Softer crash-landings
Hi!
Space Engineers 2 is meant to be both realistic, cinematic and cool at the same time. To help achieve this I think crash-landings should not destroy your entire ship.
When you crash anything that isn't a very large ship the whole thing is often instantly destroyed. You cannot crash a shuttle and expect a single piece to survive. The whole point of having softer surfaces such as sand is that crashes should be felt less, but every surface insta-destroys your vessel. You could never, for example, simulate a ship crash on an alien planet or whatever.
Obviously, in a crash your grid pretty much always lands at 300 m/s. Perhaps the mass of your grid should also determine how hard it hits the ground? So if it is shuttle-size the ship takes minor damage, and not to the extent where your floor breaks and you're left with the rest of the ship.
It would be really cool if you could do this!
I like this feedback
Not sure the engine can handle this or how it handles this, but yeah the material you crash into should matter in how much damage (when we get water, for example, it will react differently to a crash than hitting stone). Also the angle of impact should matter a lot, determining how much energy is delivered in the form of damage cs. say skipping off a surface in a shallow impact. Se 1 logic used to feel like the moment you hit a voxel surface all the energy was transmitted straight down into the voxels at the point of impact and the grid got slammed with a similaramount.
A shallow crash with some level of control would ideally lead to more survivable impacts vs. a head on crash ship nose first into the planet (or asteroid or moon or other grid) would be far more likely to sustain maximum destruction.
Kind of suddenly imagining slamming a ship into water and generating waves that crash away from the impact and wash up onto land around the lake the ship crashes into. That would be fantastic.
Not sure the engine can handle this or how it handles this, but yeah the material you crash into should matter in how much damage (when we get water, for example, it will react differently to a crash than hitting stone). Also the angle of impact should matter a lot, determining how much energy is delivered in the form of damage cs. say skipping off a surface in a shallow impact. Se 1 logic used to feel like the moment you hit a voxel surface all the energy was transmitted straight down into the voxels at the point of impact and the grid got slammed with a similaramount.
A shallow crash with some level of control would ideally lead to more survivable impacts vs. a head on crash ship nose first into the planet (or asteroid or moon or other grid) would be far more likely to sustain maximum destruction.
Kind of suddenly imagining slamming a ship into water and generating waves that crash away from the impact and wash up onto land around the lake the ship crashes into. That would be fantastic.
i think this is still part of the "in development" part of the physics engine. the reason we dont notice it being drastically obvious probably comes down to voxel mass vs grid mass, and the differences in mass for the different elemental bass that we crash into. Thusfar, none of the voxels have their own mass, its just a blanket unit measurement for all of them so we can tinker and play with it while the kinks are all being worked out.
i think this is still part of the "in development" part of the physics engine. the reason we dont notice it being drastically obvious probably comes down to voxel mass vs grid mass, and the differences in mass for the different elemental bass that we crash into. Thusfar, none of the voxels have their own mass, its just a blanket unit measurement for all of them so we can tinker and play with it while the kinks are all being worked out.
Replies have been locked on this page!