I noticed there was no thread for this, so, Share your A-symmetrical, warped, weird, and oddly shaped designs!
An example. Just a little thing I spent some time on last night: It is a decent ship, fairly fast on all the vectors of thrust, 6 plasma cannons, and a reasonable amount of storage. No O2 station though. http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=773897099
But why making asymmetrical ship in the first place? This is pretty much as good idea as making square "wheels" for car. We don't have physics in game, specially that will be related to ships center of the mass, thruster positions etc, so asymmetrical ship in game will fly like a normal ship, but in real world, it will be a balancing nightmare. No engineer in the right mind will recommend it, because single malfunction on anything and this ship will start spinning like crazy.
Completely agree.... in the real world, or at least the world without crazy futuristic technologies. This is purely the artistic and design aspect. Since those things(the engineering, physics, etc) do not exist, it gives us the ability to explore more.... freely, and yet I see people being very rigid, unthinking, and boring. This is meant to help people free themselves and think a little more non-linear and dynamic. Maybe even like the space artifact I posted in the wrecks and ruins thread; non-euclidean(but pace yourselves people! ) Try it out, it might surprise you how difficult even a simple a-symmetrical design turns out to be.
But explore what? The very reason that ships are built is moving from one place to another. Making them asymmetrical don't give you more benefits, instead will just make the primary ship function questionable at best. The reason why you don't see many asymmetrical ships designs is the same why you don't see many other car wheels shapes than round. Not because it hard, but because it dont make it better...
Now I know how Galileo felt like facing the inquisition... I am sorry you do not understand, but you are making me very glad that I created this thread. Like I said above, I think this concept really challenges this community, so I hope this outlet helps. If at some point the developers decide to implement physics more realistically - such that if you were to place more engines on one side of a ship than say the other, the ship would not turn or steer correctly, then this thread may become moot(maybe.) But for now, to make sure to actually address the reality of the physics in game, as opposed to what we want them to be, or the illusion of what they could be, this thread must stand as an invitation to people to really let their minds explore new ideas, or wildly challenging vessel designs.
People won't quit calling my Creations big ugly boxes, but that seriously IS efficient & practical in Space where there's no such thing as Flight by Wind, & Wings, Fins, & other such theatrics have no use. (Plus I tend to build Combat Vessels that don't need to be pretty... they're Warriors, not Supermodels.) I struggle with Asymmetry because I have OCD problems, but I applaud your effort at thinking 'Fun'. Asymmetry could mean one side of a Ship being bigger then the other, kinda like how Crabs can have one Claw bigger then the other... the bigger side could have more Thrusters then the smaller side to compensate for the bigger amount of Mass & make stuff even in the overall picture maybe? As long as the net result makes the force even the flight could still perhaps be straight & stable...
Sorry, but your not even remotely close to anything like Galileo and logic is not an inquisitions. Deal with it.
Or you will what.... place me under house arrest? Burn my books? Force me to publicly retract my ideas? What if my defiance of your logic stands, and dare I say it, is even successful? Ooooohhhh, tricky is it not? We human beings can do some terrible things in the name of deeply held beliefs or developmental.... I will call them, nuances. For helpful instruction I am referencing Tyrax's OCD(Thank you Tyrax, for having the courage to share this) with respect to the description of nuances. Trying to shut down a person's capacity to dream or consider new ideas is destructive. Not everyone is like me and can fight back, or stand up for themselves; you could end up inflicting harm. Please be careful Cotoktoto. I referenced Galileo because I was just watching Star Trek Voyager and there was a reference to Galileo, so it was on my mind. So! Along that theme, I will arrange some easily digestible logic for you: Consider, the church, and by extension the inquisition, is/was an assembly of myths, stories, and parables based around and through a holy text and related structures. They are arranged like they are for a variety of reasons be it community, societal organization, or autocratic power structure, etc. Regardless of the reason, much of it is not real, or is not based in reality, and is, as you say, not logical. That makes sense. Is it logical to have a virgin birth, or to think that a snake can talk to people, etc, etc? Definitely not. Along comes mighty and daring thinkers; the many philosophers, physicists or natural scientists, and explorers that started to dream. Copernicus was one, and Galileo was another(amoungst others.) Their dream, or their interest was to discover new ideas - the ideas of logic, of the function of the universe, why things work the way they do, etc. The church pushed back because OBVIOUSLY that is not right as it contradicted the text(s) that defined their whole world. Yet, the observations by these scientists(arguably the founders of modern science) were so powerful they were threatening. They stood in defiance to what was allowed. The church threatened in much the same way you did by being dismissive; and I quote, from your above statement, "This is pretty much as good idea as making square "wheels" for car. We don't have physics in game, specially that will be related to ships center of the mass, thruster positions etc, so asymmetrical ship in game will fly like a normal ship, but in real world, it will be a balancing nightmare." There are several important words here, but none more important than "real world." Right? Galileo was describing the "real world" and the church was not. So what if, ready? Brace yourself! What if, with respect to the current rules and laws that govern the Empyrion world, OUR world is the fantasy/illusive/not real. We all participate in the game, so we are all observing its laws - like Galileo. So I can state fairly that if I place a number of thrusters on one side of a vessel - so that is is wildly "weighted" in that direction, the vessel should spin or pivot based on the mass, direction of thrusters, etc. This is a logical statement, and in our world that would, in fact, happen. This is based on the texts(science and engineering instruction) that define OUR world. The trick, is that in the world of Empyrion, it does not. So all the people who are building ships with wings, or air foils, or symmetrically balanced ships, they bring OUR world, the not real with respect to the game, into Empyrion. They are like the religious texts insisting that the world revolved around the earth and not the sun. It just does not make sense. Another example: what if in the game, and this is just an example to provide contrast, square wheels were the best solution - kind of like, how blocks can still be registered as being attached to a vessel, even if there is no direct block connecting them(like say, on a cv.) In OUR world, round wheels are the best solution; they operate with rolling friction, and that is far superior to static friction. But with respect to Empyrion, that have blocks that can slide along the ground or other surfaces as though there is little or no friction only impact, OUR world is the virtual or not real. This is soundly logical with respect to the world of Empyrion. It also is incredibly healthy because it encourages diversity and new ways of thinking. Now, the developers may change this. They may take it in either direction; to free up creativity, or to diminish it. But as it stands, this community is fairly challenged by the notion that you can get away with non or a-symmertrical design, and refuse to or simply do not think to approach it(at least, for the most part.) Again, my hope is that this thread will be filled with bases and vessels that begin to explore that theme.
A polite reminder: It's a game whose focus is on building and creativity. There are plenty of iconic asymmetric designs in sci-fi (see Millennium Falcon as one prime example) and there is nothing wrong with Fractalite encouraging people to think outside the bounds of conventional aesthetics. Don't like it? Don't post here. It's basic courtesy. Also, there is real-world precedent. "Deal with it." As for the topic itself, this is a little two-person runabout I built for my girlfriend and self, for exploring. I called it the Siamese. The pair of miniguns are for drone defense, but it's really not suitable for combat (as the exposed core on the bottom shows). It was our first SV, and mostly used to scout Akua for ores & POI sites. Figured I'd share pics, just don't expect a workshop upload anytime soon.
Very nice! And, well, cute! I like the simplicity. That is a-symmetry on a smaller scale, and that is especially challenging! Beautifully done!
I've been building asymmetrical ships myself on Space Engineers (What? I'm waiting for an Empyrion patch beyond bug fixes and deco since July!!!) There's something intriguing about asymmetrical ships. Or perhaps humans are so stuck on symmetry that it's nice to go outside the box. Beyond the sleek racy fighter, and the long slender battleship. A flying junker that looks like random ships welded together! Symmetry is 99.9% of the workshop. The fact that people get irrational about asymmetry is fun too.
There is one thing from star trek that fits this topic perfectly... Picard facepalm Bringing hollywood movies as proof of concept argument. Picard facepalm fits here indeed. Also this ship IS symmetrical - where it matter, which is on submerged part. You didn't know?
Of course, but you can't deny that it is visually asymmetrical. And a vessel not intended for water (or atmosphere) doesn't have any obligation to follow those dynamics either. It could be a lumpy space-potato, and still fly just fine as long as the mass and thrust were balanced. Which, y'know, is irrelevant in this game right now anyway. I'm not sure why you seem to be making it your personal mission to kill this topic, it's not like you're obligated to use anything posted here.
Upper part on a ship that doesn't have any propulsion above water line and move that slowly is not affecting his performance. Balancing asymmetrical mass using asymmetrically placed thrusters will be extremely complicated and single malfunction on anything will create disaster. That's why none engineer well design ship this way, because you know, ships are designed by engineers not by morons. Oh, it's nothing like that, I just have very little patience for stupidity.
I could see Fractalite's ship being use as a bomber. Kieve's ship is also very nice. I think the reason people don't like asymmetrical designs is because its harder for the brain to process, which is probably something you want on your starfighter. you can blast them while they are trying to figure out what they are looking at. hope to see more great asymmetrical designs on the workshop
Here's a fun quiz: Is part of it (literally ANY part of it) asymmetrical? If YES, then the ship is asymmetrical. If NO, then the ship is symmetrical. Anything beyond that is semantics. In a game where CoM and CoT doesn't matter, people are free to put thrusters wherever they want, and build ships as asymmetrically as they please. This isn't real life, buddy. These are people playing a video game, not engineers. If you want to go find some forum about engineering, go right ahead... however there is nothing physically wrong with an asymmetric vehicle. It is more than possible to make them... they are just more difficult and require more balancing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetrical_aircraft "But why make asymmetric ships?" You sound like you might not understand the concept of "fun." Also, yes, an aircraft carrier is absolutely aysmmetric. For moving through the water, obviously it has to be symmetric below the waterline, but above it makes no difference. That's like saying someone with a birth defect on their face actually isn't asymmetric because the bones underneath are the same. Please try to educate yourself before you (lol) try to call people morons when clearly you don't understand what asymmetric means. Lastly, I reported all your posts that are more inciteful than insightful, so we can help create a friendly environment where more people are willing to share, instead of trying (and failing) to call each other morons. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Now, on topic: perhaps the only asymmetric ship I've built (named the SpiderHawk) I don't usually build them because I feel like a lot of times I'm taking two good designs and trying to smash them together. With this design below, could be two different ships. One that has the left side mirrored to right, and one that has the right side mirrored to left. But having it this way does make it quite unique.
Earthships are effectively moving through two environments, in water they have propulsion, in air they dont. They are builded symmetrical where it matters. If you don't understand that, it's your problem. So in your imagination engineers aren't counted amongst people? Niceeee. Ohhh, you run crying already? You're weak. ^^
