SE2 - Possible removal of "volume" from cargo/inventory system.
Not Enough Votes
So, in video from 'BenDoesThings' at 10:02 you can see him hovering over "Power Module" + just character inventory itself.
From this you can see that "Power Module" nor character inventory has "volume" (Liters) property but just "weight"/"mass" (tons and kilograms in this case).
1. Do I get this right?
2. Is it final "vision"?
If "yes" and "yes" - then I propose against this change as SE1's "realistic" inventory system is one of it's big strengths and I will HATE for it to degrade to "arcady", "mainline" and "stupid" system like this in the sequel.
With all respect.
I like this feedback You can't vote. Please authorize!
The maximum amount of cargo in a container is more realistic and intuitive when volume-based.
Volume is obvious: You can put only so much stuff in a container of given size.
But items have volume and density, and a mass based on volume times density. How much mass a container can have would depend on which material is in it.
Finally, the intuitive limitation for what a vehicle or character can carry is weight, which is mass times gravity (in kg⋅m⋅s−2) and is measured in Newton. So the maximum weight of a container is not only linked to its volume, but also to the strength of gravity. On the moon the same rover could handle a larger mass than on earth without collapsing under the weight.
I suggest using volume-based limits as in SE1 and display the weight of the content as well for the player's information.
The maximum amount of cargo in a container is more realistic and intuitive when volume-based.
Volume is obvious: You can put only so much stuff in a container of given size.
But items have volume and density, and a mass based on volume times density. How much mass a container can have would depend on which material is in it.
Finally, the intuitive limitation for what a vehicle or character can carry is weight, which is mass times gravity (in kg⋅m⋅s−2) and is measured in Newton. So the maximum weight of a container is not only linked to its volume, but also to the strength of gravity. On the moon the same rover could handle a larger mass than on earth without collapsing under the weight.
I suggest using volume-based limits as in SE1 and display the weight of the content as well for the player's information.
Guys, the endless hot complaints trying to make how hard things are seem like the game's fault, are advertisements for your game, don't turn a feast into baby food. Disabling the high-altitude drops in SE1 was another bad sign. Problems whose solutions are only easy to see in hindsight are what make engineering games great. Hang on to those. Please. Don't cave to the mommy-make-it-easy-for-me whiners. Let them whine. Almost all of them will eventually grow out of it, you want to be a forever game you need to be a rite of passage, not pandering to whiners.
Guys, the endless hot complaints trying to make how hard things are seem like the game's fault, are advertisements for your game, don't turn a feast into baby food. Disabling the high-altitude drops in SE1 was another bad sign. Problems whose solutions are only easy to see in hindsight are what make engineering games great. Hang on to those. Please. Don't cave to the mommy-make-it-easy-for-me whiners. Let them whine. Almost all of them will eventually grow out of it, you want to be a forever game you need to be a rite of passage, not pandering to whiners.
You can see why it is important and general explanation in this video: https://youtu.be/rPg43n9uLo4?si=Vatb2aODA9KWC3gN
You can see why it is important and general explanation in this video: https://youtu.be/rPg43n9uLo4?si=Vatb2aODA9KWC3gN
The maximum amount of cargo in a container is more realistic and intuitive when volume-based.
Volume is obvious: You can put only so much stuff in a container of given size.
But items have volume and density, and a mass based on volume times density. How much mass a container can have would depend on which material is in it.
Finally, the intuitive limitation for what a vehicle or character can carry is weight, which is mass times gravity (in kg⋅m⋅s−2) and is measured in Newton. So the maximum weight of a container is not only linked to its volume, but also to the strength of gravity. On the moon the same rover could handle a larger mass than on earth without collapsing under the weight.
I suggest using volume-based limits as in SE1 and display the weight of the content as well for the player's information.
The maximum amount of cargo in a container is more realistic and intuitive when volume-based.
Volume is obvious: You can put only so much stuff in a container of given size.
But items have volume and density, and a mass based on volume times density. How much mass a container can have would depend on which material is in it.
Finally, the intuitive limitation for what a vehicle or character can carry is weight, which is mass times gravity (in kg⋅m⋅s−2) and is measured in Newton. So the maximum weight of a container is not only linked to its volume, but also to the strength of gravity. On the moon the same rover could handle a larger mass than on earth without collapsing under the weight.
I suggest using volume-based limits as in SE1 and display the weight of the content as well for the player's information.
Yeah, this makes a lot more sense. It's space "engineers" so things should make sense. 1 liter bucket can hold the same amount of water and mercury, the weight doesn't matter. Whether you would be able to pick it up or not is up to you, not up to the bucket.
Yeah, this makes a lot more sense. It's space "engineers" so things should make sense. 1 liter bucket can hold the same amount of water and mercury, the weight doesn't matter. Whether you would be able to pick it up or not is up to you, not up to the bucket.
I went to school.
Mass can change based on various factors, and because in space, its best to use
VOLUME, as the size of a container matters, (no pun intended,) much more than a very obvious (planetary based,) changing variable like "mass."
The idea is, this was solved in Space Engineers 1, what are we "gaining," from "changing," something that works! INTUITIVELY! ?
I went to school.
Mass can change based on various factors, and because in space, its best to use
VOLUME, as the size of a container matters, (no pun intended,) much more than a very obvious (planetary based,) changing variable like "mass."
The idea is, this was solved in Space Engineers 1, what are we "gaining," from "changing," something that works! INTUITIVELY! ?
hmm this is disappointing, I've been so hyped for the survival update that I had not noticed this. I certainly hope this is a early access thing not a final game thing. I most certainly would not be happy to see this downgrade from SE1's storage system. Although is it a consequence of or related to the coming water physics?
hmm this is disappointing, I've been so hyped for the survival update that I had not noticed this. I certainly hope this is a early access thing not a final game thing. I most certainly would not be happy to see this downgrade from SE1's storage system. Although is it a consequence of or related to the coming water physics?
I'm not a rocket scientist or anything, but i'm pretty sure mass is the defining constraint of pretty much all space flight endeavors. Volume is not really important because the support structure required to contain the object/s will just snap if it is exposed to enough force, if there is too much mass. So even if we have extra room, we just can't use it unless we reduce applied forces... which isn't a good gameplay direction, i think. I mean just look at starbase. They tried that and no one stuck around.
I'm not a rocket scientist or anything, but i'm pretty sure mass is the defining constraint of pretty much all space flight endeavors. Volume is not really important because the support structure required to contain the object/s will just snap if it is exposed to enough force, if there is too much mass. So even if we have extra room, we just can't use it unless we reduce applied forces... which isn't a good gameplay direction, i think. I mean just look at starbase. They tried that and no one stuck around.
I hope volume returns as the constraint for containers, as having to deal with different densities of cargo adds some challenge in the form of an extra consideration when designing a craft. This would pair well with water as well, as displacement tonnage is a major consideration in the real world.
I hope volume returns as the constraint for containers, as having to deal with different densities of cargo adds some challenge in the form of an extra consideration when designing a craft. This would pair well with water as well, as displacement tonnage is a major consideration in the real world.
I do hope volume returns as a secondary consideration/challenge in ship design when trying to move large quantities of low density cargo. Will it be game breaking? No, but it will be a disappointment.
However, I do get focusing on mass right now as they work to fine tune the physics model, which ONLY cares about mass. Get that right first, assign masses to each component and ore, and then later figure out a consistent density scheme and implement volume based on that.
I do hope volume returns as a secondary consideration/challenge in ship design when trying to move large quantities of low density cargo. Will it be game breaking? No, but it will be a disappointment.
However, I do get focusing on mass right now as they work to fine tune the physics model, which ONLY cares about mass. Get that right first, assign masses to each component and ore, and then later figure out a consistent density scheme and implement volume based on that.
Replies have been locked on this page!