Again, you have no experience in the gameplay you’re commenting on…
You posted nasa and bae links in your defense of warp drive and shields being “realistic” but didn’t bother to describe how those systems are actually realistically represented in the game… which of course they aren’t. You also didn’t describe how fusion cells have a realistic energy density to work provided ratio… which of course they also don’t. Its all fake and made up, just like the way propulsion in the game is.
The thing is the way the real game mechanics work out even thrusters behind many layers of blocks are exposed already for all intents and purposes. They get shot out reliably with no hull breach reaching them.
I would argue that that is a collision detection bug WRT weapon “projectiles”, and that it needs to be fixed.
1.) Fuel Pack:
Fuel Value: 30 PUh Mass: 8 kg Volume: 2 SU
2.) Large Fuel Pack:
Fuel Value: 150 Puh Mass: 30 kg Volume: 8 SU
3.) Fusion Cell:
Fuel Value: 300 PUh Mass: 50 kg Volume: 15 SU
(sorry for the odd formatting, the formatting tags seem to be misbehaving when used for a list like ^^)
IMO, ther values for the Fuel Pack and Large Fuel Pack need to be tweaked a bit to be brought in line with each other. The “Fusion Cell”, OTOH, is not only a different type of fuel source, it is nearly twice the size of the Large Fuel Pack. I see no particular problems with it, other than perhaps it’s name, as previously stated.
The propulsion devices in the game may be imaginary, but (at least now, with mass and volume enabled) I believe they do follow real world physics WRT to the mass they can lift (I haven’t checked extensively, but they seem to)
The point is that they don’t work at all how any real-world devices that look similar work - there’s nothing for them to draw into the intakes, and there’s no reaction mass coming out the business end because no reaction mass is consumed while they’re working, there aren’t big tanks of water or any other matter on the ship that need to be refilled - so there’s no point in saying “realism” requires that they be set up like a jet engine, i.e., with air in front of the intakes and open space behind for the exhaust. That’s not realism, it’s just limited imagination. They’re not jets, they’re not rockets of any type, they’re completely fictional devices that work on completely fictional (and unknown) principles, so they can “realistically” be placed anywhere and in any manner the game designers decide they can be.
Oh it is certainly, but its been a major part of pvp since day 1 and has not changed.
I thought this was a dead topic awhile back… but here we are… So I’ll sit back with my popcorn 
1.) actually simulating airflow through the engines would butcher performance.
2.) There is (visually) something coming out of the thrusters, be it reaction mass or energy
3.) There are those “fuel” tanks on the ship that need to be filled. granted that fuel seems to be for the generator which provides the electricity to run everything else (including the thrusters)
yeah, I hadn’t realized quite how old it was when I initially replied. didn’t really mean to necro, apparently some people are still quite opposed to my point(s) of view, thou
If this were applied for real world physics then my character would wear assless chaps.
If your all gung ho for real world simulator fantasy space farm deluxe then there is RSI, and they love your real monies.
Taco how do I get the Troll tag? =0
It was a special request actually.
While your questions certainly aren’t even-handed, I shall endeavor that my reply might be. You’ve already taken some swings at large portions of the playerbase with your attitude, though, so don’t expect to get through this without being called out with some civility.
Let’s get something out of the way first and foremost: I could care less about realism as a design principle. From a game theory perspective, anything that makes the definition of a “good” ship more nuanced in turn makes shipbuilding more engaging, makes the playfields more diverse, and makes for a more rewarding experience when one succeeds. For those reasons alone, it’s a good development to try alongside the shields and mass options I also voted to approve.
Now, to your questions.
I voted in favor of exposed thrusters because it makes shipbuilding more engaging and, as a result, more entertaining. If you want a PvP playfield where the meta never changes, try checkers.
Magic lego blocks are cute and all, but the precedents set by thrust direction and ship mass mattering suggest that a ship should have design variables; a ship’s performance is more than the sum of its devices. Exposed thrusters are, relatively speaking, a simple way to continue along this fun paradigm. They’re also ridiculously easy to implement both behind-the-scenes and as a user … well, unless you’ve flat-out abused the mechanic that they didn’t have to be exposed, I guess. Like it or not, you’re in a sandbox simulator when you launch Empyrion. Cope. Adapt. Learn. Enjoy. Don’t whine.
Like yours, I should hope, it depends. Intended size class, ship role, and risk are all elements to consider. This is why Empyrion is fun, because we can build ships that don’t have to conform to the same, single way of doing things. At least unless we don’t over-subscribe to some PvP meta… which, in every other game that is fun to play over multiple seasons, changes regularly even when it is part of the landscape, you know.
Sure. This is probably the pettiest question in the thread. Conflating kills for experience belies insecurities whose discussion are beyond the scope of this thread. All I will say here is that I pity it.
I don’t. I don’t have a prejudiced opinion one way or the other when it comes to players that PvP. Some are fun, some aren’t. Just like every other playstyle group. A mature perspective such as this is handy in games that cater to more than one playstyle. HWS offers enough to do that people may well define their gameplay using elements I dislike as cornerstones of their experience; they’re not lesser players for it. We would be lesser players, however, if we judged them for it.
Again, your bias is showing. The only definition of “good” you’ve provided us is an implicit “not on the workshop.” I think everyone’s answer, then, is yes. We’ve all built good ships. You can put away the eggplant measuring stick, unless it makes you more comfortable… then I won’t begrudge you that much.
If you want to. I seem to recall that there are a few ironic gun-bricks in the server, they’re entertaining to see and to hear about. Your swiss cheese fleet might have a similar role as a smile-inspiring component of the playfield.
Luddites in sandboxes hurt my spirits. Why even play them if they feel that way about it? There are more entertaining places to flex one’s gamer muscles than a sandbox game if one doesn’t like using the one between their ears.
I agree with Loki, and theres nothing Currently that i know of in human technology that has jet engines that can move the why our ships move in the game, with that quickness and speed, and hovering ability. The only thing that comes close to moving that way are the UFO’s we see in the sky’s; which ironically don’t have exposed thrusters. So instead of just changing empyrion to exposed thrusters we should imitated our likely advanced technological future of none-exposed thrusters like the UFO’s.
If were talking facts there is no way that jet engines can travel as fast from one planet to another that the game perpetrates to shows. The more accurate way are the UFO technology’s. It would be cool to have some upgrades that you can only get from Alien races. 
yay!
Blockquote[quote=“Israel, post:35, topic:18524”]
technological future of none-exposed thrusters like the UFO’s.
[/quote]
If it’s bad to imitate reality just for the sake of imitation, then it stands to reason that it is also unwise to imitate fiction just for the sake of imitation. Gameplay logic is the more fruitful arena of consideration, and look no further than the carbon block update for an example of how mechanics-first thinking can be wrapped in reasonably acceptable logic without being tied down by it.
In other words, it’s a bit of a strawman to push a feature just because it is more realistic and, by the same token, it’s also a bit of a strawman to disapprove of an idea just because it is more realistic.
Your alien idea is not a bad one, but something like “unexposed thrusters require an alien core” is more-or-less a step towards a pay-to-win landscape, is it not?
It’s easy to get alien cores mate. I have 8, and already placed all i need to, and i’ve never bought an alien core.
Alien technology yes, but we can also learn from that technology and make it our own. Maybe some more advanced and recently made by the Aliens can be occurred only through either trading with them or killing them. I mean who created warpdrives and shields us or did we borrow it from the Aliens anyways?
We’re quickly drifting off-topic from what OP wanted to ask, with even humble brags into the bargain.
If alien cores being easy means it is okay for them to be purchasable, then exposed thrusters being easy might mean it is okay for them to be implemented.
What is ultimately so hard about dealing with exposed thrusters, anyway? Sure, it might make a blueprint problematic, or it might mean that a certain min-maxing strategy isn’t an easy mode blueprint anymore. Those aren’t really deal-killer issues. We’ve already seen prefabs have trouble carrying their cargo with mass and it’s not a deal-killer problem.
It seems the only complaints come from a crowd that doesn’t want to have to change their BPs. If that’s all it is, that’s all it is… but it would be polite to allow for clarification. Maybe OP can describe what, other than the swiss-cheesing of his BPs, makes exposed thrusters such an anathema?
Get it right bro!!
