Submit Feedback

Space Engineers 2 Support Topic Feedback

Atmospheric flight needs to evolve beyond "flying bricks"

RudiSilva shared this feedback ago

Not Enough Votes

4c7e3a7890ee8a6f02fb93a5532dda35

I've been playing Space Engineers for a very long time, and if there's one thing that has always felt frustrating, it's how atmospheric flight works. Every friend I've played with feels the same way: the game is incredible at engineering, but it punishes you for building anything that looks like a real aircraft.

The Problem:

Right now, ships in atmosphere behave identically to ships in a vacuum. If you design a jet with thrusters only in the back, it’s basically useless. The moment you cut the engines, you drop like a stone. There’s no gliding, no lift, and no air resistance. To stay level, you’re forced to point the nose up or cover the hull in thrusters facing all 6 directions. This makes the shape of your ship purely cosmetic. In a game about engineering, a sleek jet and a flying brick should not perform exactly the same.

The Proposal:

I hope the team can consider a simplified aerodynamic model where the atmosphere actually interacts with the grid. We don’t need a complex NASA simulation, just two basic forces:

Atmospheric Drag: Based on the grid’s cross-section and speed. This would let ships bleed off speed naturally.
Atmospheric Lift: Based on the angle of attack. If a ship has forward velocity and tilts its nose up, the air should push the grid upward.

Why this makes sense for SE2:

Completing the Planetary Experience: Some might say "it's a space game," but SE already has wheels, gravity, and now even water. These features show that planetary gameplay is a core part of the experience. Adding basic aerodynamics isn't a distraction from space - it's the missing piece that makes planets feel alive and rewards players for designing specialized atmospheric craft.
Technical Feasibility: Calculating a single force vector based on a bounding-box approximation is computationally light. Since the engine is already being built to handle wind forces on grids, a drag/lift system feels like a natural extension of that framework.
Emergent Gameplay: This would create entirely new reasons to build. Runways, hangars, and specialized planetary transporters would finally have a functional purpose. It makes the sandbox deeper without overcomplicating it.
Optional & Non-Breaking: This could easily be a world setting. It wouldn't break "thruster-heavy" ships, but it would finally make aerodynamic, fuel-efficient planes a viable choice for those who want them.

A note on timing:

I’m not asking for this to be rushed into the next update. I understand there is a roadmap and higher priorities. This is a suggestion for the long-term vision of SE2. Whenever you feel the engine is ready for it, I believe it would be a massive evolution for the game.

I'd love to hear your thoughts - especially if you've tried building atmospheric aircraft and ran into the same wall. I’d appreciate any feedback or alternative ideas on this. If this is something you feel is missing from the planetary experience, I hope we can bring more attention to this topic.

[Источник изображения сверху]

I like this feedback

Replies (5)

Rabiator ●

The atmospheric drag coefficient Cw could be calculated from the most forward blocks in the cross section, weighted according to shape. In the sense that slopes that are gradually extending outward contribute less resistance. That is how From The Depth does it. I can still see loopholes, but it is a good start. Repeat the calculation for each side of the ship, then you also have resistances for moving sideways, up and down and backwards. When angling the ship upwards, this could also provide lift.

The actual resistance is then calculated from the size of the cross section, the Cw value and the square of the velocity. Cross section and Cw value are constant as long as the ship is not altered, either through a collision or the player making changes. That makes the calculation computationally cheap indeed. Only when the ship changes shape, the Cw value would have to be recalculated.

Edit: For modest pressure differentials, AFAIK air behaves like thinner water. The same system could be used in water and air, with the part of the cross section over water being assigned a much lower Cw

Edit #2: If there are internal thrusters, look for blocks behind the thruster and apply their drag to the exhaust of the thruster. That could seriously deter the habit of using internal thrusters.

Reply URL

DrHexagon ●

disagree, this should be a mod not vanilla , just like it is in SE1

Reply URL

RudiSilva ●

Please explain why you think that?

URL

DrHexagon ●

Keen wants to make the game more accessible and generally people start on a planet. Having to worry about aerodynamics makes it harder to build your first flier.

URL

RudiSilva ●

I understand the concern about accessibility, but I believe it’s actually the opposite: right now, SE physics are counter-intuitive for beginners who expect a plane-shaped build to actually glide.

Most importantly, this should be an optional world setting. It could be disabled by default so it doesn't overwhelm new players, but having it as a native feature is crucial.

Mods are great, but they are often 'band-aids' or workarounds. A native implementation by Keen would be much more stable, optimized, and polished than any mod could ever be. It’s about giving players the choice to evolve their engineering experience without forcing it on everyone.

URL

DrHexagon ●

still disagree, the tutorials give you examples of working fliers so you can see that aerodynamics isn't needed.

SE2 just isn't the type of game that needs realistic aero in the base game. If people want to build flying bricks let them.

URL

RudiSilva ●

I respect your point of view and I agree with you - if people want to build flying bricks, they should absolutely be able to do so.

My only thought is that in a sandbox, more options usually lead to more creativity. There has always been a huge demand for this feature within the community, as many players want to see their ship designs interact more meaningfully with the environment. Since Keen is already deepening the simulation with water and wind, a simplified aero model feels like a natural evolution that complements those features. It’s not about forcing a 'correct' way to build, but rather about adding another layer of engineering for those who want to explore it.

In the end, having wheels for land, buoyancy for water, and lift for air would make the planetary environment feel complete to me, but I totally understand that everyone has their own vision for the game. That diversity of opinion is exactly what helps the game grow. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

URL

Tael ●

Simple aero-dynamics wouldn't be that much of an issue unless your grid already barely flies, and if the tutorial mentioned it in a "thrusters in all directions is easy and normal, but some more advanced designs rely on aerodynamics" then I think people would get it. It doesn't need to require people only fly via wings and maintain their heading via stabilizer, it just needs to give them the option while still allowing older builds to work as they used to.

URL

DrHexagon ●

again just no. Keen has said they want to make the game more accessible, this is the opposite and so it should stay a mod. I'm not going to argue about whether it makes it more difficult to build a flier, it absolutely does.

URL

MachetePanda ●

Everyone needs to stop speaking for the devs and assuming things like "more accessible" means less real physics. And by the way, they have been quoted as actually saying "We want to create games that are based on real science, real facts, real physics and real emotions. No magic & fantasy allowed." So this idea of having air drag, falls in line with that. And you can create a mod that removes it if you do not like it. I'm not against the idea, and I think it adds some more challenges to the game that players would enjoy.

URL

RudiSilva ●

Well said, MachetePanda! I completely agree. Relying on real physics is exactly what makes the 'Engineers' part of the title meaningful. If SE2 is aiming for realism and facts, then a reactive atmosphere is a perfect fit for that vision.

URL

Tiberio ●

Why not delete planet gravity then ? God forbid it may afraid players who never lifted an object in their daily life. And tell me why bother adding complex volumetric hydrodynamics to the game if we follow your logic ?

Aerodynamics IS beneficial to the player, anyone who ever moved a piece of paper won't be terrorised when facing such a basic physics feature, stop pretending it would be the dramatic end to the game's accessibility. Just being able to decelerate without having to use a damn rocket on every vehicle would be a bliss.

URL

Kiera Rose ●

Hello!

I agree that aerodynamics should be part of the game, however, I must disagree with your proposed solution.

The proposed solution has three major problems:

Restricted Aesthetic Freedom: If a player designs a ship that looks exactly like an F-22 Raptor, but wants it to behave like a classic, thruster-heavy ship with a lift multiplier of 0.0, a grid-wide calculation forces them to deal with physics they might find undesirable. Shape shouldn't completely dictate behavior if a player just wants a cool cosmetic build
Sub-grid Madness: If lift is calculated by the shape of the entire grid, building functional, moving flaps or ailerons would force players to attach wings via rotors or hinges. As a result the simplest plane would consist of at least five moving grids. Lord Clang is eternal and ever present.
Guesswork Physics: Whole-grid aerodynamics create a dual-ended frustration. On one hand, a player who builds an awesome, slightly asymmetrical si-fi spaceship might find it constantly rolling or pitching violently for inexplicable reasons. On the other hand, a player who actively wants a high-lift glider might build massive, gorgeous wings out of standard armor blocks, only for the simplified bounding-box system to barely register any lift. Without deep knowledge of how the engine is interpreting hull shapes, debugging your flight characteristics becomes an invisible guessing game.

I therefore propose My Refined Solution: Dedicated Aerodynamic Blocks

Instead of applying a bounding-box or cross section based aerodynamic force to the whole grid, the game should feature a set of dedicated aerodynamic blocks such as 'aerofoils', 'ailerons', and 'wing' blocks.

Why? Because dedicated aerodynamic blocks provide:

Creative Freedom: You mentioned making aerodynamics a world setting, but that forces a "one-size-fits-all" rule on multiplayer servers, splitting the player base into fragmented communities. Dedicated blocks put the choice completely in the hands of the player on a ship-by-ship basis. A "flying brick" cargo hauler and a sleek glider can seamlessly coexist on the exact same server.
Engineering Diversity: Distinct aerodynamic blocks open up design possibilities beyond just airplanes. Functional 'airbrakes' for fighter jets and downforce 'spoilers' for rovers could exist and improve traversal of terrain on planets, and that's just scratching the surface! By giving the wings similar settings to a Rotor or Hinge, experienced users could use Event Controllers, Timers, Programmable Blocks to create even more interesting vehicles.
Intuitive Flight Mechanics: Ships featuring these wing blocks could default to an automated, fly-by-wire mouse control system similar to War Thunder. This makes creation and piloting of early-game gliders and airplanes incredibly intuitive right out of the box.
Intuitive Early-Game Progression: Everyone understands how an airplane works—even kids making paper airplanes grasp the basic concept. By defaulting to a War Thunder-style mouse-aim system, building an atmospheric flyer becomes incredibly accessible. Slapping on five wing blocks and simply flying where you aim is infinitely easier for a beginner to understand than the classic SE flight logic, which confuses a lot of newer players ("Wait, this thruster moves me forward but doesn't rotate me? So I need a gyroscope, plus separate thrusters facing all 6 directions just to stay airborne? What?"). Because wings handle both translational and rotational forces based on the lift instead of unidirectional brute thruster force, these planes are cheap to build and highly fuel-efficient, providing a perfect low-cost stepping stone for planetary survival. Gyroscopes are heavy...
Weather Interactions and Future Opportunities: Dedicated wing blocks could introduce a whole new layer of gameplay balance if SE2 expands on planetary weather (winds, storms, or tornadoes). It creates a perfect risk-vs-reward loop: you can design a hyper-efficient, low-cost glider that flies practically for free on a clear day, but a severe storm or heavy crosswinds might ground you or toss your plane completely out of control. On the flip side, the player who built a resource-heavy, inefficient "flying brick" can use raw thruster power to brute-force right through the bad weather. This encourages players to actually engineer for the environment, making weather a fun tactical challenge rather than just a cosmetic effect.

Kind Regards,

Kiera Rose

Hello!

I agree that aerodynamics should be part of the game, however, I must disagree with your proposed solution.

The proposed solution has three major problems:

Restricted Aesthetic Freedom: If a player designs a ship that looks exactly like an F-22 Raptor, but wants it to behave like a classic, thruster-heavy ship with a lift multiplier of 0.0, a grid-wide calculation forces them to deal with physics they might find undesirable. Shape shouldn't completely dictate behavior if a player just wants a cool cosmetic build
Sub-grid Madness: If lift is calculated by the shape of the entire grid, building functional, moving flaps or ailerons would force players to attach wings via rotors or hinges. As a result the simplest plane would consist of at least five moving grids. Lord Clang is eternal and ever present.
Guesswork Physics: Whole-grid aerodynamics create a dual-ended frustration. On one hand, a player who builds an awesome, slightly asymmetrical si-fi spaceship might find it constantly rolling or pitching violently for inexplicable reasons. On the other hand, a player who actively wants a high-lift glider might build massive, gorgeous wings out of standard armor blocks, only for the simplified bounding-box system to barely register any lift. Without deep knowledge of how the engine is interpreting hull shapes, debugging your flight characteristics becomes an invisible guessing game.

I therefore propose My Refined Solution: Dedicated Aerodynamic Blocks

Why? Because dedicated aerodynamic blocks provide:

Creative Freedom: You mentioned making aerodynamics a world setting, but that forces a "one-size-fits-all" rule on multiplayer servers, splitting the player base into fragmented communities. Dedicated blocks put the choice completely in the hands of the player on a ship-by-ship basis. A "flying brick" cargo hauler and a sleek glider can seamlessly coexist on the exact same server.
Engineering Diversity: Distinct aerodynamic blocks open up design possibilities beyond just airplanes. Functional 'airbrakes' for fighter jets and downforce 'spoilers' for rovers could exist and improve traversal of terrain on planets, and that's just scratching the surface! By giving the wings similar settings to a Rotor or Hinge, experienced users could use Event Controllers, Timers, Programmable Blocks to create even more interesting vehicles.
Intuitive Flight Mechanics: Ships featuring these wing blocks could default to an automated, fly-by-wire mouse control system similar to War Thunder. This makes creation and piloting of early-game gliders and airplanes incredibly intuitive right out of the box.
Intuitive Early-Game Progression: Everyone understands how an airplane works—even kids making paper airplanes grasp the basic concept. By defaulting to a War Thunder-style mouse-aim system, building an atmospheric flyer becomes incredibly accessible. Slapping on five wing blocks and simply flying where you aim is infinitely easier for a beginner to understand than the classic SE flight logic, which confuses a lot of newer players ("Wait, this thruster moves me forward but doesn't rotate me? So I need a gyroscope, plus separate thrusters facing all 6 directions just to stay airborne? What?"). Because wings handle both translational and rotational forces based on the lift instead of unidirectional brute thruster force, these planes are cheap to build and highly fuel-efficient, providing a perfect low-cost stepping stone for planetary survival. Gyroscopes are heavy...
Weather Interactions and Future Opportunities: Dedicated wing blocks could introduce a whole new layer of gameplay balance if SE2 expands on planetary weather (winds, storms, or tornadoes). It creates a perfect risk-vs-reward loop: you can design a hyper-efficient, low-cost glider that flies practically for free on a clear day, but a severe storm or heavy crosswinds might ground you or toss your plane completely out of control. On the flip side, the player who built a resource-heavy, inefficient "flying brick" can use raw thruster power to brute-force right through the bad weather. This encourages players to actually engineer for the environment, making weather a fun tactical challenge rather than just a cosmetic effect.

Kind Regards,

Kiera Rose

Reply URL

RudiSilva ●

Hi Kiera! Using dedicated blocks for lift and control is a very solid alternative. It effectively solves the technical concerns regarding sub-grids and provides a more predictable experience for the player.

Ultimately, whether it’s through grid-wide physics or specialized blocks, we’re both aiming for the same goal: making the atmosphere a physical part of the engineering challenge. It’s great to see more ideas on how to make this work for SE2.

URL

Rabiator ●

It is called Space Engineers for a reason: Engineering is about dealing with laws of nature you cannot bend, you have to adapt to them.

This said, there are points in favor of dedicated aerodynamic blocks. One is simplicity, especially in early game. Building flaps and ailerons with hinges and rotors would quickly get to a minimum size and complexity that is a bit much for a player's first plane.

Another is that fully simulating aerodynamics might be difficult and/or computationally expensive. I'm not an expert on that though. Perhaps Keen know an aerospace engineer or two who can give some advice.

Finally, people who want to build a flying brick can still do so. It might just not be as effective as a sleek airplane with aerofoils for wings.

URL

Marcus Parriott ●

its worth considering how much mass our basic blocks add here and how much space they take up.

to make anything the size you might need based solely on moving one person, another block size and/weight value would have to be added along with the "aero blocks".

adding atmosphereic blocks that specifically interact with air (other than the thrusters) might be more complicated than its worth for what gameplay it allows.

all that being said, i would totally play around with this sort of thing. ive already been pushed by what i think was the wind while building a ship on a mountainside. so when i start to feel it in the future i might just stop whatever im doing/working on and make a hang glider just to see what fun i can have with it.

URL

MachetePanda ●

If they did a simple width and height calc to get front facing area, they could apply a simple drag assumption to that. Would be annoying for fuel wise, but would help with ships that are designed to survive on that drag. Doing lift calculations is much harder though. I like the idea of making ships that live on drag.

Fair warning... but you will now be subject to cross wind problems too. lol

Reply URL

Marcus Parriott ●

"flying brick" is a design philosophy. and aerodynamics have their own role to play against it.. GENERALLY block ships are going to have a heavyer thrust output regardless, so it OVERCOMPENSATES for any negligable aerodynamic interaction. unless you are flying through a blizzard (which i had done recently in both se2 and se1 with a similar ship design) and yeah.. i got blown around like my ship was a the sail it is.

specifically desinging a ship to interact with the environment is ONE playstyle. if the games physics lets someone play that way, awesome, if not.... its just how the game should play.

you KNOW loads of people are gonna be building submarines when liquid water comes into play and its gonna create a whole different set of challenges to play with.

Reply URL