Submit Feedback

Space Engineers 2 Support Topic Feedback

Thruster changes and improvements

Liam7123 shared this feedback ago

Not Enough Votes

!!!!

I used ai to improve the text please forgive me. English isnt my first language, im dislexic and it is just a way better reading experience for everyon. The contents is still 100% my on ideas i just used it to improve readability and grammar.

I thought a lot about this. I know we haven't really seen atmospheric thrusters in Space Engineers 2 yet and don’t know how ion thrusters will behave in the atmosphere, except for some speculation from players digging into the debug menu, which isn’t necessarily accurate. Still, I wanted to share my thoughts.

1. Ion ThrustersIon thrusters should work everywhere at 100% efficiency. This would likely change how they’re used completely. It doesn't make sense for ion thrusters to simply work poorly in the atmosphere—in reality, they would only work because of it. They should just remain as weak thrusters and be adjusted to be more universal. They wouldn't be as viable on planets due to gravity and (hopefully added) drag.

This change could allow for cool-looking, cheap ion thrusters on planets and in space, with their main selling point being that they only consume energy.

2. Atmospheric ThrustersRight now, atmospheric thrusters behave like ion thrusters would in real life—just give them energy, and they work, even if the intake is blocked. With the suggested ion changes, atmospheric thrusters would probably be used less, even if they remain three times stronger than ions as they are now.

To make them more realistic and interesting, I’d suggest some changes:

Buff their power and decrease energy consumption, but make them slightly more complex.
Instead of being self-contained units, they should consist of a front engine part (with compressor and nozzle components) and require a constant oxygen input from the back to simulate airflow.
The oxygen usage should be so high that using them in space wouldn’t be viable.

Possible implementation:

Players could attach an air vent or intake to the top, and it would power the thruster, with the main engine part still consuming power.
An intake could provide more oxygen when moving in the intake’s facing direction. Initially, it would consume more power but require less power as speed increases, encouraging forward-facing placements.
Oxygen intake should decrease as atmospheric density decreases (likely already modeled in SE1), preventing efficient operation in low-atmosphere environments. If a player attempts to use it without adequate atmosphere, it would drain an oxygen tank in seconds, making intakes and atmosphere essential.

Thruster setups:

Multiple thrusters could share a single intake. However, this would result in slower initial performance because of limited oxygen throughput but would support higher speeds efficiently.

3. Drag Please!Adding atmospheric drag would be a game-changer, requiring players to rethink ship designs for planetary environments compared to space. This would complement the more complex atmospheric thruster system by reducing the number of thrusters needed.

4. Hydrogen ThrustersHydrogen thrusters could remain as they are: stronger than both ion and atmospheric thrusters but requiring constant fuel input that isn’t readily available in the air.

These changes could make ion thrusters far more versatile while making atmospheric thrusters more realistic and rewarding, with greater potential power without being too complicated to understand.

I like this feedback

Replies (4)

Sheridan ●

Ion thrusters are typically designed for use in the vacuum of space, not within a planetary atmosphere. They work by ionizing a propellant, often xenon, and using electric and magnetic fields to accelerate the ions, generating thrust in the opposite direction according to Newton's third law of motion. This process is highly efficient in the vacuum of space, where there's no atmospheric drag or gravitational forces

In an atmosphere, ion thrusters would not perform efficiently or effectively. The presence of air molecules would cause significant drag, and the thruster would struggle to overcome the planet's gravitational pull. This is why they are not used for terrestrial applications or within atmospheres; they are built for the vacuum of space, where they can maintain their efficiency over long periods, ideal for tasks like satellite positioning and deep-space missions

Reply URL

Liam7123 ●

Thats why i would want atmospheric drag to be added. It would naturally make it struggle and in atmosphere witout just changing the thrust force to like 10%.

URL

captainbladej52 ●

So what exactly would be the purpose of this other than to add complication? What is the upside to doing this in your mind if any? Because I don't find it fun to add complexity purely for complexity sake as that's just more that can go wrong for no valid reason.

"3. Drag Please!Adding atmospheric drag would be a game-changer, requiring players to rethink ship designs for planetary environments compared to space. This would complement the more complex atmospheric thruster system by reducing the number of thrusters needed."

Also when I start seeing stuff like the bit in italics, that's when red flags start going up for me. When people start talking about drag, how much drag are we talking? For example, let's say I've found a way to take a Borg Cube into atmo. The current speed cap of SE2 is 300 m/s. Assuming I'm flying in a way that causes my cube to suffer the maximum effects of drag in game, how much lower than the max of 300 m/s would I now be stuck at? We talking something minor such as 280 m/s? We talking more moderate at say 250 m/s? Or we talking something extreme like 200 m/s or less? Because when I start seeing stuff about making people rethink how they build and in the context you've said it, it stinks of wanting to punish people who don't build "correctly" or how you personally think they should play. We can talk about drag and aerodynamics within reason. But overall all I'm seeing here is adding complexity for the sake of complexity and no actual benefits.

Reply URL

Liam7123 ●

How I have it currently with mods in space engineers 1 is that the speed cap is at 1000 ms with the added effect that ships naturally cap at some point using a mod that adds drag. I personally also turned down the strength of the drag a bit. For that to work we probably need to see a speed limit over 300 in vanilla and i dont know if we will get that. Also i dont really think it would make it more way more complex with the atmo thrusters because you could like i said basicly use them just like before if you put an intake directly ontop and would ad more engineering and mecanics for peopl that want it.

URL

captainbladej52 ●

@Liam7123: They've already said the speed limit for SE2 is 300m/s. Also your entire paragraph told me nothing of your proposal above. So I'm going to ask this question again. Let's suppose aerodynamics were added as part of this thruster stuff, meaning lift and drag. Let's also suppose I take a giant borg cube into the atmosphere and I have enough thrust to keep the ship in the air. Naturally I expect a giant flat cube to be slowed down more than a ship built with aerodynamics in mind. Assuming I take my cube into an atmosphere, how much slower than the speed cap of 300 m/s would my cube be limited to? I don't expect you to give me a full on equation down to the last inch, but give me a ballpark estimate. You're at the helm of the game, you have to define what the max speed of our cube is going to be in atmo under the maximum effect of drag. Is the cube limited to something like 290 m/s? Is it a little more moderate at 250 m/s? Is it 200 m/s or slower such as 75 m/s? What are we talking far as a ballpark speed assuming the cube is at max thrust and experiencing max drag?

As for atmo thruster complexity again, what kind of benefits would there be to interacting with this system? Other than adding complexity for the sake of complexity, why would I as an average user want to use it? Because something to keep in mind, you would need to create an entry in the game's files for every possible combination of thruster part that exists. Let's assume just for sake of discussion you have 5 different thrust nozzels, 5 different combustion chambers, and 5 different intakes. You would have to create an entry for every combination of those parts, meaning an entry for 1a2a3a, 1b2a3a, 1c2a3a, and on down the line. That's going to add up fast. I get some folks want more in depth engineering, but I don't see a benefit here yet from how you've described it.

URL

Liam7123 ●

Sorry if i didnt make it clear enough, the thruster would still just be 1 part like the hydrogen thruster. I just like the idea of intake piping to make the atmospheric thrusters more modular. About the whole aerodynamics part maybe im wrong but im pretty shure there are already postes under consideration and you would probably make sacrifices like giant flying cubes in atmosphere but im shure if you spam hydro thrusters on it it could still work. Mabye it could also just be turned of

URL

Warlord ●

If you make it so that Ion Thrusters work everywhere then what is the incentive to use the other thrusters? Forget realism, gameplay should always trump realism especially in a game which was never meant to be a realistic simulator.

Reply URL

Liam7123 ●

i think with how weak they are already, there is more than enoth insentive to use anything other then Ion. Atmo thrusters are if im not wrong not only way stonger but also more power efficient. The way it is now it makes sense with there being 0 drag. But with them adding water and probably some kinde of drag and buoyancy it would make sence to add drag in the air. Some of the changes i mentioned would probably also only realy make sense when adding drag but thats why i added it in the description

URL

Sea_Kerman ●

I do somewhat like the idea of intake piping for atmo thrusters

Reply URL