Add Free 3 Axis lockable Ball joints
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:
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" 
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:
So vote vote vote
I like this feedback
I approve.
I approve.
I approve.
I approve.
inb4 someone gets """"""inspired"""""" by this and you know the rest... monkaS
inb4 someone gets """"""inspired"""""" by this and you know the rest... monkaS
The adeptus mechanicus wants
The adeptus mechanicus wants
Intriguing. What would the terminal settings be for something like this?
Intriguing. What would the terminal settings be for something like this?
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?
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?
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.
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.
it can be done with just two axes, leave the rotation to a separate rotor, to keep it simpler
it can be done with just two axes, leave the rotation to a separate rotor, to keep it simpler
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...
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...
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
Hi guys, thank you for the suggestion.
Hi guys, thank you for the suggestion.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
I would love this. I wouldn't need 3 rotors to make a trailer anymore. (As seen below)
I would love this. I wouldn't need 3 rotors to make a trailer anymore. (As seen below)
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.
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.
+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/).
+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/).
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...
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...
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.
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.
Doesn’t even have to be lockable, a simple balljoint would suffice.
Doesn’t even have to be lockable, a simple balljoint would suffice.
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
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
please oh please oh please oh please. Would like a simple trailer hitch.
please oh please oh please oh please. Would like a simple trailer hitch.
They did had Hinges, so I believe if we push for a ball socket, they might just add it aswell.
They did had Hinges, so I believe if we push for a ball socket, they might just add it aswell.
Variables Y, P, and R could be the values that move the joint. Y would be Yaw, P would be Pitch, and R would be Roll.
Variables Y, P, and R could be the values that move the joint. Y would be Yaw, P would be Pitch, and R would be Roll.
Why not.
Why not.
oh yes, definitely need this, has been going around my head for ages
oh yes, definitely need this, has been going around my head for ages
Well, atleast we got hinges...
Well, atleast we got hinges...
Definitely something we need. Anything that reduces potential klang is good.
Definitely something we need. Anything that reduces potential klang is good.
Honestly, i know Keen has been striving to make realistic physics, but it has caused some extremely unrealistic things to happen with pistons and rotors. If they honestly just changed how the forces are applied on sub-grids, so much would be better.
Because, really. A rotor turning and then whatever is on the rotor gets stuck on the base, does not magically impart all of its force to the base and go spiraling off into space. That's not how physics work. We all know this. Either fix it for fully functioning 'realistic' physics, or just admit it doesn't work and allow for a little bit of video game physics to be present for sake of immersion. I wouldn't care either way honestly. Because the most immersion breaking thing, is retracting a piston with a connector on it to then have my 40,000 tonne ship start turning in space. Just... no.
Honestly, i know Keen has been striving to make realistic physics, but it has caused some extremely unrealistic things to happen with pistons and rotors. If they honestly just changed how the forces are applied on sub-grids, so much would be better.
Because, really. A rotor turning and then whatever is on the rotor gets stuck on the base, does not magically impart all of its force to the base and go spiraling off into space. That's not how physics work. We all know this. Either fix it for fully functioning 'realistic' physics, or just admit it doesn't work and allow for a little bit of video game physics to be present for sake of immersion. I wouldn't care either way honestly. Because the most immersion breaking thing, is retracting a piston with a connector on it to then have my 40,000 tonne ship start turning in space. Just... no.
You had me at "trailer hitch"
You had me at "trailer hitch"
So it would require three sets of axis rotation controls to pull off: X, Y, Z..
X and Y would have a range of -90 to +90 degrees like a hinge.
Z would be a rotational axis that would cover a full 360 degrees like a rotor.
So take everything in a piston or hinge and make 2 duplicates. That's quite a lengthy scroll in a terminal block. I'm not against it. But I'm just pointing that out.
So it would require three sets of axis rotation controls to pull off: X, Y, Z..
X and Y would have a range of -90 to +90 degrees like a hinge.
Z would be a rotational axis that would cover a full 360 degrees like a rotor.
So take everything in a piston or hinge and make 2 duplicates. That's quite a lengthy scroll in a terminal block. I'm not against it. But I'm just pointing that out.
I think the word you're looking for is gimbal. Or maybe ball joint.
I think the word you're looking for is gimbal. Or maybe ball joint.
Actually, it's called a Heim joint and it's a fantastic suggestion.
Actually, it's called a Heim joint and it's a fantastic suggestion.
I have used ball joints a lot in photography where freedom of movement is very important. You tend to have a rotor joint followed by a ball joint, so it is effectively 'rotor' 'hinge-rotor'. The ball joints movement is literally a hinge with a rotor on top, there is a little left right play on the hinge that add to ease of use but is not technically needed to achieve all angles. You ‘can’ get much more open ball joints with a lot more left-right movement, but typically they literally can’t go to 180 degrees or the ball would fall out. In most applications that is not needed as the 2 rotor parts let you set the angle.
Honestly while it’s a fun addition to the game, a small 1x1x0.33ish flat rotor would give us a ball rotor with its lower rotor in a nice 1.6 - 2 block space with displacements and such. Displacement are not so realistic in this application but creative licence and saving peoples sanity in game is a thing.
What might be beneficial in making a ball joint, is the hinge part to have a left-right tolerance to some extent, but not intended for ‘moving’. Just to help the game handle the forced movement put upon the joint and could be less taxing on the physics. In terms of physics. If there is a small angle of tolerance, the direct force on the rotation, is smoothed out and is less jarring. This matters greatly in a script where there are not natural tolerances or ‘springiness’. The cost is a little bit of reduced accuracy, but that’s reality it would look and handle better with less chance of clang. Lol.
Worth a note that the ball part is typically unpowered… tho being able to rotate for building would be useful and I’m not sure how you could have it unpowered in a way that’s not annoying for players.
I do like the idea of this block. Though I think it should be in 2 parts, ‘ball joint’ and flat rotor. This makes it simpler for people to understand and gives more build options to play with for both parts. It also means modders get a block with 2 settable rotations to play with. The down side of this suggestion is that its 3grids not 2. But it’s just so much more flexible, simpler in the menus and far easier for player to visualise. To make the same thing now requires 4 blocks and is over 3blocks long, with no play room on the hinge part. The length is the more annoying part for me. lol!
A single block with 3 rotations and only 2 parts, would also be nice I agree. But I just couldn’t use it as much as the split option I just suggested.
I have used ball joints a lot in photography where freedom of movement is very important. You tend to have a rotor joint followed by a ball joint, so it is effectively 'rotor' 'hinge-rotor'. The ball joints movement is literally a hinge with a rotor on top, there is a little left right play on the hinge that add to ease of use but is not technically needed to achieve all angles. You ‘can’ get much more open ball joints with a lot more left-right movement, but typically they literally can’t go to 180 degrees or the ball would fall out. In most applications that is not needed as the 2 rotor parts let you set the angle.
Honestly while it’s a fun addition to the game, a small 1x1x0.33ish flat rotor would give us a ball rotor with its lower rotor in a nice 1.6 - 2 block space with displacements and such. Displacement are not so realistic in this application but creative licence and saving peoples sanity in game is a thing.
What might be beneficial in making a ball joint, is the hinge part to have a left-right tolerance to some extent, but not intended for ‘moving’. Just to help the game handle the forced movement put upon the joint and could be less taxing on the physics. In terms of physics. If there is a small angle of tolerance, the direct force on the rotation, is smoothed out and is less jarring. This matters greatly in a script where there are not natural tolerances or ‘springiness’. The cost is a little bit of reduced accuracy, but that’s reality it would look and handle better with less chance of clang. Lol.
Worth a note that the ball part is typically unpowered… tho being able to rotate for building would be useful and I’m not sure how you could have it unpowered in a way that’s not annoying for players.
I do like the idea of this block. Though I think it should be in 2 parts, ‘ball joint’ and flat rotor. This makes it simpler for people to understand and gives more build options to play with for both parts. It also means modders get a block with 2 settable rotations to play with. The down side of this suggestion is that its 3grids not 2. But it’s just so much more flexible, simpler in the menus and far easier for player to visualise. To make the same thing now requires 4 blocks and is over 3blocks long, with no play room on the hinge part. The length is the more annoying part for me. lol!
A single block with 3 rotations and only 2 parts, would also be nice I agree. But I just couldn’t use it as much as the split option I just suggested.
Replies have been locked on this page!