Thrust Mechanics Explained

[Andir]

Has the new Thrust mechanic been reverted? I'm on 0.1703 and as far as I can tell it doesn't matter what shape the thrusters are arranged, they still produce roughly 3 thrust per block.

 

[Ithirahad]

Has the new Thrust mechanic been reverted? I'm on 0.1703 and as far as I can tell it doesn't matter what shape the thrusters are arranged, they still produce roughly 3 thrust per block.

Changes are still in planning/refinement stage (to the best of my knowledge), and are not implemented.

 

[Andir]

Changes are still in planning/refinement stage (to the best of my knowledge), and are not implemented.

Thanks. I was planning out my ship and kept reading, both here and on the wiki, that thrust now uses the same mechanic as the power generators and was getting confused as to why it wasn't acting that way in game.

 

[Lecic]

Thanks. I was planning out my ship and kept reading, both here and on the wiki, that thrust now uses the same mechanic as the power generators and was getting confused as to why it wasn't acting that way in game.

The wiki is massively outdated in many ways, I wouldn't use it as your #1 source of go-to information.

 

[SmartScout]

I think that most of this is great except for the gui to change trust direction and the ships immobilized by hyper drives. I think that the gui idea would ruin the flow of space travel and battle because you would have to change your thrust percentages to attain full maneuverability. especially in the middle of a battle or of exploring this would be annoying for you and sometimes deadly for your character. then, as many people have said, the hyperdrive would turn your capital ship into a station with FTL capability.

 

[Lecic]

I think that most of this is great except for the gui to change trust direction and the ships immobilized by hyper drives. I think that the gui idea would ruin the flow of space travel and battle because you would have to change your thrust percentages to attain full maneuverability. especially in the middle of a battle or of exploring this would be annoying for you and sometimes deadly for your character. then, as many people have said, the hyperdrive would turn your capital ship into a station with FTL capability.

The thrust percentages makes the difference between large and small ships more distinct. You aren't going to be changing it for navigation and during battle.

I believe it's been changed now so that it will be 5% in each direction, with the ability to boost this with push modules.

 

[jath]

My opinion, may it get lost in this sea of voices:

If you put 100% of your thrusters in 1 direction, you should still have a minimum thrust available in every other direction, say 20%?

You think this is unreasonable? I give you 3 reasons why it is NOT.

#1 Harrier jump jet

It has multi-directional thrusters. It's conceivable that a fighter could open and close burn tubes in different directions to utilize thrust from one unit in any direction...

#2 Boeing and every other large passenger jet,

These things have a simple mechanical adjustment that reverses their thrust to stop the plane more quickly. How is that not realistic in space?

#3 Ionic thrusters

The idea is that you simply change the direction of the current moving through the ionic thrusters and it changes the direction of thrust. These are super light weigh and low energy versions of what we could have in Starmade.

Your idea of assigning % thrust pools in different directions (IMO) makes less sense with futuristic technology than what we're using now.

Ok, fine, have us assign a thruster's main direction of thrust. The thruster should still have a percentage of it's thrust available in at least a couple of other directions as well... if not ALL of them.

Now here's a thought, maybe you could introduce a new type of thruster. Something that is multi-directional, but is different somehow... Ionic thrusters are the basis for TIE fighter's propulsion, maybe???

 

[therimmer96]

My opinion, may it get lost in this sea of voices:

If you put 100% of your thrusters in 1 direction, you should still have a minimum thrust available in every other direction, say 20%?

You think this is unreasonable? I give you 3 reasons why it is NOT.

#1 Harrier jump jet

It has multi-directional thrusters. It's conceivable that a fighter could open and close burn tubes in different directions to utilize thrust from one unit in any direction...

#2 Boeing and every other large passenger jet,

These things have a simple mechanical adjustment that reverses their thrust to stop the plane more quickly. How is that not realistic in space?

#3 Ionic thrusters

The idea is that you simply change the direction of the current moving through the ionic thrusters and it changes the direction of thrust. These are super light weigh and low energy versions of what we could have in Starmade.

Your idea of assigning % thrust pools in different directions (IMO) makes less sense with futuristic technology than what we're using now.

Ok, fine, have us assign a thruster's main direction of thrust. The thruster should still have a percentage of it's thrust available in at least a couple of other directions as well... if not ALL of them.

Now here's a thought, maybe you could introduce a new type of thruster. Something that is multi-directional, but is different somehow... Ionic thrusters are the basis for TIE fighter's propulsion, maybe???

While your opinion is valid and I understand where you are coming from in regards to realism, the thrust system is not about being realistic, its about being balanced. A titan should not be able to reverse at the same speed it can fly forwards ^^

 

[jath]

Not unless it was designed that way. Think thrusters mounted on a 360 degree swiveling platform for example.

The technology is there (in real life). Besides isn't stopping just as important as moving forward? (If not more so)

I can see a fighter not being able to go full reverse. They can retro burn after all. Even our navy vessels can match forward thrust with rear. Thier reverse speed is only limited by the shape of thier hulls due to drag. There is no drag in space though.[DOUBLEPOST=1412240130,1412239915][/DOUBLEPOST]Ps, I don't see how reversing speed causes unbalance. A fighter or bomber, or corvette can still fly ahead of them (behind them) reversing in many cases is the only way for a titan to even get a smaller ship in its sights. Removing reverse would cripple the thing.

 

[therimmer96]

Removing reverse would cripple the thing.

Annoyingly, thats the idea. Part of this ridiculous war against titans. I told schema the same thing and he said that bigger ships will be getting an agility boost and turrets will get buffed. I don't know how, but yeah

 

[Ithirahad]

Annoyingly, thats the idea. Part of this ridiculous war against titans. I told schema the same thing and he said that bigger ships will be getting an agility boost and turrets will get buffed. I don't know how, but yeah

IDK if it's "ridiculous," nor if it's a war on titans. The only thing that makes it ridiculous is the fact that it isn't just a war on titans - IMO, it's a war on anything larger than a frigate or smallish cruiser, and anything that isn't an ugly cube. However, titans should definitely have fairly slow turn, and low maneuverability... Just not less speed than other things; that's just terrible mechanics. If someone wants to accelerate their 2-kilometer-long starship to server max speed, they ought to be free to do so, if they're prepared to have to time their deceleration.

EDIT: Wow, Rimmer, we nearly have the same postcount and like count :p

 

[FunnyBunny14]

IDK if it's "ridiculous," nor if it's a war on titans. The only thing that makes it ridiculous is the fact that it isn't just a war on titans - IMO, it's a war on anything larger than a frigate or smallish cruiser, and anything that isn't an ugly cube. However, titans should definitely have fairly slow turn, and low maneuverability... Just not less speed than other things; that's just terrible mechanics. If someone wants to accelerate their 2-kilometer-long starship to server max speed, they ought to be free to do so, if they're prepared to have to time their deceleration.

EDIT: Wow, Rimmer, we nearly have the same postcount and like count :p

Maybe it would be better if ships above a certain mass (server configurable) would have a standard acceleration nerf, and massive ships would then accelerate extremely slow (there should be a curve up to a certain limit).

 

[jath]

There is no reason a massive ship wouldn't have more massive thrusters to accelerate them even faster than a small ship. I would think it should be a huge power drain and disable the continuous use of lots of other systems though. Why does a giant ship have to go as slow as a turtle? It's unrealistic! It goes proportionally slower, its true, but there is not an inverse relationship to size and top speed, nor acceleration really. not in real life.[DOUBLEPOST=1412265282,1412264706][/DOUBLEPOST]Also, thrusters COULD be used for turning, but they aren't realistically necessary IRL. Most satellites don't use thrusters to rotate at all... They use a little mechanic called Gyroscopic stabilization.

It's how segways stay standing, and large naval vessels use a giant version to keep the ship stable in rough seas. Gyroscopes would realistically exist on every single space vessel we built as a primary method of turning. Thrusters might be a little faster though.

Be prepared for larger ships to have a serious amount of G forces occurring at the stern and bow.

 

[FunnyBunny14]

This is a game, and people need trade-offs for them to choose different ship sizes. Besides, if big ships really want to go somewhere they could just use jump drives to get to specific sectors after they used hyperdrive and the gates.

Ps: They are thinking about an exponential increase in power vs thrust.

 

[jath]

They shouldn't be thinking exponential power vs thrust, they should be thinking exponential power vs acceleration.

v = m*a
or
v = m*v^2
Smaller ships would have an easy time reaching max speeds, but titans would start to consume more power at greater thrusts than would be manageable in a fight where other systems require power.

That still maintains

A, thrusters can be multi-directional
B, Titans should still be able to reverse quickly if the situation calls for it (even though it may hurt other system's power reserves)[DOUBLEPOST=1412271486,1412270494][/DOUBLEPOST]I guess thrust = acceleration... so my point was kinda nullified.

My main issue is the idea that they'd be limiting a sum of 6 directions to a total of 100% when there are many types of thrusters that are multi-directional. I would say giving 100% to one direction would give you 20% in all other directions. Giving 50% front and back, would still result in 60% possible in both those directions, plus 20% in all other directions. It doesn't have to add up to 100%

 

[FunnyBunny14]

The exponential power usage seems like a good thing for when we find something better.

 

[Ithirahad]

Maybe it would be better if ships above a certain mass (server configurable) would have a standard acceleration nerf, and massive ships would then accelerate extremely slow (there should be a curve up to a certain limit).

Rather than a specific point where suddenly ship turning starts to suck, I'd imagine a gentle curve that slowly flattens out at a certain point... Essentially a soft-capped nerf. :p

 

[FunnyBunny14]

I was saying that. I just said that that curve would start above a certain point.

 

[jath]

Here's my final take on how thrusters should work.

You have a pool of 200% that you can assign in 6 directions. No direction can get more than 100% thrust. While flying, the thrusters will have a maximum total output of 100% when summing up all 6 sides. If the directions allocations exceed that amount, they will receieve the proportion of the thrust that they would have gotten.

F+B+U+D+L+R = 200%
Forward backward up down left right

A=active t=total thrust
If Fa+Ba+Ua+Da+La+Ra > 100
Then Ft. = Fa/(Fa+Ba+Ua+Da+La+Ra) *100
Etc.

Plus trig, Yada Yada, blah blah blah. Etc.

 

[NeonSturm]

I think current max speed in StarMade is more like max acceleration IRL than speed IRL

That would explain space drag at least

It is the lack of realism (realistic distances, velocities, time consumption) that made us accept parts of realism in another composition.​

IRL space ships decelerate by turning backwards and then accelerating.

But they can't increase their speed at high magnitude while flying backwards.

Off-course you can use vector-thrust, but that increases complexity, mass and building cost.

As Sci-Fi star-ships require so much thrust it may also be a structural-integrity-type limit on how flexible you can build something.​