electricity propagation
I was expanding my grid towards a separate building. As I was using the structure blocks as a foundation on top of light armor blocks (2.5m, black to blend with the terrain) protruding from the main grid and I was figuring out a nice fit with the building on top, I might've ended up separating the building from the main grid. The phenomenon was quite clear, there was no electricity in the new building.
No problem, I thought, Everything is perfectly aligned, so I first reconnected the structure blocks to the newly laid bottom layer of light armor blocks. Yet there was no electricity to power the doors.
In a second try, I reconnected the floor plate just behind the front door by placing two small light armor blocks on top of the black 2.5m armor blocks. After re-building the floor plate and the doorstep blocks, I was able to build a powered door. But to my surprise, the rest of the building didn't get power (though all parts are built in the way they should connect).
My hypothesis: Power only flows from block to block through the green squares (25cm) that are shown when building a subsequent block. This means that a severed grid can only be reattached to an existing grid when it's rebuilt from scratch, as you can't point with the white-dot-cursor at both grids at the same time.
This is quite unexpected behaviour, and limits free form building/re-shaping/organically growing additional buildings on a grid.
As a proof of the hypothesis, I attach a picture of both a powered and unpowered floor tyle (made visual by placing a door on top of them).
My questions:
1: Is my hypothesis true from a programmer's point of view?
2: Can we have power flow through to all connected blocks (also the ones that do touch, but don't have the green connecting square(s))
3: Would partially breaking every block down and rebuilding the building with the area welder solve the power propagation problem?
I like this feedback 
I investigated further by making two identical, but separate grids, that are built in this order:
When I delete the yellow structure in the second grid and replace it with a similar structure in a different orientation, the light stays off.
I investigated further by making two identical, but separate grids, that are built in this order:
When I delete the yellow structure in the second grid and replace it with a similar structure in a different orientation, the light stays off.
Even putting a normal armor block in between the two blocks wouldn't turn on the light on the blue block, although yellow does have power (originating from the red block to which it was built) as proven by the extra lamp.
Even putting a normal armor block in between the two blocks wouldn't turn on the light on the blue block, although yellow does have power (originating from the red block to which it was built) as proven by the extra lamp.
I'll try to describe what probably happened (I can't describe the blocks, so I'll use placeholder text):
You created a structure—a grid—in the form of 1red1-2yellow2-3blue3, anchored to the terrain.
Then, by removing the 2yellow2 block, you split the grid into two grids: 1red1 and 3blue3. (It doesn’t matter that each grid consists of only one block.) What matters is that two grids were created. You should be able to verify this using blocks that display the grid name (or by console).
Then you create a new block, 4yellow4 connected to the grid / block 1red1. Thus, grid 1red1 was extended to grid 1red1-4yellow4.
However, grid 3blue3 was not automatically connected to grid 1red1-4yellow4.
I think this is the correct and logical behavior.
The fact that the position of grid 3blue3 did not change due to its anchoring to the terrain is irrelevant. After the split, 3blue3 became a separate grid.
I believe that connecting the 3blue3 grid to the 1red1 grid is only possible using auxiliary “merge blocks.” Then, the newly inserted block 4yellow4 is connected to both grids, creating a single grid, and the auxiliary merge blocks can be removed.
You, as the player, remember that the grids “1red1” and “3blue3” originally formed a single grid, but the game doesn't remember that—it has no reason to remember it...
I'll try to describe what probably happened (I can't describe the blocks, so I'll use placeholder text):
You created a structure—a grid—in the form of 1red1-2yellow2-3blue3, anchored to the terrain.
Then, by removing the 2yellow2 block, you split the grid into two grids: 1red1 and 3blue3. (It doesn’t matter that each grid consists of only one block.) What matters is that two grids were created. You should be able to verify this using blocks that display the grid name (or by console).
Then you create a new block, 4yellow4 connected to the grid / block 1red1. Thus, grid 1red1 was extended to grid 1red1-4yellow4.
However, grid 3blue3 was not automatically connected to grid 1red1-4yellow4.
I think this is the correct and logical behavior.
The fact that the position of grid 3blue3 did not change due to its anchoring to the terrain is irrelevant. After the split, 3blue3 became a separate grid.
I believe that connecting the 3blue3 grid to the 1red1 grid is only possible using auxiliary “merge blocks.” Then, the newly inserted block 4yellow4 is connected to both grids, creating a single grid, and the auxiliary merge blocks can be removed.
You, as the player, remember that the grids “1red1” and “3blue3” originally formed a single grid, but the game doesn't remember that—it has no reason to remember it...
I hear both of you.
Sometimes though, it's not so clear when you sever the last link between two halves of a grid. Especially when building bases (as both grids would not fall over as they both have blocks buried in the soil.
The program has logic to know if the result of a block deletion would end in a grid break-up (it knows that the light should stop working if one of the grids has no power source). Then why not inform the user prior to this state?
It would be a lifesaver for beginning builders as breakage would mean rebuilding blocks already in place. Of course, the more experienced builders might want to be able to turn this feature off, so control of this feature would be best placed in the settings of the game.
I hear both of you.
Sometimes though, it's not so clear when you sever the last link between two halves of a grid. Especially when building bases (as both grids would not fall over as they both have blocks buried in the soil.
The program has logic to know if the result of a block deletion would end in a grid break-up (it knows that the light should stop working if one of the grids has no power source). Then why not inform the user prior to this state?
It would be a lifesaver for beginning builders as breakage would mean rebuilding blocks already in place. Of course, the more experienced builders might want to be able to turn this feature off, so control of this feature would be best placed in the settings of the game.
The TLDR is that once a grid is divided, there is no way, yet, to bring them back together as a single grid. Thus a grid separated from its power source will require being rebuilt from scratch to use the power from the powered grid.
That said, there is one way to share power between two grids, and that is by using connectors.
Eventually, I imagine the developers will add the merge block that exists in Space Engineers 1. The merge block will allow two grids to be merged together as a single grid.
The TLDR is that once a grid is divided, there is no way, yet, to bring them back together as a single grid. Thus a grid separated from its power source will require being rebuilt from scratch to use the power from the powered grid.
That said, there is one way to share power between two grids, and that is by using connectors.
Eventually, I imagine the developers will add the merge block that exists in Space Engineers 1. The merge block will allow two grids to be merged together as a single grid.
SE1 had automatic re-connection in such situations. It was even too aggressive at times and would snap grids together that were built separately in the first place and intentionally at an angle. So Keen can certainly create that functionality, they just don't want to at the moment.
I second the suggestion of some kind of merge function, but simplified if the two grids are anchored in the ground and fit perfectly (as they should if they were originally one grid). Let's call it a weld-kit, specific to that purpose and created from a few kilograms of iron.
SE1 had automatic re-connection in such situations. It was even too aggressive at times and would snap grids together that were built separately in the first place and intentionally at an angle. So Keen can certainly create that functionality, they just don't want to at the moment.
I second the suggestion of some kind of merge function, but simplified if the two grids are anchored in the ground and fit perfectly (as they should if they were originally one grid). Let's call it a weld-kit, specific to that purpose and created from a few kilograms of iron.
Replies have been locked on this page!