiffness and strength. The stiffer it is, the more brittle it is before it breaks. The more elastic something is, the more it can stretch before plastically bending.

 

In DU, voxels are probably not going to be stretching whatsoever, so they could offer a different tradeoff. Perhaps a tradeoff between weight and hp, weight and Tensile Strength that Twerk is advocating, hp and TS, hp and rarity, etc... Just choose two (or more) attributes of a material where both being good would make it a super-material for the be-all, end-all of building.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All they said was iirc that there will be a vast variety of different materials (as can be seen in the mining video and a devdiary). I really do hope there are a lot of different materials to build with, with advantages and disadvantages and different stats, skill levels required and properties

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi.

In the real world, each metalloid alloy has it pros and cons.

 

Steel is not the same across the boartd - nor it's the same process of making differnt ypes of steel.

 

 

Making a Crucible Steel sword and a STainless Steel sword, doesn ot mean one sword is - by default - better. It means one sword can do somethin the other can't . CAse in point, stainless steel does not rust easily, while Crucible Steel has MUCH more flexibility.

 

If you were to make a Stainless Steel sword, you would have a chunk of steel that's shaped in a shape it should nto be used - it's brittle as steel. Using crucible steel to build a bridge, is as good as buildign a spaceship out of wood.

 

 

 

NQ goes for a real model of minerals - case in point they don't have Mithril or Unobtanium or Vinbranjium and even Kyrium that they have, YOU cannot make on your own as a player. Look up  "rarity of mineraLS i nthe universe". ThaT will give yo ua pretty solid idea of how NQ will conduct the in-game market.


Your alliance operates a gold mine? That gold has certain value. Gold can take a LOT of thermal and electromagnetic energy head on and feel nothing, thus making it an excellent conductor for electricity AND armor against Lasers, thus a KEY mineral component for high-end devices or equipment for ships.

 

And yes, certain materials can take a LOT more punishment than others. MAking a ship out of Rhenium Diborides alloys, should make my ship nigh-impervious to laser AND kinetic damage. But at what cost ? A LOT of money. The rarer the material, the MORE it costs. Just look up Rhenium prices IRL and gold. You'll understand.

 

 

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you were to make a Stainless Steel sword, you would have a chunk of steel that's shaped in a shape it should nto be used - it's brittle as steel. Using crucible steel to build a bridge, is as good as buildign a spaceship out of wood.

 

A wooden ship you say? Someone has already accepted this challenge in another thread. If it can be done in game, someone wilm do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A wooden ship you say? Someone has already accepted this challenge in another thread. If it can be done in game, someone wilm do it.

Thing is, if wooden ships that can take 1000000 Newtons of forward thrust can be made, that means at least a 30 minute rant video by youtubers eager to make money on an easy target for mockery like "wooden ships that can take 1000000 Newtons of push".

If a wooden ship can be done in-game, then the game will die in the youtube reviews. Not the IGN ones, the ones people actually watch abecause they trust the reviewer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thing is, if wooden ships that can take 1000000 Newtons of forward thrust can be made, that means at least a 30 minute rant video by youtubers eager to make money on an easy target for mockery like "wooden ships that can take 1000000 Newtons of push".

If a wooden ship can be done in-game, then the game will die in the youtube reviews. Not the IGN ones, the ones people actually watch abecause they trust the reviewer.

who said anything about the force it can take. Youre assuming there will be ties to the thruster force and structure, i hope there is but we dont know.

There are plenty of reasons wood wouldnt work, but thats not one. If built in orbit, structural intergity isn't a concern. Keep accelerations low and forces on the structure are low

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

who said anything about the force it can take. Youre assuming there will be ties to the thruster force and structure, i hope there is but we dont know.

There are plenty of reasons wood wouldnt work, but thats not one. If built in orbit, structural intergity isn't a concern. Keep accelerations low and forces on the structure are low

well, that's the problem, them ore the volume the less the G a wooden ship would be able to take.|

 

2200 Psi may sound a lot ,but when you divide them with the volume of your ship, that goes WAY down. Like a , 1000 m3 ship being able to take the approximate MAXIMUM thrust of about 0.01 G. Yeah, see, brittle things can't afford to go fast or they'll break. There's a reason the space shuttle is made out fof Titantium and carbon-steel instead of mahogany.

 

NQ has atmospheric entry damage for entering in atmoshper at a bad angle, like tuhs (velocity /  surface area ) * angle. That means the more your angle is on entry, and depending on your craft's material; quality, it may burn on entry. NQ has those mechanics, thjey on;ly need to adjsut them for collisions. It's that simple. I personally hope they do that before the game gets an onslaught of ridicule on youtube with nose-dive landing compilation videos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, that's the problem, them ore the volume the less the G a wooden ship would be able to take.|

 

2200 Psi may sound a lot ,but when you divide them with the volume of your ship, that goes WAY down. Like a , 1000 m3 ship being able to take the approximate MAXIMUM thrust of about 0.01 G. Yeah, see, brittle things can't afford to go fast or they'll break. There's a reason the space shuttle is made out fof Titantium and carbon-steel instead of mahogany.

 

NQ has atmospheric entry damage for entering in atmoshper at a bad angle, like tuhs (velocity / surface area ) * angle. That means the more your angle is on entry, and depending on your craft's material; quality, it may burn on entry. NQ has those mechanics, thjey on;ly need to adjsut them for collisions. It's that simple. I personally hope they do that before the game gets an onslaught of ridicule on youtube with nose-dive landing compilation videos.

Reentry damage hasnt been confirmed. It was hinted that may be added, nothing more.

 

The shuttles were made out of titanium to save weight. While when near the theoretical maximums you run into problems, under most loads you could build a wooden structure just as easily as you can a titanium. It would just be larger and heavier.

 

I think you are missing that PSI, is pounds per square inch, which would be nice if they banned imperical in the game. just because you have a bigger ship doesnt mean youre thrust goes down by a ratio to the volume. Just look at any woode structure on earth, it withstands 1g all day. which, 1g cotiuious acceleration is pretty good if youre just doing space travel.

 

Wood has pretty good compressive strength, but the lenght of the ship along the main thruster line is limited by that. Similar to height of a building. typically thrusters in other directions are less than forward.

What would be the biggest factor are the supporting struts for the thrusters as the force is concentrated there and has to be spread to the rest of the structure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reentry damage hasnt been confirmed. It was hinted that may be added, nothing more.

 

The shuttles were made out of titanium to save weight. While when near the theoretical maximums you run into problems, under most loads you could build a wooden structure just as easily as you can a titanium. It would just be larger and heavier.

 

I think you are missing that PSI, is pounds per square inch, which would be nice if they banned imperical in the game. just because you have a bigger ship doesnt mean youre thrust goes down by a ratio to the volume. Just look at any woode structure on earth, it withstands 1g all day. which, 1g cotiuious acceleration is pretty good if youre just doing space travel.

 

Wood has pretty good compressive strength, but the lenght of the ship along the main thruster line is limited by that. Similar to height of a building. typically thrusters in other directions are less than forward.

What would be the biggest factor are the supporting struts for the thrusters as the force is concentrated there and has to be spread to the rest of the structure.  

Reentry damage has been confirmed by NQ, on the latest DevDiary (may 2017) on the youtube comments. Please stop misinforming people, you are part of the ATV - join the Discord channel to be kept up to date. So... yeah,  Keep up to date mate. 

 

Titanium is more efficient as of Newtons / m3 . It has the same tolerance as higher grade steel but at less the weight. You just agree  with me and you don't know it. Same G / m3 tolerance for less mass means more accleration as inertial mass is reduced.

 

Psi is an empyrical measurement - which people call "Imperial" cause apparently words are hard. Similar to why we say 1 Astronomical Unit instead of 149597871 kilometers. Why? It's coinvenient.

 

Psi - like it's metric equivalent Pascals - applies both on surface areas AND volume. When applied on surface areas, it's called pressure, when it's applied on volime it's either tensile strength or compression strentgth. In both cases, the term "pressure" applies. After all you break your leg on a bad landing due to PRessure being applied..

 

See, you miss the point. Engines don't start smooth. they got a minimum amount of newtons they output. That's there so they have an efficiency cycle. It's a thruster, not a car's engine and even then, a car has a "bump" when you press the gas pedal, even at the slightest. A spaceship made out of a 2200 Psi wood ( or any wood less than that ) would break under the very initial "bump". Atmosphere or not, does not matter, structural integrity is simply how much pressure a structure can take before breaking. And  wooden ships break easily - unless you plan on going with a maximum acceleration of 0.098 m/s2. Cause good luck with avoiding any shot with that kind of acceleration.

 

 

So you either keep your wooden ship small in volume and break under the very volume of the minimum newton output of the thruster, or build your ship with a LARGE volume (and out of wood no less) to disperse the newtos and reduce the chance of breaking... but you loss acceleration exponentnially.

 

 

See Titanium was chosen as I said, cause it's like stell but lighter. The same newtons of thrust the shuttole can take would be waSted on a steel structure. Which iswhat the OP asked as well. See, higher grade materioals DO exist. Titanium is one. And their "grade" is on efficiency.

 

 

Should you be able to make a wooden ship? Sure, absolutely.. But it SHOULD have a G limitation. Cause otherwise nothing prevents Troll Ships with 10000 m/s Angular Velocities caue they are made out of wood and able to flip and burn on the sootp, zeroing Transverasla like G is just a suggestion.

 

Compression strength's wAne  with the volume involved. It's as simple as Force / Volume - metric or empyrical, it doesn't matter.

 

Finally. "It's the stop that kills you, not the fall".  A wooden ship, that can nose-dive land and have no problems with all the G forces applieD to it, is a bad game design. It's just an easy target for ridicule and a game's spiral to death. It happened with so many other games. The devs excluding a feature that they think "will make the game better" only for people to bash on the game for the lack of the feature and eventually the game dying due to bad publicity. Planetside 2 did that, they removed all the things that made PS1 a good game, on.ly to add them once the playefrrbase was jaded with them. Triple-A title, millions of dollars in production value, died cause of the devs thinking the playerbase is stupid.

 

 

As I said, I hope NQ sees reason. Keeping a game "idiot friendly" only works on idiots and idiots have a Short attention span. So, they may end up making a game for people who won't stick around and the people that wil lstick around won't like being trtreated as idiots, so they will also leave. XxX_Littl3_T1mm3h_XxX won't realise how BAD of a game design it is to have a Wooden Ship that can taek 100 MNs of forces on a decceleration and not even flinch, but then again, Little Timmeh wil lbe sidetracked by the next Call of Duty  game.

 

 

 

 

So yeah, back on topic : Titanium = a higher grade material in comparison to steel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it will be extremely performance-draining to have collisions, I think at the VERY LEAST all nearby players will be killed by the explosion.

Even just immediately stopping the ship after deleting a heft chunk of voxels would be awesome. (It'd also allow people to send drop-pods to the ground, ODST style.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it will be extremely performance-draining to have collisions, I think at the VERY LEAST all nearby players will be killed by the explosion.

Even just immediately stopping the ship after deleting a heft chunk of voxels would be awesome. (It'd also allow people to send drop-pods to the ground, ODST style.)

That's the frigging point I am making. Space Engineers' collision works on comparing block to block on collision. This systme I am proposing is NOT about VOXEL DEFORMATION. It's about STRUICTURAL INTEGRITY - aka , "fall damage" for ships. This systme is not about using a ship like a "drill" to breka a nother ship's voxel armor. This is about G Tolerance.

They already have Momentum and Inertial forces and surface areas. They already have Angular Velocities, they already have Center of MAss. But what? Adduing a simple mechanism of "if you go from X speed to 0 m/s you take damage to "Structure" " is "resource taxing" ?

 

You think that atmopsheric entry mechanism is "less taxing" for figuring out damage? No. it isn't. It's the EXACT same thing I suggested only for acceleration limits - which works both ways, decceleration is acceleration in the opposite direction..

 

NQ has no excuse for not having G Tolerance mechanics. Nobody will ever convince me they don't omitt the mechanism to make the game have no risk for bad pilots - which is why people will SHRED the game's cognitive dissonance on reviews.

 

I can see Bluedrake42's 1 hour long rant and all the 1 hour long rants from al lhis buddies on his network who like beating a dead horse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reentry damage has been confirmed by NQ, on the latest DevDiary (may 2017) on the youtube comments. Please stop misinforming people, you are part of the ATV - join the Discord channel to be kept up to date. So... yeah, Keep up to date mate.

 

Titanium is more efficient as of Newtons / m3 . It has the same tolerance as higher grade steel but at less the weight. You just agree with me and you don't know it. Same G / m3 tolerance for less mass means more accleration as inertial mass is reduced.

 

Psi is an empyrical measurement - which people call "Imperial" cause apparently words are hard. Similar to why we say 1 Astronomical Unit instead of 149597871 kilometers. Why? It's coinvenient.

 

Psi - like it's metric equivalent Pascals - applies both on surface areas AND volume. When applied on surface areas, it's called pressure, when it's applied on volime it's either tensile strength or compression strentgth. In both cases, the term "pressure" applies. After all you break your leg on a bad landing due to PRessure being applied..

 

See, you miss the point. Engines don't start smooth. they got a minimum amount of newtons they output. That's there so they have an efficiency cycle. It's a thruster, not a car's engine and even then, a car has a "bump" when you press the gas pedal, even at the slightest. A spaceship made out of a 2200 Psi wood ( or any wood less than that ) would break under the very initial "bump". Atmosphere or not, does not matter, structural integrity is simply how much pressure a structure can take before breaking. And wooden ships break easily - unless you plan on going with a maximum acceleration of 0.098 m/s2. Cause good luck with avoiding any shot with that kind of acceleration.

 

 

So you either keep your wooden ship small in volume and break under the very volume of the minimum newton output of the thruster, or build your ship with a LARGE volume (and out of wood no less) to disperse the newtos and reduce the chance of breaking... but you loss acceleration exponentnially.

 

 

See Titanium was chosen as I said, cause it's like stell but lighter. The same newtons of thrust the shuttole can take would be waSted on a steel structure. Which iswhat the OP asked as well. See, higher grade materioals DO exist. Titanium is one. And their "grade" is on efficiency.

 

 

Should you be able to make a wooden ship? Sure, absolutely.. But it SHOULD have a G limitation. Cause otherwise nothing prevents Troll Ships with 10000 m/s Angular Velocities caue they are made out of wood and able to flip and burn on the sootp, zeroing Transverasla like G is just a suggestion.

 

Compression strength's wAne with the volume involved. It's as simple as Force / Volume - metric or empyrical, it doesn't matter.

 

Finally. "It's the stop that kills you, not the fall". A wooden ship, that can nose-dive land and have no problems with all the G forces applieD to it, is a bad game design. It's just an easy target for ridicule and a game's spiral to death. It happened with so many other games. The devs excluding a feature that they think "will make the game better" only for people to bash on the game for the lack of the feature and eventually the game dying due to bad publicity. Planetside 2 did that, they removed all the things that made PS1 a good game, on.ly to add them once the playefrrbase was jaded with them. Triple-A title, millions of dollars in production value, died cause of the devs thinking the playerbase is stupid.

 

 

As I said, I hope NQ sees reason. Keeping a game "idiot friendly" only works on idiots and idiots have a Short attention span. So, they may end up making a game for people who won't stick around and the people that wil lstick around won't like being trtreated as idiots, so they will also leave. XxX_Littl3_T1mm3h_XxX won't realise how BAD of a game design it is to have a Wooden Ship that can taek 100 MNs of forces on a decceleration and not even flinch, but then again, Little Timmeh wil lbe sidetracked by the next Call of Duty game.

 

 

 

 

So yeah, back on topic : Titanium = a higher grade material in comparison to steel.

If I am misinformed about this then please link sources to correct me rather than just say I am wrong. Afterall, I am not all knowing and theres info I miss. Here is what I have on it, suggestive they will be implimenting it sure. But in no way a confirmation.

bim3if.jpg

As for the discord, I am on it when home, but no one else tends to be on when I am.

 

Tensile and compressive strength have nothing to do with volume, but are a function of crosssectional area, hence them having the units psi and their equivalent. a taller concrete cylinder cant hold more weight, nor can a longer cable lift more despite having additional volume. However a wider column or a thicker cable can.

 

I am not arguing that wood be the best material in game. Just that it should be feasable and that someone plans to make one just as a joke. Now this is all assuming things like tensile strength will even be implimented into constructs. But any material that can build a structure such as a home or buding on earth, could be used as a space ship in terms of structure. Obviously if youre getting 10k Gs acceleration it wont hold up, but neither will the crew.

 

Once you break a planets gravity well forces on a ship can be brought to a minimum, even with several Gs of acceleration. If designed right termites are more a concern than youre own thrusters. You would design for it, things like 10 small over 1 large to disperse the force over the frame. And sure I cpuld build my titanium or trinium hull ship with 1/10the mass in structure that can handle 10x the forces. But would you rather be flying that, or a replica of the original Enterprise (a wooden ocean ship) through space going where no man has gone before?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I am misinformed about this then please link sources to correct me rather than just say I am wrong. Afterall, I am not all knowing and theres info I miss. Here is what I have on it, suggestive they will be implimenting it sure. But in no way a confirmation.

bim3if.jpg

As for the discord, I am on it when home, but no one else tends to be on when I am.

 

Tensile and compressive strength have nothing to do with volume, but are a function of crosssectional area, hence them having the units psi and their equivalent. a taller concrete cylinder cant hold more weight, nor can a longer cable lift more despite having additional volume. However a wider column or a thicker cable can.

 

I am not arguing that wood be the best material in game. Just that it should be feasable and that someone plans to make one just as a joke. Now this is all assuming things like tensile strength will even be implimented into constructs. But any material that can build a structure such as a home or buding on earth, could be used as a space ship in terms of structure. Obviously if youre getting 10k Gs acceleration it wont hold up, but neither will the crew.

 

Once you break a planets gravity well forces on a ship can be brought to a minimum, even with several Gs of acceleration. If designed right termites are more a concern than youre own thrusters. You would design for it, things like 10 small over 1 large to disperse the force over the frame. And sure I cpuld build my titanium or trinium hull ship with 1/10the mass in structure that can handle 10x the forces. But would you rather be flying that, or a replica of the original Enterprise (a wooden ocean ship) through space going where no man has gone before?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure

 

Talk to the hand. You lost my respect. 

 

You think WEIGHT and MASS are the same. News Flash : W = G * m . Yes, it's why on Mars, you can leap 6 meters high with ease, there's less G there, thus you can jump higher. Here's the part you can't grasp. A bullet will still punch right through your head on Earth, on Mars and in Zero G. Your Skuil won't get more Newton resistant in Zero G. Why? cause you confuse what Work and Weight is. Do not ever debate science.

 

You also can't understand that smaller plates combined together are NOT the same as 1 single piece of metal shaped into form. Those are called Casted Metals. And DU has 3D printers that can 3D print a giant ship (factory units). 

 

So far, you proven you can't undarstand what Pressure, Weight, Work, empyrical units are and in general, not understanding how anything works. Debating with you is like trying to explain to a flat-earther what the horizon is or to an astrology obsessed person that those 1 million light years distant stars are NOT affecting their day to day life just because the moon can cause tides.

 

 

P.S : You are tone deaf. They said "...maybe" cause they don't know if they will add VOXEL damage on the surface area (which they won't). They always planned for bad re-entry to cause damage on ship modules - like fuel tanks and capacitors. That goes way back since before the Kickstarter. And I do advocate for this mechanism for collisions, damaging PARTS of a ship, like capacitors, and if you bump too many times, your capacitors go boom. Want to avoid exploding ? Power off your ship completely. It may take a while ,depending on many Joules your ship can store in tis capacitors.

 

I am looking forward to your arguement that a 100 GigaJoules Capacitor exploding is not that big of an issue. And that's just ONE capacitor. Add a dozen of those exploding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure

 

Talk to the hand. You lost my respect.

 

You think WEIGHT and MASS are the same. News Flash : W = G * m . Yes, it's why on Mars, you can leap 6 meters high with ease, there's less G there, thus you can jump higher. Here's the part you can't grasp. A bullet will still punch right through your head on Earth, on Mars and in Zero G. Your Skuil won't get more Newton resistant in Zero G. Why? cause you confuse what Work and Weight is. Do not ever debate science.

 

You also can't understand that smaller plates combined together are NOT the same as 1 single piece of metal shaped into form. Those are called Casted Metals. And DU has 3D printers that can 3D print a giant ship (factory units).

 

So far, you proven you can't undarstand what Pressure, Weight, Work, empyrical units are and in general, not understanding how anything works. Debating with you is like trying to explain to a flat-earther what the horizon is or to an astrology obsessed person that those 1 million light years distant stars are NOT affecting their day to day life just because the moon can cause tides.

 

 

P.S : You are tone deaf. They said "...maybe" cause they don't know if they will add VOXEL damage on the surface area (which they won't). They always planned for bad re-entry to cause damage on ship modules - like fuel tanks and capacitors. That goes way back since before the Kickstarter. And I do advocate for this mechanism for collisions, damaging PARTS of a ship, like capacitors, and if you bump too many times, your capacitors go boom. Want to avoid exploding ? Power off your ship completely. It may take a while ,depending on many Joules your ship can store in tis capacitors.

 

I am looking forward to your arguement that a 100 GigaJoules Capacitor exploding is not that big of an issue. And that's just ONE capacitor. Add a dozen of those exploding.

 

Im fine with being done with this too. I guess you dont understand anything I am saying as your link backs my statements about it affecting area not volume.

If I am still wrong I guess my degrees in engineering must be meaningless and Ill go ask for my mo ey back. I am uncertain how I confused weight and mass, but ok. My statements about mass still stand.

 

As for reentry damage, again please link sources. There are thousands of things we can discuss that they would like to do with the game. But we can only speculate on those until they confirm or deny that it will actually be put in game, and what form. Just because they wanted it to do it, doesnt mean it will be done in game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im fine with being done with this too. I guess you dont understand anything I am saying as your link backs my statements about it affecting area not volume.

If I am still wrong I guess my degrees in engineering must be meaningless and Ill go ask for my mo ey back. I am uncertain how I confused weight and mass, but ok. My statements about mass still stand.

 

As for reentry damage, again please link sources. There are thousands of things we can discuss that they would like to do with the game. But we can only speculate on those until they confirm or deny that it will actually be put in game, and what form. Just because they wanted it to do it, doesnt mean it will be done in game.

 

Kickastarter AMA. One of the soruces.

 

While I'd believe you are an engineer as much as I'd believe anyone who told me "I am a Nigerian Prince", I am willing to put down this debate.

 

And also, if you are an engineer, you DID confuse Work and Weight. Work / Volume = Joules / m3. But hey, don't mind me pointing that that IS inside the wikipedia article I linked. So, yeah. Whoopsey? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

 

So for the sake of being civilised, I am willing to put this down to "miscommunication on both sides". Either way, peace.

 

 

P.S. : I bet you think having a ship made out of wood in space that can flip with 800 Rad/sec is normal and then puting 5000 MN of thrust and having zero consequences as "normal". I guess this is why the game will eventually die after people will bb like "lol, why play that DUAL Universe game? They got stupid physics, seen a video of a guy trolling and killing people with a wooden spaceboat that went 20 km/s in an orbit of 500 meters around an enemy. DUAL univeres sucks, its physics are stupid".

 

Oh. you got pro mlg twitch reflexes? NEWS FLASH, the game has an algorithm based hit--chance system.

 

750f5439f1ea9e02ad306c8bf6d42eb9.png

 

If you are TRULY an engineer, you will be able to understand the problem with having no G Tolerance and this equation.

 

Oh, sources? Project Update 21 on Kickstarter on how CvC will work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the frigging point I am making. Space Engineers' collision works on comparing block to block on collision. This systme I am proposing is NOT about VOXEL DEFORMATION. It's about STRUICTURAL INTEGRITY - aka , "fall damage" for ships. This systme is not about using a ship like a "drill" to breka a nother ship's voxel armor. This is about G Tolerance.

They already have Momentum and Inertial forces and surface areas. They already have Angular Velocities, they already have Center of MAss. But what? Adduing a simple mechanism of "if you go from X speed to 0 m/s you take damage to "Structure" " is "resource taxing" ?

 

You think that atmopsheric entry mechanism is "less taxing" for figuring out damage? No. it isn't. It's the EXACT same thing I suggested only for acceleration limits - which works both ways, decceleration is acceleration in the opposite direction..

 

NQ has no excuse for not having G Tolerance mechanics. Nobody will ever convince me they don't omitt the mechanism to make the game have no risk for bad pilots - which is why people will SHRED the game's cognitive dissonance on reviews.

 

I can see Bluedrake42's 1 hour long rant and all the 1 hour long rants from al lhis buddies on his network who like beating a dead horse.

 

Well all they shown on latest dev diary video was reentry effect. Not really confirmed something is happening to your construct as consequence unless I missed something.

 

But in overall you got me convinced to the possibility of using already existing params to work out what should happen to the bodies to prevent idiotic paradoxes. 

Thinking from programmatic point of view is not that big deal. If the server needs to keep track on your movement and send/propagate this back to players every single time you change direction, acceleration, another information about.. you died, got damaged by exceeding G Tolerance should not be a problem per se.

 

The only one, in this circumstances would the rubber-band effect when you having a hiccups with your connection. Server is trying to interpolate and predict your new position and the adjust it immediately.  Then a difference between when you drop a sync with server and new position would suggest, you actually exceeded max G. And I personally thing, this is the only thing prevent them to go for it.

 

It is this kind of thing we know from FPS cheat detectors. Like punkbuster back in the days. When you had a lag and you were kicked by punkbuster because it interpreted your movement as impossible speed and started to look as you are using some cheats to teleport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to see realistic physicals in-game whether  its materials science, orbital mechanics, or physics, as long as it doesn't stress the server and the client. On the other hand, I feel like that would drive away the players. I mean, just look at Star Wars vs Star Trek. The general public doesn't like sciency things. If you look at the popularity ratings of KSP here, https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=%2Fm%2F0h68f9g, the game reaches 100 interest when Pewdiepie played it. There is a reason why you see all those "Math sucks" posts on the internet. Face it, we are going to have to dumb down(though not so much that people will treat this like Minecraft and Roblox) to reach out to a wider playerbase.

 

 

Just saying, China has actually put a wooden (ablative) heat shield on its spacecraft which has worked. 

 

https://vintagespace.wordpress.com/2016/12/05/can-a-wood-heat-shield-really-work/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to see realistic physicals in-game whether  its materials science, orbital mechanics, or physics, as long as it doesn't stress the server and the client. On the other hand, I feel like that would drive away the players. I mean, just look at Star Wars vs Star Trek. The general public doesn't like sciency things. If you look at the popularity ratings of KSP here, https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=%2Fm%2F0h68f9g, the game reaches 100 interest when Pewdiepie played it. There is a reason why you see all those "Math sucks" posts on the internet. Face it, we are going to have to dumb down(though not so much that people will treat this like Minecraft and Roblox) to reach out to a wider playerbase.

 

 

Just saying, China has actually put a wooden (ablative) heat shield on its spacecraft which has worked. 

 

https://vintagespace.wordpress.com/2016/12/05/can-a-wood-heat-shield-really-work/

 

KSP is a good example of a game where you have a lot of sci and phy going on but also retaining a fun atmosphere, if only it had more content, better snapon when building and multiplayer it would reach the mun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope NQ does go for the crafting model of Dragon Age Inquisition.


You got on 1 mesh of an object. You add materials to it, you just change its color and texture and of a better quality.


Now of course, you can make a golden gun IRL, but the recoil would be terrible - but the stopping power from the golden recevier would be ridiculous. Not to mention, it may not be worth the money for the stopping power it provides.

 

But hey, that's theorycrafting for you. Since DU doesn ot go for an "Ep1x" and "Leg0nd4ies" loot system, they can add this mechanic later and be okay, since they won't have to update the existing items in circulation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to see realistic physicals in-game whether  its materials science, orbital mechanics, or physics, as long as it doesn't stress the server and the client. On the other hand, I feel like that would drive away the players. I mean, just look at Star Wars vs Star Trek. The general public doesn't like sciency things. If you look at the popularity ratings of KSP here, https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=%2Fm%2F0h68f9g, the game reaches 100 interest when Pewdiepie played it. There is a reason why you see all those "Math sucks" posts on the internet. Face it, we are going to have to dumb down(though not so much that people will treat this like Minecraft and Roblox) to reach out to a wider playerbase.

 

 

Just saying, China has actually put a wooden (ablative) heat shield on its spacecraft which has worked. 

 

https://vintagespace.wordpress.com/2016/12/05/can-a-wood-heat-shield-really-work/

 

Not so sure about it, let me disagree and speculate on it for a while.

 

Look at the audience game like EVE (keep in mind long runner MMO) attracted. Back in 2003 it was considered highly geeky for students with VISA's. Yet it managed to attract thousands and kept them going for more than a decade. To master the interface, items, possibilities... that was overwhelming experience for anyone having a go with 2 weeks free trial. Yet the managed. The day I saw USERS ONLINE 60,000+ I was never the same person again :). And guess what, those players were asking for more! They needed challenges to keep game attractive.

 

SE, nice concept but hey! engineering sounds scary, math, some moving parts, wait I'm too dump to design spaceship that actually fly! Game in bad shape, laggy, lots of problems still after more than 2 years in development. But here is a thing... audience it attracted? Students mostly, adult males around 40 trying to realise their childhood dreams. They screaming in desperation because that voxel simulation promised so much more. I was running SE server myself for more than 9 months, writing mods etc.

 

I have not seen a single child, most of people I could talk to were educated even asking for more realistic mods, more challenge because believe me or not SE has no goal or sense at all. You just get in, dig, build. crash and repeat. Everyone out there building ships to fight but they ending up fighting bugs and so called clang.

Yet it attracted thousands of people who do know math, programming, those who don't, they were eager to learn. And finding it fascinating. After a while asking for more.

 

It all depends what audience you targeting.

for EVE it was obvious, visa was preventing kids going there. For SE well my job is to make sure my kids will love math. Judging young generation they dumb is not fair, there is plenty of young people out there I would be ashamed to argue with. My 9 years old boy already giving up Minecraft slowly because his daddy prefer to play SE. And he likes to play with daddy, it's funnier.

 

Maybe I'm wrong, but judging by the audience of this forum so far I don't feel like I'm surrounded by kids afraid of the game being too hard because too immerse or realistic. I see quite opposite. People asking for more because they already know. We for sure don't want this game to be boring. And having some shortcuts is unavoidable sometimes for sake of game-play. But teaching kids that Steel is made out of Iron and drop the coal from equation... maybe this is our fault, this is how we making them stupid. If they growing with stupefied version of games. 

 

Somehow we were ok to fiddle with our C64/Atari to find new cheats, read some hex code and figure out how to imagine those pseudo 3D pixelized lines showing me some ship in Elite on Amiga 500.

 

I do hope NQ taking this into account, what audience they attracting already. They kind of building the game they would like to play themselves. Realising their dream too. They all grown ups and educated people. We do not need to be treated like stupid kids for sure. And I do not believe this is a case here. And for the same reason we will understand all shortcomings or sacrifices they have to make due to technical limitations. The last thing I would accuse NQ for is that they are not pushing for a deep and immerse game play because they kind of did mile stone already with the concept itself.

 

The day I read dev-blog, I knew what kind of people are behind this project and that was 95% of my decision behind backing this project to be honest.

The day I saw crafting demo, and steel was iron+carbon I knew I was right with my choice ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...