Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: How Much Can It Move?

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    303
    Post Thanks / Like

    How Much Can It Move?

    Has anyone spent the time to figure out the exact lifting/moving power of our various propulsion systems? That is, how much weight can a single Wheel, Buggy Wheel, Mobile Base Wheel, Hover Pad, Air Blade and Large Air Blade actually move/lift?

    It might be worthwhile to note the "Maximum Load" on these blocks either in their stats or in their descriptions. I know I've exceeded them more than a few times trying to build different things, but haven't figured out what the cutoff is yet.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    629
    Post Thanks / Like
    I used to measure the lift force of wheels and hover pads
    https://steamcommunity.com/app/50405...7615860430939/

    But when I saw the air blade behavior, I lost my motivation to play the game, so there is no info on those.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    303
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Menzagitat View Post
    I used to measure the lift force of wheels and hover pads
    https://steamcommunity.com/app/50405...7615860430939/

    But when I saw the air blade behavior, I lost my motivation to play the game, so there is no info on those.
    Can't check steamcommunity links at work, so I'll have to look when I get home.

    Dare I ask, what was it about air blade behavior that's put you off so much? And keep in mind we're still deep in the Alpha phase here. What makes it to an actual release candidate could be very different than what we have here now. Of course, getting it there and making it something everyone wants to play does require those of us here now to make positive contributions and offer constructive criticism to the folks at Craneballs so they can make this the best experience possible.

    I've been involved in a few early-release, alpha-build projects, and have had my swings of love-it, hate-it, which have, in most cases, come to rest at can-live-with-it by the time we got to release. Growing pains do stop eventually.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    629
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Indigo View Post
    ... Dare I ask, what was it about air blade behavior that's put you off so much?...
    I bought this game because it has a survival label. I played it 2 weeks in survival when I discovered they will wipe our worlds once 0.7 comes out. Then I started to play in creative mode with the physics of the game, and I enjoyed much discovering the realistic behavior developers implement.
    I was waiting for the custom worlds where I can make terrain and survival as difficult as possible. Once that was added, I started to play again in survival from scratch.
    I was still at the beginning when I noticed a comment from somebody that the air blade vehicles rise and hover down in steps. I said to myself that must be slight mistake.
    But a friend had difficulties to power up his flying machine and convinced me to switch to creative mode to help him. Then I saw myself that the way how developers solved the stabilization of the flying vehicles was to simulate a floating block, which was introduced just a little bit before the air blades.
    They basically lower and rise a virtual surface and the air blades follow that, and this is causing an oscillation.
    I felt that developers cheated, that they betrayed their original vision of building a realistic feeling regarding physics behavior.
    You are the first who asked and is the first time I said the reason.
    Anyway, a new player, before he will build his first air blade vehicle, will encounter many other problems and this behavior should not be the first one to be fixed, in my opinion.
    Once we have the air blades, there is little purpose in the game.

    Quote Originally Posted by Indigo View Post
    ...And keep in mind we're still deep in the Alpha phase here. What makes it to an actual release candidate could be very different than what we have here now...
    A small company cannot afford to make many mistakes, or to use a waterfall process in EA. It is costly to rework solutions and regain those players who tried the game out and left disappointed.
    But mistakes we all make in life and those includes the technical decisions too. That's why a review process is needed while they develop the game.
    Developers often enter in a defensive mode when their work / code is reviewed. They take that criticism personally, instead of taking is as a review of the piece of code or solution they made. This happens especially if that feedback is given by people who are not trained how to give feedback

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    303
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Menzagitat View Post
    I bought this game because it has a survival label. I played it 2 weeks in survival when I discovered they will wipe our worlds once 0.7 comes out. Then I started to play in creative mode with the physics of the game, and I enjoyed much discovering the realistic behavior developers implement.
    I was waiting for the custom worlds where I can make terrain and survival as difficult as possible. Once that was added, I started to play again in survival from scratch.
    I was still at the beginning when I noticed a comment from somebody that the air blade vehicles rise and hover down in steps. I said to myself that must be slight mistake.
    But a friend had difficulties to power up his flying machine and convinced me to switch to creative mode to help him. Then I saw myself that the way how developers solved the stabilization of the flying vehicles was to simulate a floating block, which was introduced just a little bit before the air blades.
    They basically lower and rise a virtual surface and the air blades follow that, and this is causing an oscillation.
    I felt that developers cheated, that they betrayed their original vision of building a realistic feeling regarding physics behavior.
    You are the first who asked and is the first time I said the reason.
    Anyway, a new player, before he will build his first air blade vehicle, will encounter many other problems and this behavior should not be the first one to be fixed, in my opinion.
    Once we have the air blades, there is little purpose in the game.


    A small company cannot afford to make many mistakes, or to use a waterfall process in EA. It is costly to rework solutions and regain those players who tried the game out and left disappointed.
    But mistakes we all make in life and those includes the technical decisions too. That's why a review process is needed while they develop the game.
    Developers often enter in a defensive mode when their work / code is reviewed. They take that criticism personally, instead of taking is as a review of the piece of code or solution they made. This happens especially if that feedback is given by people who are not trained how to give feedback
    Save game wipes... I get it. I don't like it either, but in an early release, it is sometimes necessary. Which is one of the reasons I don't form any strong connection with the things I do in these sorts of early-release/alpha-build situations. I know full well that things are very likely going to change, sometimes considerably, and to make those changes save-wipes are sometimes necessary.

    As for the oscillation of air-blades... I've seen machines dedicated to physics simulations, for things like destructive and non-destructive design testing, used by the aerospace industry, by national defense contractors, and other industry professionals. These are not gaming PC's - they're mutli-thousand dollar computers with very specific purposes. I can't say I've ever seen a game or game engine that can really simulate physics AND maintain a playable frame-rate. So it is understandable if some "cheating" is necessary. This isn't to say I wouldn't love to see a game designed to run on a computer with system requirements like 48 Processor Cores, 8 Dedicated channels nVidia Tesla Network Graphics + Dual SLI GeForce 1080 or TitanX graphics cards, 64 GB RAM, PCIe SSD... a nice high-end server-workstation rig where we can render out professional Auto-CAD models in a realistic physics world - but that's a $30,000+ setup, far beyond what the average person is going to spend on their home computers!

    And bare in mind too, that this is built using Unity, which has its own built-in Physics Engine, Rigidbody (actually there are 2 separate forms of Rigidbody, one for 3d processing one for 2d processing). It is not quite as robust as other physics engines, such as Havok, CryPhysics, nVidia's PhysX, or NGSoftbody, and these are rarely, if ever modular. In fact, most game engines are built around their physics engines, rather than building the physics engine around the game.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    629
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Indigo View Post
    ...In fact, most game engines are built around their physics engines, rather than building the physics engine around the game.
    This is what I was thinking too these days. They must have looked at Unity and thought: what can we do with it?
    Anyway, if they do not master the engine or they push the features beyond they can offer with it, then players will simply not come to the game.
    They will not be able to sell the product.
    You can go and provide reasons and explanations but you will not have a successful product and the project will bring no money to the company.
    Still, I wouldn't blame Unity in this case. There might be some bugs caused by it but developers are responsible to choose the solutions they implement in the game.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •