Thrusters inside the vessel

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by R4z0rbee, Jun 20, 2017.

  1. banksman45

    banksman45 Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2016
    Messages:
    1,572
    Likes Received:
    2,968
    Just for a design stand point, these are smaller thrusters that I would like to see added to the game if we were forced to place thrusters out side of our ship. The big bulky thrusters are fine but I want smaller less noticeable options as well.
    Since we have size limits in game then I can't build a ship that is big enough to make our current thrusters look this small. Not every ship in the SCI FI world is a Stargate Ship or a battlestar galactica ship



    USS_Enterprise-D_maneuvering_thruster.jpg

    Enterprise_thrusters.jpg
     
    #481
  2. banksman45

    banksman45 Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2016
    Messages:
    1,572
    Likes Received:
    2,968
    That is all I'm saying. .
     
    #482
  3. geostar1024

    geostar1024 Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2016
    Messages:
    1,412
    Likes Received:
    1,753
    I'm in the process of designing something exactly like this (loosely based on the Rocinante, though it's going to end up about 30% longer). The trick is that the gravity generators can be rotated arbitrarily, so you're free to pick the -Z axis as your direction for gravity. This does mean that the cockpit chairs are sitting on their backs, but at least the ship flies as you would expect.

    Anyway, my overall position on this is that I think thruster damage is needed, and if it is to be implemented, it should be done so sooner rather than later. That's a separate issue from the form factor and fuel type of the thrusters (I'd be fine with basically any shape for a thruster so long as its thrust output scales appropriately with its size and it has some kind of nozzle, and I'd certainly like to see more fuel types (chemical, electric propulsion, fusion, and matter-antimater)). I'm opposed to true reactionless drives on the grounds that it removes a lot of the trade-offs that would normally go into a ship when designing its propulsion system (and it also removes a useful combat strategy for both SP and MP). But, if the devs decide that reactionless drives are here to stay, then I'll just continue designing all of my ships as if the drives weren't reactionless.
     
    #483
    oojimaflip likes this.
  4. kezzler

    kezzler Ensign

    Joined:
    May 23, 2016
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    4

    I understand your frustration, but keep in mind that a lot of us like to recreate ships from sci fi movies and so on. One solution could be that they let admin of any given server the possibility to decide if thrusters are allowed to be pointing inward or not. Since I like to recreate Star Wars content, making it so thruster could only be placed to fire outwards of a ship would be a game killer for me. I would simply find another game to play.
     
    #484
  5. oojimaflip

    oojimaflip Captain

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2016
    Messages:
    681
    Likes Received:
    1,289
    You'd best go find another game to play and build your unimaginative star trek ships in because thruster damage is coming. Suck it up!

    Honestly, getting so sick of these snowflakes thinking they can derail a game's development by threatening to leave, gah!
     
    #485
    Friendly Timo likes this.
  6. Friendly Timo

    Friendly Timo Commander

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2017
    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    141
    I am so glad to see I am not alone feeling exactly like you do. First I took it as a joke to place trusters inside a ship because lets have it, it is just as ridiculous as if we would be placing CV turrets inside the cubes yet they could fire through them. It is just my opinion but I think this is why there should be force fields for the ships. If they would be done right I think it would solve both the thrusters issue and need for multiple layer combat steel.

    I think the forcefield mechanism would be best done so that it would be intensively energy requiring so that you would need to divert energy from the thrusters etc. to the field, adding strategic elements for the space combat. I also understand that this would inevitably lead to people adding more and more generators and fuel tanks but you would be able to just cap it some maximum amount. Preventing personnel from exiting the ship while the shields are up to prevent abuse of this mechanism would be needed also. Just my 2 cents on this matter.
     
    #486
    Starwing6 and oojimaflip like this.
  7. oojimaflip

    oojimaflip Captain

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2016
    Messages:
    681
    Likes Received:
    1,289
    Oooooh, I gotta see that! ;)
     
    #487
  8. Xenophon

    Xenophon Commander

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2015
    Messages:
    451
    Likes Received:
    239
    Challenge with building replicas is to build them working with game mechanics. Which means thrusters where theyre supposed to be too. Not changing physics so its easier to build them by just building the model with steel.
     
    #488
  9. geostar1024

    geostar1024 Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2016
    Messages:
    1,412
    Likes Received:
    1,753
    With sublinear scaling of the output of multiple forcefield generators, it'd be self-limiting.
     
    #489
    Friendly Timo likes this.
  10. Zuleica

    Zuleica Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2016
    Messages:
    1,187
    Likes Received:
    1,356
    Normally I agree with what you say, not this time. Perhaps, if this is a huge issue in MP then create a server admin option. I only play SP and I like being able to hide thrusters for aesthetic reasons. If current thrusters have to have nozzles facing externally then at least provide a different propulsion system. Ships littered with thrusters are just butt ugly in my opinion and, I too, would likely not play any longer. Not because I think I can "derail a game's development"...which is pretty presumptuous of you to assume is what we may intend...but because it just won't hold any interest for me any longer.

    If you have some issue with SP not having thruster damage enabled please do explain why it's so important for you to force that on a player that you'll never play with.
     
    #490
    Pyston and zztong like this.
  11. geostar1024

    geostar1024 Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2016
    Messages:
    1,412
    Likes Received:
    1,753
    Which is a great argument for there being a toggle, just like there is for the durability system. I do also agree that increased diversity of thruster options would be great (perhaps a CV thruster that's 1x1x8 that puts out the same thrust as the medium CV thruster, for example).
     
    #491
    oojimaflip likes this.
  12. Zuleica

    Zuleica Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2016
    Messages:
    1,187
    Likes Received:
    1,356
    Well to be accurate I suggested increased *propulsion* options...thrusters being one type.
     
    #492
    Pyston likes this.
  13. Zuleica

    Zuleica Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2016
    Messages:
    1,187
    Likes Received:
    1,356
    Oh, and just to be clear. No one thinks they can "derail a game's development by threatening to leave". Leave a game that we've already paid for? No one believes the devs would give a flying f- if an already paid customer stopped using their game. And, no, I don't have to "suck" anything up...are we clear on that? Talk about a "snowflake".
     
    #493
  14. geostar1024

    geostar1024 Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2016
    Messages:
    1,412
    Likes Received:
    1,753
    I meant thrusters in the most general sense of the term (encompassing everything from chemical rockets to fusion drives to matter-antimatter drives; basically anything that produces an exhaust). I'm specifically excluding more exotic concepts like reactionless drives (shouldn't exist on the grounds of not even being physical), blackhole drives (technically reaction drives, but way outside of the in-game technology level), and Alcubierre drives (superseded by the warp drive anyway) .
     
    #494
  15. Siege Inc.

    Siege Inc. Captain

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2016
    Messages:
    743
    Likes Received:
    1,863
    I figure the current thruster system is a placeholder. They might add more types of thrust, fuel, and power sources later and it may be that what we have now has only been very loosely balanced. It will probably get at least one balance pass and we might end up needing less thrusters once they change them to external only.

    I don't mind external thrusters. I just don't want my ships covered in dozens of them.
     
    #495
    Pyston likes this.
  16. oojimaflip

    oojimaflip Captain

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2016
    Messages:
    681
    Likes Received:
    1,289
    Yeah, you got me, it was an unreasonable rant.

    Still, thruster damage IS coming...
     
    #496
    Pyston likes this.
  17. Frankyln

    Frankyln Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2015
    Messages:
    1,635
    Likes Received:
    1,444
    So if ugly is your only concern maybe all they need is a thruster cap block. A block that can attach to a thrusters exhaust and be visually pleasing. This block would not allow other blocks to attach to it and has no hp. They could look like anything but an armor block. When attached to a thruster it disables the visual thruster exsahust but not the damage. This cap would also be immune to thruster damage. This means your thrusters still needs to be placed on the outside but now your creation will play by the same rules. This will make your bp more accessible to all servers.
     
    #497
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2017
    Mortlath likes this.
  18. ApeX

    ApeX Ensign

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2017
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    9
    Are we really using jet engine type thrusters? I saw the radiation and just figured they were antimatter particles or something similar. I haven't seen any real heat shielding except around the reactors which makes a certain sense.
     
    #498
  19. geostar1024

    geostar1024 Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2016
    Messages:
    1,412
    Likes Received:
    1,753
    Technically, we're using conservation-of-momentum-violating photon drives :p. In all seriousness, though, the thrusters (as modeled) produce a stream of *something* (I assume it's plasma). This includes the jet thrusters (it's a bit of a stretch to call them that when they don't require an atmosphere to operate, of course). I've always assumed that thermal/radiation shielding was built into the casings of the thrusters.
     
    #499
  20. Rathnaga

    Rathnaga Ensign

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    13
    What a joke of an idea. Wasting time to force thrusters to be put on the outside of ships? Not gonna happen.

    These things WILL happen if they do it:

    1. Angry pitchfork mob.
    2. Builders will work around the system to still have concealed thrusters.
    3. Hundreds of builds will be obsolete on the workshop and never be updated.
    4. Some people WILL stop playing.

    The system is fine how it is. If you want visible thrusters, you may do so. If you want to conceal them for tactical purpose or for preferred no-thrust visual, you may do so. Forcing things one way or another is a huge (and laughable) mistake.
     
    #500
    Pyston likes this.

Share This Page