Add Free 3 Axis lockable Ball joints

GrindyGears shared this feedback 21 months ago
Under Consideration

Hello folks, friendly neighbor hood Clang-ineer here, Have I ever got a proposal for you?

(Skip to bottom for actual proposal)

Space engineers is a amazing game that really can push the upper limits of whats physically possible, trying it's best to be close to real life in terms of its mechanical blocks and functionality.

But one problem always seems to plague people: Clang.... In this case we're looking to deal with the nasty part of havok that often sends your ship off spinning wildly. I'm sure anyone who has experienced this has felt like swearing off rotors and pistons for good, but fret not any longer if this device gets added to the game, for in my never ending quest to beat clang i've discovered something quite wonderful. using "universal" type joints at the ends of your pistons completely cancels out phantom forces of the type. see image below:

477775c31f

what you've just witnessed is a piston operated arm, (or a piece of one anyway) in space, that isn't spinning wildly about! Now, you might be asking; why not just use that then? we'll that's an excellent question and the answer is: It tends to "stretch" under load, for every set of Havok constraints you use, you get a little more jiggling possible. and with having a extra grid in the mix, really makes it unsuitable for good immersion (i don't think i've seen hydraulic cylinders bounce like a trampoline) and it's also quite a bit larger than a plain connection.


That was a lot of verbage for something, so lets get down to feature scope and maybe appearance:

- functionally the block will act as a 3 axis joint I suggest a block similar in profile to a "tie rod" 420022

the main difference being where there is the threaded connection you'd have a rotatable axis.

- two of the three axis would be free to rotate 360 degrees, and one axis would be limited to for example +/- 60 degrees (adjustable)

- Have individual axis be "lockable" as it's better to have the freedom of choice.

- In general the less rigid something is the nicer Havok restoring forces tend to be so you'd get rid of a lot of phantom forces

Some possible uses to make the average users life easier:

- Use as ends for pistons to remove phantom force, opening a world of mechanical builds

- Use as a main pivot for mech legs, more degrees of freedom mean less sub grids and better performance

- Trailer hitches, a one and done solution for a complex issue

- Overall better performance, less subgrids = less performance impact

- and many more, like SE you are free to do what you please.


and remember folks, Inflex himself said:

d1b4c337c6

So vote vote vote

Best Answer
photo

I approve.

Comments (25)

photo
4

I approve.

photo
2

inb4 someone gets """"""inspired"""""" by this and you know the rest... monkaS

photo
2

The adeptus mechanicus wants

photo
1

Intriguing. What would the terminal settings be for something like this?

photo
2

The particular implementation that i'm gunning for here is to have them be a "passive" type joint, So in general you'd have 3 axis locked/unlocked options, as well as a set of upper and lower limits sliders for the axis that's not able to freely rotate 360.

We had discussed it a bit, and to have it be powered (like a 3 axis rotor) it would need like a dozen or more sliders, which might be a little bit overwhelming. this implementation would be relatively simple, standard stuff, plus listed above, if you have any additional thought please lay them out here, the more detail the better

photo
1

Well I don't think having 3x the sliders of 1 rotor would be that bad. No worse than the slider count of some mods like say the Nanite Build and Repair Block.

So like a ball joint that can pivot on itself too? I think this would work well.

I wonder if powering it is necessary? Could gyros be used as an alternative?


Also, your name checks out :D

photo
3

The image of the tie Rod end above is more or less what I was thinking, really and truly you could have all three axis powered, but as of right now I think it'd be easy to start with a passive joint, and if there is a good amount of positive feedback from the community push for an active implementation

photo
1

Have you thought of any specifics for the block models? like concept art for the dimensions and such, it would be a propper pitch for them to discuss in their next meeting that way!

if you haven't already' let me know if i can help out sketching up some concept art or test models if you'd like!

photo
photo
2

these lockable ball joints, they would solve quite a few problems, and they wouldnt necessarily need to be powered would they? like just have a lock, and physics attach/detach like rotors, but no powered movement, would that still be as useful?

photo
1

Does it need to be three axis? I know it makes sense to have it in IRL...

I would think it would be better to keep rotation out of this, since we do have rotors already. This will keep the implementation, and terminal UI, simpler.

photo
1

it can be done with just two axes, leave the rotation to a separate rotor, to keep it simpler

photo
2

the 3rd axis is needed, the whole point of it would be not to need 2 blocks to do the ball joint (2 rotors)

like a trailer hitch...

photo
2

The third axis is really an optional axis, I said three because i think from an implementation point of view you'd have to lock that degree of freedom anyway in havok, so why not leave the locking up to the user?

A trailer hitch is typically only on the two axis, but for SE rough offroading (where our trailers don't twist like a real trailer would) the third axis of motion is actually quite nice to have.

photo
2

Never seen idea getting 21 votes in just 9 hrs! Congrats!

I did not encounter major issues w rotors and pistons so I am a bit confused what is the clang exactly :) Could be that I did not encounter issues b/c I am playing mostly SP?

photo
1

The major issues where clang shows up tends to be in more complex builds, by themselves rotors or pistons work just fine, and seldom cause issues, however where problems arise is when you start making chained combinations of them, as an example if you want to experience clang, try to make something relatively simple in space that involves rotors and pistons, just try and make a crane mechanism (just the part that raises and lowers the main boom) it'll probably freak out a bit and you'll see why I ask for these

photo
1

Thx for the clear explanation!

photo
2

there is a calculation issue where rotors are REALLY weak and barely have any of the torque they are supposed to have if you have a small or lightweight grid (either of the two, not sure which) on either ends, no matter if you have it upside down, both grids apparently need a threshold of blocks or size or weight, until they return to their actual strength.


now with that explained, having the ball joints NOT have rolling would force people to either put a rotor and a ball joint together, leaving both their connected subgrids inbetween the ''shoulder'' and the ''arm'' that has no weight or size going for it, and you're not going to put a big clump of armor between your ''arm'' and ''shoulder'' JUST to have it be strong enough to lift a box.

giving the ball joint all three axis of movement, pitch, yaw and roll would completely prevent this problem the game has,


now maybe this is a bug that is fixable, maybe then the game could skimp out on giving the ball joint the roll function to save development time, but it's up to KEEN what they actually decide on going for...


OR they somehow have never noticed this and i now have to make several bug videos about muh rotors


BUILD MORE

photo
photo
3

I can imagine this being used as rope...

Also, this would make trailers far easier to make, and if done with conveyor ports, can lead to worm-like miners.

photo
2

Oh god, clangy ropes... Been there done that, good lord is it a draw on performance for any really length of cable...

Too bad Keen declined a rope/winch suggestion on the site before, it'd make life easier for some things, wouldn't it?

photo
2

A winch would have been useful block for cranes to use.

photo
1

I agree on principle, however as of right now Keen has declined the addition of winches into SE

photo
4

This is set to considered now, so if this gets accepted I will be so happy with the ability to have this new joint block. I can understand why ropes weren't added (as you yourself said) but if this were to be added we would be able to create a whole assortment of different builds.

photo
photo
3

Hi guys, thank you for the suggestion.

photo
2

Hey Petr, you forgot to flag this 'under consideration' :P

photo
3

oh.

photo
1

this is not where i meant to put my comment, whoops!

photo
photo
4

I fully support any and all additions to the game that expand the engineering aspect of the game.


Hinges (i'm sorry) are something that would help condense designs and allow more concealed joints in mechanics. The hinge would bring the potential to have more concealed mechanics that ultimately require a conveyor point that bends in a perpendicular Axis of that of the conveyor ports. The reason for this would be so that a hinge application wouldn't need to be wider than the smallest possible 2 block wide hinge if using rotors, which ends up being 3 BLOCKS wide if there's a need for conveyors.

However i guess that this ball joint in the suggestion would cover for that just as much by only using one of it's three axis.

Springs and hydraulics are more to fill the hole that's currently filled by people re-purposing rotors, but this usually end up being way too messy because of costing extra sub-grids.

(i'm not sure if pistons allow Hydraulic physics since their rework so please correct me if they do.)


The reason why i think these additions are so extremely important for the game is that Space engineers started out as a sandbox. Therefore it's the point we should be getting stuff like this naturally! The whole ''Ending'' or the ''you win!'' state should be the moment you finish and successfully tested a creation you made!

(Like taking photos of the giant sand castle you just built and feeling satisfied and accomplished because of it!)


I'm sure this isn't true but the ''tutorial campaign'' was hinting pretty hard towards Keen listening too much to SOME community members that complain about their Creatively bankrupt survival playtime lacking a substantial goal or point in doing anything.

My hope is that keen hasn't been secretively developing a narrative driven survival mode-

(saving the universe or reaching a plot device (like the monolith) with some grand evil at the end)

Causing the dev-team to stray away from making/managing engineering additions like this to the game, for so long due to their attention being on the survival mode / Campaign.


Here's a clip of someone describing the same in mistake Telltale made when developing Minecraft Storymode.

http://puu.sh/BT834/7d44cb6619.mp4

the majority of players already create their own goals in survival with things like like competition in PVP server! or a pre-made survival map provided by another creator! the way it should be! people creating fun for each other!

Here's the point i'm trying to make.

Of course it's up to them to add stuff like the campaign to fluff things up but it seems such a waste of resources for how much it actually helped the game compared to the endless truckloads of free content and advertising the game gets through people sharing their creations that they were able to make in the game. ''Community made content!'' is what caused the massive succes sandbox games like MineCraft on, largely due to the developers making it extremely easy for players to make content such as adventure maps, puzzle maps or challenge maps which they shared with youtubers that played the maps and on their turn advertised the game to the thousands of viewer bases.

This is the domino effect i want just want Keenswh to be aware of,


1 Adding new engineering blocks =

2 More game content for players, =

3 Exponential increase of new creations =

4 More content on social media involving creations that utilize said engineering blocks

5 more people potential sales through people being shown the game's real main selling point.

Creation.


again. i absolutely support this content suggestion and i sincerely hope it becomes part of the game!

(also i apologize for having typed a full essay about this and possibly making a lot of mistakes)

P.S thank you Grindy for making the well made suggestion' i'm rooting for ya!


''Build More!~ Rivvion.

photo
2

I agree. It would be great to have more mechanical elements like the one proposed by the OP and more.

A full set of kinematic pairs (joints), at least the low order ones, in a variety of sizes, would make the game even more awesome. As this is meant to be a fun game and not a mechanical simulator there will need to be compromises to ensure performance but it would still be awesome.

photo
1

Hm. I can see the value of such a block, but I recommend not creating a block for every problem one encounters. It is an engineering game after all.


I think what will help is to make a tree to see what problem needs a new block, what problems can be solved with a modified version of current blocks, and what problem can be solved in game. For example, an AI block is not needed as the programming block can cover that task, but a problem of long distance travel needed the jump drive.

photo
2

Well, where would you like to start for fixing a problem that has quite literally existed from the day rotors and pistons were added to the game?


I gave two or three case uses in the suggestion itself, and have put in enough time into building both large and small mechanical solutions in game, I've drawn conclusions from both my own testing, as well as speaking to the developer(s) about the issue

The attached photo in the OP pretty much sums it up, that giant knuckle on the end of pistons might be engineering, but its still poor implementation because its way too big to fit on any normal sized build, and due to the way the game handles stacking subgrids adding more into the mix can compound a different issue and make it even more difficult to manage. I've paid my dues, so this is pretty much my only real ask of Keen to add into the game.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2r6LMMD6UY

photo
photo
2

There's a mod on the workshop right now that imitates this behavior, the Dual Head Advanced Rotor.

You can stick that on the back of a regular Rotor and have the same functionality.

photo
2

Unfortunately it isn't actually the same functionality, the double headed rotor is still based on a rotor and as such only has the single degree of freedom to rotate on it's axis.

photo
1

I like the mechanical parts of this game, but when i see on servers that you as a player are limited to one block of this and few block of these because otherwise it would slow down the server significantly then this should be fixed first before inventing even more complicated blocks that cant be used because of server lag.

photo
photo
2

Good to see that we're sitting in the same boat! I also want the ball joint, and many others need it, too. Check this URL below, and while voting here, also vote there to show the developers how much we want it! The more votes for the same desired feature, the sooner our hopes will come true! Vote!


--> https://support.keenswh.com/spaceengineers/general/topic/suggestion-360-degree-ball-joint-rotor

photo
2

This could help building more adaptable machines (Articulated rovers! Yay!)

Also would be cool If the small grid had small smart rotor A 1x1x1 with a small conveyor conector, the current one is too big for some aplications like a drilling rover.

Also being able to easily use the imput of the mouse to control a rotor (like when I move my mouse left and right, this rotor moves the subrid left and right, it also can be aded to pistons, like, if I move the mouse wheel up and down, the piston moves up and down) would be really cool adition.

photo
4

I would love this. I wouldn't need 3 rotors to make a trailer anymore. (As seen below)1ab58cdf39ba2d603bb7f7ddf2ccf5dd

photo
4

We need a LOT more mechanical blocks to really let us engineer things.

You can't even make a proper hydraulic lift without something like a slider or hinge block.

photo
4

+1 on the ball joint, it's more than needed to compensate the clanging of double/triple rotor setups, and it's a block we've been asking for since a long long while now. (https://forum.keenswh.com/threads/ball-and-socket-joint.6698509/).

photo
1

I'd be happy with just rotor hinges- you can easily use two of those to make a swivel-joint, far better than a super-janky joint made from 3 rotors...

photo
3

Strongly agree. A few more types of movement devices are needed. Wheels locked into tracks would be great too.

On the one hand, it sounds like an excellent way to anger Lord Clang and cause far more havoc, destruction, and lag on multiplayer servers.

On the other hand, it's possible that making it easier to do special purpose movable parts like these will make Lord Clang less angry, even happy.

photo
2

Just reducing the amount of subgirds in any multi-grid construction would calm him a bit I think.


The wheel sugestion sounds great, It can lead to trains, elevantors and other otherwise complex buildings. One of the big points of the game is building an space elevator, but I never have managed to build one that I could go up and down. I always have to build a Drone to carry me up and down. Or a piston monstrosity (It would be less insulting if I didn't have to add microswiches to them in order to know if they have fully extended/retracted winout "predicting" it with a timer and the catastropic consecuences of that failing.)

photo
4

I'm sorry to somewhat Necro this thread, but university and work have kept me rather busy.

What I'd like to do is prevent something like this from happening:

https://streamable.com/tphxb

There's absolutely no reason that a 400 tonne grid should be eternally spinning like a top, a couple of ball joints in place of the current rotors being used and presto, actual engineering in game without wanting to cry every time you try to make something noce

photo
photo
2

Doesn’t even have to be lockable, a simple balljoint would suffice.

photo
2

SIMPLE hinge would be a lifesaver. 2hinges on rotor and its a 3D joint.

So far we lucky this mod still works. But for how long? Mods die u know.

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=385778606

photo
2

please oh please oh please oh please. Would like a simple trailer hitch.

photo
1

They did had Hinges, so I believe if we push for a ball socket, they might just add it aswell.