Added Hover Thruster: it is a weak "all-in-one" device (hover engine, thruster, RCS) to make building of a HV in the beginning straightforward. > We updated some Stock Prefabs HV and integrated the new hover thruster (both Tier 1 HVs). Maxlimit for a HV is 4 (can be deactivated for Servers and in NEW GAME start options), Max Hover Height is 1.5m
It's wonderful! Honestly, the more I think about it, the more I think it would make sense for all hover engines to come equipped with this technology. The benefit of the higher-tier hover engines would be an increased hover height (and more carrying capacity, of course); the RCS and lateral thrust values would stay the same, however (perhaps x4 for the 2x2 hover engine). Then, thrusters could be reserved for HVs that actually need high performance (and their power consumption could be increased).
Those new hovers could fit nicely for a kind of transport system "inside" a large CV/BA (or between on ground). If on very hard start with few resources, then also helpful. Else I normally have a regular HV up running pretty fast, so little use for them. The bike works OK as starting transport and later on short trips (swap the wheels with hovers ;- ).
I found a weird interaction between the new hover thrusters and normal hover engines. It seems when you add even a single regular hover engine to a HV you can increase your hover height all the way up to 3.0 meters, however the new hover thrusters only work if you are below 1.5 meters. At above 1.5 meters they lose all functionality, including RCS and thruster function. You can test this by loading in a HV_Prefab_Teir1 and changing out one of the hover thrusters for a normal hover engine, get in and increase hover height past 1.5 and watch it go crazy. It seems to me that it would be better if instead of one hover engine letting you raise up to 3.0 meters and making all your hover thrusters useless it should average the max height between the engine types, with the hover thrusters losing effectiveness as you go higher instead of just stopping all together, or perhaps making the RCS and thrust abilities always on? Oh, and while I'm at it one other minor thing, the speed and height measurements in the HUD does not conform to the Metric/Imperial switch in the settings, while the range of my weapons right below it does. It is not a problem for me since I can use either just as easily, but it is kind of weird to have imperial measurements in some places and metric in others.
I previously tested hover thrusters a bit in an existing save game. Last night I started a new game in 8.5 (arid start) and it gave me new perspective on how useful the hover thrusters are (or aren't). At least at present, I doubt I will ever use them. The hover thrusters are not energy efficient. This is "known", it says so right in the description. But it is a problem - in the very early game (level 3-5) the only fuel you have is probably a few cans of biofuel made from some fiber you found on the ground. This is the time where resources are really limited - not just for ores but also energy. I found them to just be too weak for my purposes. Even with 4 of them, you can't really make an HV that has very much equipment on it. If I can't attach gizmos like constructor, fridge, weapons, harvester, cargo box, etc. then there's hardly a point to using an HV instead of the motorbike. I know it is possible to design some very limited HV's but you can't expand on them much before you need to throw them away and move on. An HV built with normal engines and thrusters is able to be expanded over time much better. I just found that making a "normal HV" had a better payoff and that wasting resources on hover thrusters that need to be thrown away quickly wasn't a great investment. If you made the body out of plastic it would help with the weight issue but plastic isn't easily available in quantity early on. I build HV's on the fly a lot, and I'd like to suggest some changes that I think would work better. You may not like them 100% but this is what I would do, and I'll explain why at the end. I would remove the RCS capability from them. I don't logically see how a hover engine could help you rotate. I don't think it is too much to ask for people to add an RCS manually, it is just one extra block. The big gain is not having to build 4 thrusters. Rename "Hover Thruster" to "Light Hover Engine". Keep the reduced hover height, keep the thruster aspect. I would however probably increase the force to between a quarter and a half of what a normal hover engine is. (Right now it is a lot less than that.) Add a light thruster capability to ALL hover engines. Functionally, all you need to do to get a bit of forward thrust is to tilt the engine slightly opposite to where you want to go. This might not provide much thrust, but it would make you move. It doesn't have to be much force, but it should be something. This will stop an HV with no thrusters from wildly moving around, and it might obviate the need for side thrusters when dodging isn't that important. The power efficiency of the light hover engine is so much worse than a normal hover engine that there's no real reason to limit them to 4. Now, building an HV is consistent - at a minimum, you need a hover engine and an RCS. Adding those can allow it to move in every direction, but it may not move very fast unless you also add at least a forward thruster. I think the technology makes sense, it still simplifies building HV for new users.
I, personaly, hate the fact that HV's need thrusters. It just doesn't look right to me. It would be better if ALL hover engines have the same functions. Of course they would be slower than thrusters, so you can still add them. But especially for large HV you need a lot of thrusters and this just doesn't look good.
The hover engine has some kind of interaction with nearby surfaces that allows it to effectively push off of those surfaces. A differential pushing between two sides of the same hover engine could accomplish rotation around all three axes of the HV. So, it seems reasonable that a hover engine could produce a little torque, just as it can produce a little lateral thrust.
Yeah, pandora's box got ripped open on this one. There should be a scaling and they should build/escalate with tier. Hover Thruster(the current painted green,) desperately needs renaming. Possibilities: Hover Dynamo, Hover Repulser, Hover Actuator. T(0) - The current hover thruster T(1) - Allows for an increase to a height of 2.25 meters and has additional downforce, moderate thrust. T(2) - Allows for an increase to a height of 3.5 meters and has bunches of downforce, and a touch more thrust than the T(1). Hover Engine(painted blue.) T(1) - adds downforce... or maybe multiplies downforce; x2. Does not add thrust. T(2) - adds or multiplies downforce; x4. Does not add thrust. T(3) - Uses the 2x2 and adds or multiplies downforce; x4. Does not add thrust. An then the thrusters would be like the engines - adding thrust to the desperately needing to be renamed because it is confusing, hover thruster. Regular T(1) - uses current small icon/device - adds a set amount of thrust/force T(2) - uses current medium icon/device - adds a larger set amount of thrust/force Jet T(1) - uses current 1x3x1 and provides a LOT of thrust/force but uses higher tiered materials T(2) - uses the SV 2x5x2 and provides a goddamn super nova comin out your pipes, but uses very high tiered materials and possibly, lots of them Edit: And I forgot RCS! Shame on me! T(1) - uses current RCS and helps a bit or adds a multiplier; x2. T(2) - because we really need one - uses the RCS model painted orange and helps even more; adds or multiplies; x4. I could easily do a spreadsheet on the subject. Energy-in also needs re-working. This would take me half an hour to address/fix.
I'd say just add the tiny bit of torque and lateral thrust to all of the hover engines, and continue calling them "hover engines" (with T1, T2, and T2 Large versions).
These are really great for starter although I don't see the point of limiting them to 1.5 meter hovering. If it's only to differentiate them from hover engine, it's probably better to convert current hover engines to hover thrusters with the same principle, very limited thrust and RCS. Other solution is keeping Hover engines and make the new Hover thrusters just a Thruster/RCS without hover capability (different visual than current one, and different tiers to use them on larger HV). Both suggestions are to avoid the "Why do I need to use thruster and RCS to move now that I 'upgraded' my hover engine? (for a second/third HV build)" feeling for a new player but keep the simplicity of building it.
Honestly, I'm not 100% sure I see the point of this device. HV's were pretty easy to get within an in game day anyway, I barely used my motorbike before these were introduced and in one of my 2 latest playthroughs of 8.5 I tested out starting with this as it's obviously intended as a starter vehicle, the handling isn't great, and yes it needed around 100 ingots less to make an HV this way but I didn't think it was worth it. So in my 2nd playthrough of 8.5 I just skipped it, mined out a little bit more of the starter resources and still got a good HV with 8 small thrusters and normal hover engines well within the first day as they still only require 150 odd iron ingots, and even less silicon and copper - all of which is pretty simple to get. So really I'm struggling to see what problem/issue adding these hover engines actually solves.
The problem it is trying to solve is making it possible to design very small entry-level HV's. However the forward and reverse thrust is really poor even for the smallest vehicles. I wind up having to add an additional forward and reverse thruster in order to get the acceleration to an acceptable level. Some things I'd like to see them do: Double the force of the hover thruster to 10 kN (at least in the forward/reverse axis) Add a smaller fuel tank (1x1 size) Add a smaller generator (1x1 size) Current fuel tank and generator is overkill for a tiny HV, and they're really heavy (1.5 tons).
As per my post though, is that really an actual problem? I don't see a need for a really small entry level HV, when you can get a smallish tier 1 type HV within a game day anyway.
Yeah, and when you consider that a bike is currently more usefull than a HV with those engines, I don't see why you would use them. I tryed them and almost immediately drove in a small hole and was stuck.... A regular hover would have no problems getting out of there, but since this thing can't fly very high and has almost no thrust, I could do nothing but deconstruct it
For me, an entry-level HV is really something I'd want to throw away pretty quick and get something better, whether that "something better" is a nicer HV, or an SV. So my goal is to build them as quickly as possible. I make my own blueprints because the Tier 1 blueprints included in the game do not include a detector, fridge, or gatling gun, which are things I want even on a throwaway HV. After initially thinking the hover thruster was useless, I gave it another chance and redesigned some "entry level" blueprints to use it: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1502868978 https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1502869172 (These aren't as pretty as the in-game Tier 1 vehicles, but since I scrap them after a few hours I don't particularly care.) These come in at about 10 ingots less of each resource than the older designs that had 4 thrusters and an RCS, while adding another cargo box. Since I typically build these from scraping together surface rocks, this savings helps me get going on a new planet faster, and makes it even easier to just skip the motorbike. So while I agree the developers could have spent the time making something more needed (e.g. T2 RCS for SV) I think this is still a useful feature.
Well, a bike can't carry cargo, fridges, has no weapons, and can't cross water. As for getting stuck, I haven't had the issue yet, although I don't doubt it can happen. I have a design (the Lithium HX-15) that uses 4 hover thrusters but adds normal thrusters facing backwards and forwards for extra thrust. That should help it get out of holes better. I also haven't tried adding a hover booster to something with hover thrusters, but I'll try it later and see if it helps.
The biggest issue is that those hover thrusters can't go realy high, so you constantly get stuck a small rocks, wedges etc. And yeah, the bike doesn't have storage, but it is still better than those hover thrusters when it comes to difficult terrain. If you don't go to far from your base, a bike is better than a HV with hover thrusters
