Thrusters are too weak!
Not Enough Votes
When carrying small carco containers full of ore from space to my base. (Which I HAVE to do now because the deposits on Verdure are sooooo small) I noticed that, I need way too many atmospheric thrusters or Hydrogen thrusters just to carry a small cargo container of ore. If you are pushing us off planet to mine for ore (because of the small ore deposits) we need all the thrusters to perform way better.
The amount of ships I've crashed now due to underperforming thrusters... And I have about 1600 hours in SE1 only in survival so I kind of know how to build ships in SE😉
I like this feedback Access denied
TL;DR
You don’t use helicopters or rockets to transport bulk ore :)
On planets or moons with gravity, that role should belong to rovers and boats.
Helicopters (or atmospheric flyers) are better suited for personal transport, scouting, and combat. Maybe they can handle small amounts of high-value cargo like components or ingots.
Hydrogen thrusters, in particular, should not be viable for prolonged atmospheric flight. They are powerful for a reason: to break free from gravity and reach space. Their use in atmosphere should come with clear drawbacks. For example, they could be less stable, making ships wobble and harder to hover precisely. Their response time could also be slower—press W and wait 2–3 seconds for full thrust. This would make them strong for lifting heavy loads but inconvenient and risky for controlled planetary flight, leaving that role to atmospheric thrusters.
In space, precision should come from smaller thrusters or ions. Overall, each thruster type should have clear pros and cons so that none becomes the “best” in all situations. In SE1, ion thrusters were simply worse—too heavy, too expensive, and weaker. That needs to change. They should be lighter and more viable.
There could also be advanced space-only thrusters, like a fusion-hydrogen hybrid. These could have very high thrust but also a long spin-up time—maybe 10 seconds to reach full power. That would make them ideal for large or capital ships, solving the thruster spam. At the same time, they wouldn’t replace hydrogen thrusters: they wouldn’t work well in atmosphere, and their delay would make them poor for maneuvering or combat dodging.
Now, with all these limitations, you might think planets become bad for mining—but they shouldn’t be. Planets need strong advantages to remain attractive beyond just beautiful visuals.
First, large ore deposits or rich environmental voxels should exist, making scouting worthwhile. Some rare resources could require advanced scanners, meaning you first go to space, unlock better tech, then return to the planet to locate valuable areas. Once found, you can establish long-term mining operations and stop constantly searching for new deposits. This enables surplus production, trading, and frees up time for other gameplay. Progression should make life easier—automation and engineering should pay off.
Second, water should be a major advantage. Boats are perfect for transporting very heavy loads across planets. You could build bases along waterways and use a mix of boats and rovers, with rovers handling the “last mile.”
Third, power generation. Nuclear reactors could be more efficient when water-cooled, making planets with large bodies of water ideal for saving uranium and producing energy more efficiently.
Fourth, concrete. A planet-only resource (like a calcite-based material) could allow cheap construction of large structures—bases, landing pads, roads, bridges—huge save on iron.
And finally, mass reduction. Proper refining systems that reduce mass would make it much easier to export resources from planets. For high-value goods, flying ships or drones could still be viable. But for bulk transport, geography and logistics (roads, rivers, infrastructure) should matter much more.
TL;DR
You don’t use helicopters or rockets to transport bulk ore :)
On planets or moons with gravity, that role should belong to rovers and boats.
Helicopters (or atmospheric flyers) are better suited for personal transport, scouting, and combat. Maybe they can handle small amounts of high-value cargo like components or ingots.
Hydrogen thrusters, in particular, should not be viable for prolonged atmospheric flight. They are powerful for a reason: to break free from gravity and reach space. Their use in atmosphere should come with clear drawbacks. For example, they could be less stable, making ships wobble and harder to hover precisely. Their response time could also be slower—press W and wait 2–3 seconds for full thrust. This would make them strong for lifting heavy loads but inconvenient and risky for controlled planetary flight, leaving that role to atmospheric thrusters.
In space, precision should come from smaller thrusters or ions. Overall, each thruster type should have clear pros and cons so that none becomes the “best” in all situations. In SE1, ion thrusters were simply worse—too heavy, too expensive, and weaker. That needs to change. They should be lighter and more viable.
There could also be advanced space-only thrusters, like a fusion-hydrogen hybrid. These could have very high thrust but also a long spin-up time—maybe 10 seconds to reach full power. That would make them ideal for large or capital ships, solving the thruster spam. At the same time, they wouldn’t replace hydrogen thrusters: they wouldn’t work well in atmosphere, and their delay would make them poor for maneuvering or combat dodging.
Now, with all these limitations, you might think planets become bad for mining—but they shouldn’t be. Planets need strong advantages to remain attractive beyond just beautiful visuals.
First, large ore deposits or rich environmental voxels should exist, making scouting worthwhile. Some rare resources could require advanced scanners, meaning you first go to space, unlock better tech, then return to the planet to locate valuable areas. Once found, you can establish long-term mining operations and stop constantly searching for new deposits. This enables surplus production, trading, and frees up time for other gameplay. Progression should make life easier—automation and engineering should pay off.
Second, water should be a major advantage. Boats are perfect for transporting very heavy loads across planets. You could build bases along waterways and use a mix of boats and rovers, with rovers handling the “last mile.”
Third, power generation. Nuclear reactors could be more efficient when water-cooled, making planets with large bodies of water ideal for saving uranium and producing energy more efficiently.
Fourth, concrete. A planet-only resource (like a calcite-based material) could allow cheap construction of large structures—bases, landing pads, roads, bridges—huge save on iron.
And finally, mass reduction. Proper refining systems that reduce mass would make it much easier to export resources from planets. For high-value goods, flying ships or drones could still be viable. But for bulk transport, geography and logistics (roads, rivers, infrastructure) should matter much more.
100 percent agree. I imported and adapted a SE1 atmospheric VTOL in SE2, and the same size lifting engines in SE2 (1.5 Meter) were not enough for flight, despite them being enough in SE1, and the SE2 version of the craft being LESS MASS than in SE1 due to it having certain blocks in SE1 that have yet to be added in SE2.
On the same lines, please add thrust values of the engines in the in game descriptions, please
100 percent agree. I imported and adapted a SE1 atmospheric VTOL in SE2, and the same size lifting engines in SE2 (1.5 Meter) were not enough for flight, despite them being enough in SE1, and the SE2 version of the craft being LESS MASS than in SE1 due to it having certain blocks in SE1 that have yet to be added in SE2.
On the same lines, please add thrust values of the engines in the in game descriptions, please
I agree and I have made a post about possible thruster changes basically at the same time as you posted this, please feel free to check it out and add to it.
I'd also appreciate your upvotes so we can get thrusters changed from the original SE1 system.
https://support.keenswh.com/spaceengineers2/pc/topic/53611-torque-thrusters-for-more-design-and-engineering-variety
I agree and I have made a post about possible thruster changes basically at the same time as you posted this, please feel free to check it out and add to it.
I'd also appreciate your upvotes so we can get thrusters changed from the original SE1 system.
https://support.keenswh.com/spaceengineers2/pc/topic/53611-torque-thrusters-for-more-design-and-engineering-variety
I don't, i have currently a 500+ tons (empty) large miner, i have no problems getting to speed or carry over a million KG of ore in atmosphere... than again, i use hydrogen thrusters :p
I don't, i have currently a 500+ tons (empty) large miner, i have no problems getting to speed or carry over a million KG of ore in atmosphere... than again, i use hydrogen thrusters :p
agreed but I think a better way to approach this issue is not just simply increase general thrusting potential across the board but also increase the thrust capability between each larger iteration of thruster exponentially. the thrust power gap between the sizes should be widened quite a bit I feel
agreed but I think a better way to approach this issue is not just simply increase general thrusting potential across the board but also increase the thrust capability between each larger iteration of thruster exponentially. the thrust power gap between the sizes should be widened quite a bit I feel
Powerful thrusters could be a solution, but I offer you to look at the problem at different angle.
Ore is by definition not refined material, therefore you need reasonable amount of ore, to build something. To make life easier developers extended cargo mass capacity and even small cargo could become very heavy.
With a classic SE1 approach, you better to refine mined ore in space, and bring to earth valuable ingots - ingots are much better option in value to mass ratio than ore. This could be a solution.
Here in SE2 there are no ingots, but components are. Components itself could be a replacement for ingots in some sense. (imagine golden thread is like an industrial standard for gold distribution)
But, the problem is that masses of the components and ore required to produce it are the same, if I am not mistaken.
This makes no sense at all whether you transport your components, or taking it in character inventory for building. There definitely should be done something in this direction.
But I don't aware of all the problems with thrusters, so it deserve developers attention anyway
Powerful thrusters could be a solution, but I offer you to look at the problem at different angle.
Ore is by definition not refined material, therefore you need reasonable amount of ore, to build something. To make life easier developers extended cargo mass capacity and even small cargo could become very heavy.
With a classic SE1 approach, you better to refine mined ore in space, and bring to earth valuable ingots - ingots are much better option in value to mass ratio than ore. This could be a solution.
Here in SE2 there are no ingots, but components are. Components itself could be a replacement for ingots in some sense. (imagine golden thread is like an industrial standard for gold distribution)
But, the problem is that masses of the components and ore required to produce it are the same, if I am not mistaken.
This makes no sense at all whether you transport your components, or taking it in character inventory for building. There definitely should be done something in this direction.
But I don't aware of all the problems with thrusters, so it deserve developers attention anyway
The atmo thrusters specifically need a boost, not the others.
Yes, they need to tell us in the descriptions how powerful the thrusters are.
I don't agree that the thrusters should increase in power exponentially with size. I think that just will make small ships bad, and limit design, and large ships will look the same, since they won't be able to be designed with banks of small thrusters which could be placed in a lot more different spots.
Also, is there no thruster burn in this game? Is it going to be added? Are we supposed to put thrusters in the middle of our ships now?
The atmo thrusters specifically need a boost, not the others.
Yes, they need to tell us in the descriptions how powerful the thrusters are.
I don't agree that the thrusters should increase in power exponentially with size. I think that just will make small ships bad, and limit design, and large ships will look the same, since they won't be able to be designed with banks of small thrusters which could be placed in a lot more different spots.
Also, is there no thruster burn in this game? Is it going to be added? Are we supposed to put thrusters in the middle of our ships now?
This is one of the reasons they need to get over the whole "no ingots" stage as it does more harm than good. it's not going to kill people to have to do a little refining like they do in SE1 and even in 10k years there will still be a need for refined materials. As for weak thrusters, I'm not going to complain about stronger thrusters, but simultaneously I've got to ask what you're running that you're having this big of an issue where others aren't. I don't doubt you're having an issue, but first step should be eliminating the obvious, what can we do to eliminate or troubleshoot issues with the build first.
This is one of the reasons they need to get over the whole "no ingots" stage as it does more harm than good. it's not going to kill people to have to do a little refining like they do in SE1 and even in 10k years there will still be a need for refined materials. As for weak thrusters, I'm not going to complain about stronger thrusters, but simultaneously I've got to ask what you're running that you're having this big of an issue where others aren't. I don't doubt you're having an issue, but first step should be eliminating the obvious, what can we do to eliminate or troubleshoot issues with the build first.
I also feel thrusters, especially atmo thrusters, could use a moderate boost, and would like to see the return of ingots as a refined, more compacted resource (less mass per ingot than raw ore, for same construction potential). The mass of components and blocks could also be reduced or rebalanced, too.
I also feel thrusters, especially atmo thrusters, could use a moderate boost, and would like to see the return of ingots as a refined, more compacted resource (less mass per ingot than raw ore, for same construction potential). The mass of components and blocks could also be reduced or rebalanced, too.
TL;DR
You don’t use helicopters or rockets to transport bulk ore :)
On planets or moons with gravity, that role should belong to rovers and boats.
Helicopters (or atmospheric flyers) are better suited for personal transport, scouting, and combat. Maybe they can handle small amounts of high-value cargo like components or ingots.
Hydrogen thrusters, in particular, should not be viable for prolonged atmospheric flight. They are powerful for a reason: to break free from gravity and reach space. Their use in atmosphere should come with clear drawbacks. For example, they could be less stable, making ships wobble and harder to hover precisely. Their response time could also be slower—press W and wait 2–3 seconds for full thrust. This would make them strong for lifting heavy loads but inconvenient and risky for controlled planetary flight, leaving that role to atmospheric thrusters.
In space, precision should come from smaller thrusters or ions. Overall, each thruster type should have clear pros and cons so that none becomes the “best” in all situations. In SE1, ion thrusters were simply worse—too heavy, too expensive, and weaker. That needs to change. They should be lighter and more viable.
There could also be advanced space-only thrusters, like a fusion-hydrogen hybrid. These could have very high thrust but also a long spin-up time—maybe 10 seconds to reach full power. That would make them ideal for large or capital ships, solving the thruster spam. At the same time, they wouldn’t replace hydrogen thrusters: they wouldn’t work well in atmosphere, and their delay would make them poor for maneuvering or combat dodging.
Now, with all these limitations, you might think planets become bad for mining—but they shouldn’t be. Planets need strong advantages to remain attractive beyond just beautiful visuals.
First, large ore deposits or rich environmental voxels should exist, making scouting worthwhile. Some rare resources could require advanced scanners, meaning you first go to space, unlock better tech, then return to the planet to locate valuable areas. Once found, you can establish long-term mining operations and stop constantly searching for new deposits. This enables surplus production, trading, and frees up time for other gameplay. Progression should make life easier—automation and engineering should pay off.
Second, water should be a major advantage. Boats are perfect for transporting very heavy loads across planets. You could build bases along waterways and use a mix of boats and rovers, with rovers handling the “last mile.”
Third, power generation. Nuclear reactors could be more efficient when water-cooled, making planets with large bodies of water ideal for saving uranium and producing energy more efficiently.
Fourth, concrete. A planet-only resource (like a calcite-based material) could allow cheap construction of large structures—bases, landing pads, roads, bridges—huge save on iron.
And finally, mass reduction. Proper refining systems that reduce mass would make it much easier to export resources from planets. For high-value goods, flying ships or drones could still be viable. But for bulk transport, geography and logistics (roads, rivers, infrastructure) should matter much more.
TL;DR
You don’t use helicopters or rockets to transport bulk ore :)
On planets or moons with gravity, that role should belong to rovers and boats.
Helicopters (or atmospheric flyers) are better suited for personal transport, scouting, and combat. Maybe they can handle small amounts of high-value cargo like components or ingots.
Hydrogen thrusters, in particular, should not be viable for prolonged atmospheric flight. They are powerful for a reason: to break free from gravity and reach space. Their use in atmosphere should come with clear drawbacks. For example, they could be less stable, making ships wobble and harder to hover precisely. Their response time could also be slower—press W and wait 2–3 seconds for full thrust. This would make them strong for lifting heavy loads but inconvenient and risky for controlled planetary flight, leaving that role to atmospheric thrusters.
In space, precision should come from smaller thrusters or ions. Overall, each thruster type should have clear pros and cons so that none becomes the “best” in all situations. In SE1, ion thrusters were simply worse—too heavy, too expensive, and weaker. That needs to change. They should be lighter and more viable.
There could also be advanced space-only thrusters, like a fusion-hydrogen hybrid. These could have very high thrust but also a long spin-up time—maybe 10 seconds to reach full power. That would make them ideal for large or capital ships, solving the thruster spam. At the same time, they wouldn’t replace hydrogen thrusters: they wouldn’t work well in atmosphere, and their delay would make them poor for maneuvering or combat dodging.
Now, with all these limitations, you might think planets become bad for mining—but they shouldn’t be. Planets need strong advantages to remain attractive beyond just beautiful visuals.
First, large ore deposits or rich environmental voxels should exist, making scouting worthwhile. Some rare resources could require advanced scanners, meaning you first go to space, unlock better tech, then return to the planet to locate valuable areas. Once found, you can establish long-term mining operations and stop constantly searching for new deposits. This enables surplus production, trading, and frees up time for other gameplay. Progression should make life easier—automation and engineering should pay off.
Second, water should be a major advantage. Boats are perfect for transporting very heavy loads across planets. You could build bases along waterways and use a mix of boats and rovers, with rovers handling the “last mile.”
Third, power generation. Nuclear reactors could be more efficient when water-cooled, making planets with large bodies of water ideal for saving uranium and producing energy more efficiently.
Fourth, concrete. A planet-only resource (like a calcite-based material) could allow cheap construction of large structures—bases, landing pads, roads, bridges—huge save on iron.
And finally, mass reduction. Proper refining systems that reduce mass would make it much easier to export resources from planets. For high-value goods, flying ships or drones could still be viable. But for bulk transport, geography and logistics (roads, rivers, infrastructure) should matter much more.
Replies have been locked on this page!