Components should not take up the same inventory space as the material used to make them

Ok, so ore on earth is oxide ore and ore in space in meteoric ore. How about looking up what meteoric ore is and what the pure percentage is and then come back here and have a real discussion... Considering King Tuts dagger was forged from pure iron before smelting even existed, flat out proves this theory as bogus. You can to this day find 92-95% pure iron here on earth, it's called a meteor... Which comes from where? Ingots, are not necessarily needed, especially in an actually efficient society that isn't based on greed and currency. A smart society would do the smelting and production as close to the mines as possible, not 1000s of miles away! Before you try to argue this, tell me how you setup any city building game. Do you act like our pathetic society and ship everything half way across the planet or do you build wisely and place buildings supplying a production building very close by? Obvious logic here...

I am not arguing the lack of mass loss in production, but ingots are only needed because we are greedy piss ants in this universe. There should be mass loss, obviously, but not as large as you all argue based on oxide ore. Being so realistic means having different values for ore on planets compared to moons/space, in which case who in their right mind would bother staying on a planet? Then to be as realistic as you want, you also have to have meteor ore on planets, further complicating literally everything.

While we discuss realism, why do none of you mention any of the unrealistic blocks in the game and only complain about ingots? Oh right, because without gravity gens and super thrusters and somehow firing projectiles with no effect on your ship in space, you would be bored out of your mind and most definitely missing a ton of QoL. Shooting a gatling gun in space would send your ship into a spin or straight backwards, yet somehow our ships don't budge even launching missiles which literally have exhaust pushing backwards... Speaking of, since when do we have the tech to even build a real space ship? The entire concept of the game is not reality, so??? How do objects magically float through conveyors, landing gear that locks onto literally anything with the push of a button, ships that become weightless when attached to a connector and just hang/sit there, somehow carry 3 tons in a backpack, carry around a drill/welder/grinder/gun/ammo all at once, must I really go on???

For OP, using ore to build only gets you so far, you need every single production block in game to actually build things we have available now not to mention top end stuff... FYI, the fabricator has literally no ore input at all and not a single thing it makes can be done with the bp!

Survival games currently start on Verdure, and the iron ore present there has the reddish tinge of iron oxide. So it seems Keen have made their choice, and I'd like them to (mostly) stick with the consequences. Since they claim to do "real engineering" in their games ;-)

A major consequence is that you have to get rid of the oxygen in the ore and lose a significant part of the mass in the process.

This said, some small chunks of meteor iron near the surface would make sense. They could help the player to set up a minimalist base without digging deep for minerals.

Either way, building large grids like the Red Ship will require a lot more than the piddly little deposits we have now. It has a mass close to 3.000 tons. So we need options for large scale mining. There could be big ore deposits like on real life earth. Once you get to space, metallic asteroids would be plausible. Such as Psyche in real life, see https://science.nasa.gov/solar-system/asteroids/16-psyche/

Considering other unrealistic blocks, there are quite a few things I would return to SE1 standards. Fortunately, much can be done with mods. For instance the "no super dampeners" mod that means you have to watch your speed much more, like in SE1. In my current SE1 game, I have a (tiny) planetary mining ship that I better not load to more than 36 tons, otherwise I risk a crash on landing because the thrust reserves for decelerating are too small. That is not boring, it is a design challenge to find the best balance rather relying on magical super thrusters.

I really like the idea of small exposed bits of iron or other materials on the surface. They could serve multiple purposes.

First, you could pick them up without any mining at all, so no hand drill required. They could exist as “pure” ore items lying on the ground, and when you collect them, you immediately get ingots in your inventory. No voxel modification, which is good for performance.

Some of these could be leftovers from meteor impacts, like meteoric iron. Others could be natural fragments from nearby deposits. Finding them would act as a knowledge-based hint that there might be a proper ore deposit not too deep underground. That kind of surface discovery would feel organic and rewarding.

These shallow deposits would not need to be huge, just enough to support early game progression. At the same time, they could indicate that larger and richer deposits exist in that biome or region. So surface bits become both a starter resource and a geological clue pointing you toward something bigger, see this for more :)

@ 4Peace, I like the idea with the loose bits of iron. They could serve as a limited but easily utilized resource of iron. Then backpack refining could be nerfed in a way that makes it more in line with its size, compared to other blocks, but the player would still be able to build small structures fairly easily. Right now I agree with Jrolla that carrying three tons of material in the backpack seems a bit much.

Verdure has nothing but tiny ore deposits... I take it you haven't mined anywhere besides Verdure, while making this claim??? Kemik and asteroids are both confirmed to have large to massive deposits. I've personally hit a cobalt vein on Kemik at least 8 times with a mining ship and it still isn't close to being cleared, where on Verdure you can practically clear them hand mining.

You 2 practically just said the same things I did about ores... Without considering how difficult this coding would be compared to a static value for ores. Add in meteor hits on planets with pure ore, planets have 2 different values for ore for oxide and meteoric ore, but to be realistic this also needs to be so minimal it's pointless to add meteoric ore on planets in the first place, not only would the ore type be randomized but also the purity(this includes purity levels of oxide ores too) which in space are constantly generated on asteroids... There's no point in making this process so complicated, unless you want no systems in SE2 besides mining... The color of the ore doesn't represent real life either, as you obviously don't know what color cobalt really is because it sure isn't blue!!! The color is for distinguishing different ore veins from each other and making them all unique... Granted I will give you that most are represented by the color we view it as.

By super thrusters I was referring to atmos and ions... If you haven't noticed, hovercrafts(best human equivalent to atmos) barely get off the ground let alone fly an entire ship. Ions? Well they can barely move a satellite so??? To be realistic we better remove those from the game too... As for thrusters being so OP in SE2, I don't think they are that much different than SE1, my miner is still loaded with thrusters in order to be stable just like in SE1... I have complained about the dampeners also however, another issue is how you can literally steer your ship by turning on dampeners while coasting at full speed as this should not be possible(well not nearly as possible without massive counter thrust).

Surface bits? That point to possible deposits? Um, the drill and ore detectors already do this without wasting time with little rocks. Have you played Occupy Mars at all? Tell me, how long did you run around picking up the little rocks before you just said f it and used your drill? The only little rocks I pick up there anymore are in my way, nothing more as it's a waste of time...

I recently played Vintage Story, another take on sandbox/survival genre. In order to make your first pickaxe you need some metal to begin with. So how do you start? You can explore the world and find small nuggets of copper on the surface (read ingots). Those can be easily smelted on a fire pit (read Gearforge) to make your first pickaxe (read hand drill). Only then you can break hard stone to mine more metal out of it (read ore). Then ofc you want to dig underneath that places expecting to find a proper ore deposit. Build a better bronze pickaxe (read small miner ship) to dig even more ores.

As for carrying capacity, all survival games tend to allow you to carry a "bit" more than you could realistically lift. This is by design to make it less tedious for you to constantly move back and forth micromanaging the inventory. I think the default settings in SE1 were set something like X3 above "realistic". Then again, in 0G it should not be a problem to carry more. On planets, we have a much bigger problem in the form of a ridiculously overpowered jetpack anyway :)

Ok and? This isn't Vintage Story is it? This is Space Engineers... Why must literally everything be exactly the same to you? You sit here and complain production requires ingots, because us piss ant humans use ingots because we're stupid greedy people, about realism compared to humans and earth. I'll say it again, TELL ME HOW YOU SETUP A CITY BUILDING GAME!!! Do you ship your product 1000 miles away, or do you build your production buildings close to the supply? Funny how you people REFUSE to answer this because it PROVES you wrong!

There is absolutely no reason SE needs to add little rocks, just because another game has them. Do you not understand that adding systems in one area requires subtracting systems in another area? Or do you think your PC can just magically handle doing a gazillion things at once, not to mention the game engine itself??? Like seriously here!

0G shouldn't affect your carrying capacity? Do you have zero understanding of physics or what??? There's this nice little equation about momentum and mass, what was it again?

@4Peace

Oh I like Vintage Story too. Honestly one of the best survival games out there when it comes to progression. It’s slow, deliberate, and every step actually matters. And most importantly, progression should depend on what you actually have built and what equipment you possess, not on arbitrary tech locks.

Your technology level should come from your infrastructure, machines, and ships — the grids you’ve engineered, the resources you have access to — not from some arbitrary locks.

You could own a massive empire somewhere… fleets, stations, production chains. But if you’re suddenly dropped far away with nothing, then you’re back at the beginning again.

At that point the only things that still matter are your knowledge and your engineering skills.

I’d love to see SE move a bit in that direction — being able to truly start from nothing without relying on an overpowered backpack or jetpack right away.

For example, imagine if you could build your first gearbox out of very basic ingots you find on the surface. Or maybe you scavenge a few starter components from unknown signals or random encounters. That kind of “start with scraps and work your way up” survival is really satisfying.

But for that to work, the world also needs hazards.

• Weather.
• Wildlife.
• Environmental dangers.

Progression in survival should always be about making your life easier and safer.

You start exposed. You struggle. And the solution is to build your way out of those problems step by step.

Something like this would feel really natural to me:

• Build a base with interiors that protects you from weather and wildlife
• Use small flying drones to explore and locate new resources or energy sources
• Deploy rovers to transport heavy loads of ore
• Engineer heavy machines to extract larger quantities of ore
• Plan your most energy-hungry production near big ore deposits and strong power sources

As you progress further, you start building more resilient exploration ships that can survive harsher environments — places where better and rarer resources are found, allowing even further progression.

But before long expeditions like that, you probably need to solve the food problem first. Stockpiling food and supplies becomes part of the preparation.

And the further you progress, the bigger the hazards should become. It could start with simple things like weather and wildlife, then escalate to more dangerous environments:

• radiation
• extreme heat
• hostile NPCs
• alien life
• and other environmental dangers

Risk should scale with reward.

Flying ships should probably be very expensive early on too. High power consumption and limited lifting capability would naturally push players to rely more on rovers and ground logistics in the early stages.

Hydrogen especially should probably not be viable for long atmospheric flight. It would make more sense as a system mainly for space travel and atmospheric re-entry. Planetary flying in general could then become more about exploration and personal transport, rather than the solution to every single problem.

And yes, refining ores to purify them and reduce their mass or volume is a really important survival mechanic. It creates logistics decisions and planning opportunities. If players design more complex setups, those systems should give them real advantages.

That’s the kind of depth that makes survival gameplay interesting.

And honestly, this is exactly why I’m excited that these discussions are happening so early for SE2. This is the best moment to experiment with ideas like this before systems get locked in. 🚀

About the carrying capacity, the "3x over realistic" 1200 liters default in SE1 starts from a "realistic" volume of 400 liters. So, not a very realistic value to start with. Depending on the density of materials, the 3 tons the character can carry in SE2 may not be more far-fetched than that.

One approach to solve it would be to reduce the material requirements of items in SE2. In some cases that would actually give more reasonable numbers.

I just took the time to figure out reasonable material requirements for steel pipes, as an example. At a diameter of 50mm and a wall thickness of 4mm I get a mass of 4,64 kg per meter of pipe. Let's make it 5 kg/m to fit the "round numbers" scheme of SE2 (an in game steel pipe actually has a mass of 5 kg).

Now apply that to a 1.25m railing in SE2. We have two vertical pipes maybe 1 m long and two horizontal ones, each 1.25m long (one of these is not really a pipe, but let's go with the 5 kg/m anyway.) Then we can build the railing with a total of 4.5 m of pipe. Round up to 5m, and we need five steel pipes with a total weight of 25kg. The current in-game requirement for the 1.25m railing is 14 steel pipes, total weight 70 kg.

Some items should actually become more expensive/heavy when thinking this way, such as the armor blocks. A 2.5m light armor block has a surface of 37,5m² and is made from 30 steel plates. Using 7.85g/cm³ for iron and after some juggling of the numbers, I end up with a thickness of 3.57mm. Calling that armor is pretty optimistic. Requiring more materials would be an incentive to plan more economically than just slapping down a bunch of armor blocks.