I just don't get why it's internal combustion and not a fuel cell design. Fuel cells are more efficient if I remember right and more in-keeping with the future current tech thing. I do like the actual switch you can physically flip, nice touch that, immersion and all. If I may make a suggestion, a option on oxygen generators to only produce O2, so we don't run out of ice for O2, as hydrogen production eats ludicrous amounts of ice at the moment imo (can be a problem early on in a space start if RNG hates you) (Obviously there may be other things planned to address this that we're not aware of). At the risk of sounding an idiot, what does this mean?

Wil je een nieuwere Android TV Box firmware of wil je hem Rooten? Android 4.1.1 en Andoir 4.2 updates. Minix, NEO X5, Gocal, DYON Andromeda, nieuwe software. Philips - Teile und Zubeh. 5 anrufbeantworter. 1 PHILIPS saltet nach.

- replaced NaN value on HUD for 0.0. I am playing in Space Engineers Latino server and when I enter in the server, whatever medbay respawn I select, I appear on space floating, but when I change into 3rd person I am in the medbay I choose and I can move freely but can't do other mechanics like weld, grind, mine and enter the menu and control panel of my ships and station. I played just before the update so I think it is a bug of 1.180.6 because it appeared after that. Also the last game I exited before this update I entered a cryopod. My friends also has the same problem and he also exited the game in a cryopod previous this update. Click to expand. Agree pretty much 100% Still leaves the mystery gas CO 2 though.

People are pretty much saying the same thing in different ways. Weird how some one who studies history has to bring in scientific evidence.

This is partial combustion: Incomplete combustion creates Carbon Monoxide CO A lot of older cars from 1950 to about 1980 created this. Pollution was also higher because of the Lead in the gas and Carbon Monoxide. ________ This is Complete Combustion. Fuel + Oxygen combusted makes Carbon Dioxide and water. Carbon Dioxide aka plant food. Finally, an explanation for what to do with all that CO 2: Plants can take take Carbon dioxide and water (in our case Ice) and grow. We could in theory then take those plants and burn them in the Combustion Engine.

Basically, make it so Oxygen farms can be accessed to pull Organic ingot or something akin to that. Airvents pull Carbon Dioxide and send it to the Oxygen Farms.

Also because it is the internet I feel the need to provide a bit more evidence to stand on other than my own sentences. Carbon Monoxide is a known minor poison.

It would be completely negated by the Space suit so no big deal really. 2) how many transport vehicles of any kind you have seen, to be equiped with nuclear reactors? Even in wild sci-fi fantasy, there is no concept of any 'smaller' nuclear reactor, then few story high building. Even smallest nuclear reactors today (after more than 60 years of development) are used on 5 biggest aircraft carriers ships and maybe 15 biggest nuclear submarines.

In both case, few story high and few rooms wide! There is no way in for-seen future to equip nuclear reactors to fighters. 5) we are developing ION propulsion from 1964, and the most powerfull constructed yet has folowing performance: BHT8000 for 449mN you need 8KW of energy, so for in game SmallGrid Large ION thruster with 144kN you need 2.5GW!!! Even most powefull ION thruster in development DS4G is capable of 2.5N with 250kW of energy, that is for 144k you need 14.4MW.

But I was unable to find dimensions or weight of such ION thrusters. For comparison, current hydrogen/oxygen thrusters (most powerfull RD-170) has 7900kN for 9.3T of weight. For both points means, when you need fast changes in speed/directions, you should never use ION thrusres. ION thrusters in small size can be used only with solar panels for very super light sattelites, or in very big sizes on biggest ships in combination with nuclear reactors. So, placing ION thrusters on 'Fighters' would be nonsense. For any other questions from 'survival' section: Because those things would require more and more specifics blocks to be build and maintain on base/planet to survive.

Engineering designs (ships, bases) would be forced to be designed in different way, to save resources/energy to keep up. Pressurization and temperature means posibility to have different suits to different environments, even inside base with pressurization, temperature and oxy/co2 control, we would be able to get rid of the suit completly. Maybe we can add 'movement'/flexibility/speed penalty to big space EVA suits. Engineers (in survival mode) would be preffered maybe to build ships inside pressurized hangars because of that. Food/drink again. Maybe something you can easily gather grow on planets, but very hard expensive to grow in space/on asteroid base (no gravity and etc). This can bring element that players needs to barter food from planets for something else.

Like some materials can be more easy to 'crystalize' in space (no gravity) or harvest from asteroids, than from planets. Click to expand. I'll give you that I don't see too awful many sci-fi shows in space that use nuclear power. However what I have seen are power sources that far far exceed nuclear power. One of the Gundam anime series features a solar power source for some of the tech that far far exceeds what we have today.

In Star Trek there was also a full Dyson Sphere that was constructed around a star that was as large as Earth's orbit around the Sun. In Star Trek there is also a device known as the Tox Uthat that fits into the palm of the hand that can halt all nuclear fusion in the core of a star. Let's also not forget the famous Genesis Device from one of the original series movies. If just those 2 series can pass off technology like that, then it's not too much of a stretch for me to believe that a small nuclear reactor could be created in a sci-fi timeline either. As I pointed out to you prior, they don't make alot of power in the first place and it takes alot of them to equal even one of their big brothers.

By your logic since not that many sci-fi use jump drives, but have some type of warp drive and/or hyperspace engine, we should remove jump drives from the game as well. Every 2 years or so now in our own lifetime the amount of space we can store on a computer chip doubles. In 2004 if you told people they could have a hard drive with 10TB of storage on their personal computers most people would've laughed in your face. Now that's a reality with some of the ultra high end HDDs. As for ion thrusters, we're talking about ion thursters that have over 100 years behind them by the time Space Engineers takes place with Nuclear Reactors that are smaller than the average human. Seriously it's not that much of a stretch to assume they've discovered a way to pump up the thrust power of such things. You forget that this game is just that, a game, it's not real and it's not meant to be 100% realistic.

This game doesn't need to be 100% realistic to be fun. If they did something such as remove small reactors without giving an equal type of replacement, then I would most likely quit the game or mod them back in. How exactly do you propose people create things like fighters or so on in SE if you remove the ability to use small reactors without making them impractical? Survival: You completely dodged some of the questions, gave blanket responses to others, and only really elaborated on one particular thing. Pressurization and temperature: This one you actually elaborated on a bit so I will address it first. Okay so one of the possibilities would be removing the space suit and/or having different environments and different suits as a result. Okay aside from that what would be the purpose of going to these different environments?

When designing any content for a game you have to answer a couple of questions, be it small time mods for older games like what I do, or full on AAA studio productions like EA, Blizzard, or other well known companies. The biggest question you have to ask with these environments is, why would I ever want to go there? That's the big thing I'm trying to get you to say is why I would want to go to these other environments. Using the radioactive environment you named before as an example. What would be the purpose of such environment?

Sure I could use a suit that protects against radiation and that's fine and dandy, but what is the purpose beyond that? What do I get out of going to this radioactive environment?

If this radioactive environment simply exists to provide an environmental hazard that doesn't add much to the game as it's just something I will avoid and never go to as I said before. If it's all risk and no reward then I'm not going to go there.

When designing a map or environment in this instance, you have to give people a reason to interact with it. So far all I'm seeing is reasons to never go there. Overall I'm seeing this version of pressurization and temperature as something that would just add another layer of tedium to the game without providing any real value.

Stuff like that which simply exists and turns into a penalty is not something I find fun. So far what I'm seeing is something that would just suck the fun out of the game. Now if in that radioactive environment I found more uranium than normal, THEN I would actually go there as it gives me some motivation to do so. For your pressurized hangar example, you can already do that and in fact I've done it several times now.

Both of the current dreadnoughts I have are carrier dreadnoughts. I can't tell you the number of times I've worked on fighters and/or utility craft in their hangar bays, or the hangar bay of a space base. So this can already be done and doesn't need further additions to the game to make it possible. Food/drink: This would be one of the things that just turns into a penalty with no real form or function at the end of the day and another thing that has to be micromanaged.

As I said prior I don't find that kind of thing fun. I also wouldn't find it fun to take down an army of pirates only to die at the last second because I didn't eat something before I left the base. As I said that would royally piss me off and would not be fun at all. Again this is one more thing that would just turn into a penalty instead of offering anything beyond, eat this or die.

This is also something that I believe would take away and distract from the engineering aspect of things. SE is about engineering and overcoming problems with technology and such. How can I use the advanced technology to stay alive. Again that to me would suck the fun out of the game. Overall what I'm getting from your statements is you seem to want these things purely for the realism. That's fine and cool if that's why you want them, but I personally don't.

Honestly most of what you're proposing would make me want to quit the game or is something I would mod out. Part of the appeal for me with SE is that I don't have to worry about 100% realism.

I can create futuristic ships and bases without having to worry about some of the tedium that comes along with some of the other survival games out there. I don't mind seeing new features if they provide some type of value, but what I'm seeing so far is just another set of iterations that will not add that value but would simply suck the fun from the game. One thing I dont understand, Is why the player base was complaning about hydrgen power generation. Every space crift, since the flight 2 Gemini pod, has used hydgren feul cells for electical power, I dont really have a porblem with the smaller reactors my self, I always asumed they where liquide fueled, even if the fuel looks like uraniam fuel pullits, like form a high presher water reacters, in that case they should be larger, but remember we can make our heavy high presher reatchers small enough to fit into a submarine. So I would think the issue would be more one of mass, then one of space. I can't wait till major update. Click to expand.

I'll give you that I don't see too awful many sci-fi shows in space that use nuclear power. However what I have seen are power sources that far far exceed nuclear power. One of the Gundam anime series features a solar power source for some of the tech that far far exceeds what we have today. In Star Trek there was also a full Dyson Sphere that was constructed around a star that was as large as Earth's orbit around the Sun. In Star Trek there is also a device known as the Tox Uthat that fits into the palm of the hand that can halt all nuclear fusion in the core of a star. Let's also not forget the famous Genesis Device from one of the original series movies.

If just those 2 series can pass off technology like that, then it's not too much of a stretch for me to believe that a small nuclear reactor could be created in a sci-fi timeline either. As I pointed out to you prior, they don't make alot of power in the first place and it takes alot of them to equal even one of their big brothers. By your logic since not that many sci-fi use jump drives, but have some type of warp drive and/or hyperspace engine, we should remove jump drives from the game as well. Every 2 years or so now in our own lifetime the amount of space we can store on a computer chip doubles. In 2004 if you told people they could have a hard drive with 10TB of storage on their personal computers most people would've laughed in your face. Now that's a reality with some of the ultra high end HDDs.

As for ion thrusters, we're talking about ion thursters that have over 100 years behind them by the time Space Engineers takes place with Nuclear Reactors that are smaller than the average human. Seriously it's not that much of a stretch to assume they've discovered a way to pump up the thrust power of such things.

You forget that this game is just that, a game, it's not real and it's not meant to be 100% realistic. This game doesn't need to be 100% realistic to be fun.

If they did something such as remove small reactors without giving an equal type of replacement, then I would most likely quit the game or mod them back in. How exactly do you propose people create things like fighters or so on in SE if you remove the ability to use small reactors without making them impractical? Survival: You completely dodged some of the questions, gave blanket responses to others, and only really elaborated on one particular thing. Pressurization and temperature: This one you actually elaborated on a bit so I will address it first. Okay so one of the possibilities would be removing the space suit and/or having different environments and different suits as a result. Okay aside from that what would be the purpose of going to these different environments?

When designing any content for a game you have to answer a couple of questions, be it small time mods for older games like what I do, or full on AAA studio productions like EA, Blizzard, or other well known companies. The biggest question you have to ask with these environments is, why would I ever want to go there? That's the big thing I'm trying to get you to say is why I would want to go to these other environments. Using the radioactive environment you named before as an example. What would be the purpose of such environment? Sure I could use a suit that protects against radiation and that's fine and dandy, but what is the purpose beyond that?

What do I get out of going to this radioactive environment? If this radioactive environment simply exists to provide an environmental hazard that doesn't add much to the game as it's just something I will avoid and never go to as I said before. If it's all risk and no reward then I'm not going to go there.

When designing a map or environment in this instance, you have to give people a reason to interact with it. So far all I'm seeing is reasons to never go there. Overall I'm seeing this version of pressurization and temperature as something that would just add another layer of tedium to the game without providing any real value. Stuff like that which simply exists and turns into a penalty is not something I find fun. So far what I'm seeing is something that would just suck the fun out of the game. Now if in that radioactive environment I found more uranium than normal, THEN I would actually go there as it gives me some motivation to do so.

For your pressurized hangar example, you can already do that and in fact I've done it several times now. Both of the current dreadnoughts I have are carrier dreadnoughts. I can't tell you the number of times I've worked on fighters and/or utility craft in their hangar bays, or the hangar bay of a space base. So this can already be done and doesn't need further additions to the game to make it possible.

Food/drink: This would be one of the things that just turns into a penalty with no real form or function at the end of the day and another thing that has to be micromanaged. As I said prior I don't find that kind of thing fun. I also wouldn't find it fun to take down an army of pirates only to die at the last second because I didn't eat something before I left the base. As I said that would royally piss me off and would not be fun at all. Again this is one more thing that would just turn into a penalty instead of offering anything beyond, eat this or die.

This is also something that I believe would take away and distract from the engineering aspect of things. SE is about engineering and overcoming problems with technology and such.

How can I use the advanced technology to stay alive. Again that to me would suck the fun out of the game. Overall what I'm getting from your statements is you seem to want these things purely for the realism. That's fine and cool if that's why you want them, but I personally don't. Honestly most of what you're proposing would make me want to quit the game or is something I would mod out.

Sap Gui 7 20 Patch 1 12th Tac Con Flt there. Part of the appeal for me with SE is that I don't have to worry about 100% realism. I can create futuristic ships and bases without having to worry about some of the tedium that comes along with some of the other survival games out there. I don't mind seeing new features if they provide some type of value, but what I'm seeing so far is just another set of iterations that will not add that value but would simply suck the fun from the game. Click to expand. What is point to have sandbox game with extended engineering ship/station building system, if you are not holding to reality, or at least probable future technologies?

I mean technologies, which we don't know or don't have today, but at least we have theory how it can be done, that means mathematical calculation are working on the paper with current laws of physics. Mini nuclear reactors or super powered ION thrusters will never work based on any technological concept. Everything returns back to the basic physics like how much weight has atom of hydrogen, and how much potential energy is stored in it'. So if you had even 100% conversion, you will never exceed that amount of energy.

Laws of physics, must be working even for future thrusters and energy source technologies. Well, in reality, even ION thrusters are using propellant, like xenon gases, but are extremely efficient by releasing them very very efficiently (small particles with super high energy charged). So, why bother to be challenged in 'engineering' way, if you can achieve anything by just putting there ION thrusters and NUCLEAR reactor? Realistic engineering game must set hard challenge to build ships/stations, which really works! About other things I mentioned for survival, sorry, I don't have too much time to describe them yet, but I deffinetly have great amount of reasons why those needs to be there, but I am not able to express them here at once in few words, I would take more time (English is not my born language, so it is even harded for me to express this in such way, you would understand what I mean).

But if you are interested, during weekend I can elaborate on this and give you complete report on that. How I imagine this game is: 1) In survival, hard realistic engineering and survival game, you need to 'think' to produce effective systems (ships, bases, engineering machines/robots) to survive and not wasting your time. 2) If you wish to build something. You should 'switch' from 'survival' to 'creative' mode. Something like put 'VR' googles on your HEAD and you can build/design things, which disappears when you remove VR from your head, but now you have 'blueprints' from your creations, and you can build them now in 'survival' block by block.

From what you are writting it seems that your are only 'BUILDER' concentrating only on 'visual design' rather than functional, and your only fun from the game is to build things in CREATIVE and never actually play the game with friends as survival. PS: About nonsese as 'Stargates' or 'Jump drives'. Those should be removed in SURVIVAL games, its pure fantasy, not sci-fi. In probable future, only Warp drive can work, but with unbelievable amout of energy. We should trave few real hours between planets (maybe speed limits should be increased from 100m/s to 10 000m/s). Click to expand. I think there are way more than two kinds of players.

Every person that loads the game has their own reason and a personal goal. What's great about SE is that in most cases it can accommodate everyone. The desire to limit players to two categories comes from the two modes available: creative and survival. I don't see them as two ways to play.

I see them as two means to the same end. Personally, I use creative to see if the stuff I want to make in survival will work. I think the real problem is calling the mode where things have to be built 'realistically' Survival. The way the game is set up, 'surviving' is fairly easy. On Twitch I have watched even the most clueless noobs go from crashing their lander to highly sophisticated planet- and space-based mining and ore processing facilities in a matter of a couple sessions.

If 'surviving' is your goal in SE boredom come way too quickly. It's one of those things that leads to calls for things like Saberoids and Cyberhounds, tiny nerfed refineries and assemblers in order to make 'surviving' more 'difficult'. This leads to making the game based on catastrophe. Scenarios tend to always begin with a crash that has either already happened or you are unable to avoid. There seems to be no other incentive to build anything.

ME does not suffer from this problem. With ME you load the game and start building. When I bought SE my goal was simple: build a spacecraft and Go See What's Out There. After nearly 5000 hours that is still my goal. However, a ship has turned into a 'fleet', and my approach to exploration has become less naive and considerably more focused on finding and extracting minerals, and helping others do the same. If I had just wanted to survive I would have been done with this game years ago. I've never played to survive.

I play to succeed and prosper. Players demanded planets to explore and colonize. Instead we just crash into them and then try to get back off. All of the colonization is taking place in ME. In that game people build communities and talk about trade. In SE we build bases and argue about weapon accuracy. To this day I am not aware of any server that has a planet that has been 'colonized'.

Maybe if they quit calling it survival people would stop thinking that's all you're supposed to do. One thing I dont understand, Is why the player base was complaning about hydrgen power generation.

Every space crift, since the flight 2 Gemini pod, has used hydgren feul cells for electical power, I dont really have a porblem with the smaller reactors my self, I always asumed they where liquide fueled, even if the fuel looks like uraniam fuel pullits, like form a high presher water reacters, in that case they should be larger, but remember we can make our heavy high presher reatchers small enough to fit into a submarine. So I would think the issue would be more one of mass, then one of space. What is point to have sandbox game with extended engineering ship/station building system, if you are not holding to reality, or at least probable future technologies? I mean technologies, which we don't know or don't have today, but at least we have theory how it can be done, that means mathematical calculation are working on the paper with current laws of physics. Mini nuclear reactors or super powered ION thrusters will never work based on any technological concept. Everything returns back to the basic physics like how much weight has atom of hydrogen, and how much potential energy is stored in it'. So if you had even 100% conversion, you will never exceed that amount of energy.

Laws of physics, must be working even for future thrusters and energy source technologies. Well, in reality, even ION thrusters are using propellant, like xenon gases, but are extremely efficient by releasing them very very efficiently (small particles with super high energy charged).

So, why bother to be challenged in 'engineering' way, if you can achieve anything by just putting there ION thrusters and NUCLEAR reactor? Realistic engineering game must set hard challenge to build ships/stations, which really works!

Click to expand. The key word you keep glancing over in the term 'sandbox game' is the word 'game.' Games are supposed to be fun and something you enjoy playing. If a game isn't fun and something you enjoy then why would someone play it? I have several friends of mine that love the Halo series of games and when someone mentions the series they swear up and down about how great the games are.

I personally don't care very much for the Halo games so I don't play them. So to answer your question, the point of a sandbox game with extended engineering that doesn't hold 100% to reality is to have fun. For me personally I don't need 100% adhesion to reality to enjoy the game. If you want the game to be more reality based then more power to you, it simply means we both have different perspectives that we like to see. The mini reactors are there to crank a large chunk of power at a cost. They're expensive to make and it takes alot more of them to equal their larger brother. They're not made to crank the massive amounts of power that their big brothers can, or the massive nuclear reactors that are present on alot of modern aircraft carriers or nuclear subs.

You forget that in game, reactors provide the most power, but are the most expensive power generation unit we have in game. Mass producing them gets expensive quickly. The other thing you keep overlooking is that SE is a sci-fi sandbox game. Sci meaning science and fi meaning fiction, or in other words science fantasy. Fantasy and fiction of course meaning not real. Since this is a science fiction game it can feature as advanced or primitive technology as the devs and us players want it to have. Personally I dabble with an energy shield mod from time to time and also a Stargate mod.

I'm fully aware that we don't have the technology as of yet to create an energy shield like those on Star Trek, or to create an actual Stargate like the ones you see on SG1 or other series from the Stargate franchise. I play with those mods from time to time because I enjoy playing with them. I don't care that we don't have the tech to create them and probably won't in our lifetime.

It doesn't matter to me that we don't have miniature nuclear reactors, Stargates, deflector shields, jump drives, or such tech. It also doesn't matter to me that the ion thrusters we have in game may not work in reality as again, it's a game and the game is meant to have fun with. You can still have engineering challenges even with what we have right now. My largest dreadnought took a little shy of a week to build when I first created it. Not only is it designed to deliver a massive load of firepower, it's also designed to carry a wing of 6 fighters while also supporting them. I also have a starbase that I designed with a friend of mine that's based on a starbase from Star Trek.

It's designed to be a base of operations for my personal fleet and my friend's personal fleet as well. Even with 2 people working together it took us almost 4 weeks to build the thing the first time. Part of what took us so long to build the thing was getting our systems the way we wanted. The base is massive at 173m kilograms and our challenge came in getting the thing to be able to hold an orbit. Somehow I also managed to get the thing to hold a low orbit at 5km up and eventually landed the thing on a planet and take off again.

Point being that was fun for the both of us to do and with what you're proposing we never would've been able to do that. I also have several craft that are purely electrically based in their propulsion. I could have slapped thrusters at just any old angle but that wouldn't do me much good if the thrusters weren't pointed in the right direction to give me enough lift. It took several tries for me to get those electrically based craft into the air. There's a difference between challenging and asinine. I don't find adding difficulty just for the sake of difficulty to be fun in a game like this. The key thing is fun, and my fun comes from designing ships and then taking them into combat against the pirates, while also building my own little space world.

If I wanted 100% realism I would play another game instead of SE. For me the fun is in the fact that it's not 100% realistic and that I can get those extra sci-fi features such as jumping a ship, hearing the fizz of enemy fire dissipating against my shields, or flying through a stargate, either in the base game or through mods. About other things I mentioned for survival, sorry, I don't have too much time to describe them yet, but I deffinetly have great amount of reasons why those needs to be there, but I am not able to express them here at once in few words, I would take more time (English is not my born language, so it is even harded for me to express this in such way, you would understand what I mean). But if you are interested, during weekend I can elaborate on this and give you complete report on that.

How I imagine this game is: 1) In survival, hard realistic engineering and survival game, you need to 'think' to produce effective systems (ships, bases, engineering machines/robots) to survive and not wasting your time. 2) If you wish to build something.

You should 'switch' from 'survival' to 'creative' mode. Something like put 'VR' googles on your HEAD and you can build/design things, which disappears when you remove VR from your head, but now you have 'blueprints' from your creations, and you can build them now in 'survival' block by block.

From what you are writting it seems that your are only 'BUILDER' concentrating only on 'visual design' rather than functional, and your only fun from the game is to build things in CREATIVE and never actually play the game with friends as survival. PS: About nonsese as 'Stargates' or 'Jump drives'. Those should be removed in SURVIVAL games, its pure fantasy, not sci-fi. In probable future, only Warp drive can work, but with unbelievable amout of energy. We should trave few real hours between planets (maybe speed limits should be increased from 100m/s to 10 000m/s). Click to expand. I look forward to hearing this elaboration as so far I remain unconvinced.

As for your english, you speak it better than alot of native speakers I've known all my life. I imagine the game as being able to load it up and start constructing a space ship that is my own. I can pick up a welder and some components and start welding away until I have a ship that will do whatever I want it to do. As far as builds go I build them in creative mode because I'm cheap and don't want to spend all my components and then have something not work. The ships themselves however are built with survival mode in mind. Samsung Touch Screen Driver Mac on this page. In every upload I every do I make clear to folks they are welcome to contact me if/when an issue with the ship(s) arise.

Using fighters as one example, I test them for maneuverability, and also survivability before I actually upload them. Unless it's an atmospheric only fighter I also test them to see if they can break orbit on their own. If they're not able to break orbit then I don't upload them either. As another pointed out to you in another post, I must agree that you can't really lump everyone into just purely 'builder' and 'survival' categories. I enjoy the build for sure, but I also enjoy the survival portion as well. I don't play survival mode as much as I have in the past due to some of the hydrogen bugs but I'm one of those people that actually plays both survival and creative mode.

I've played with a few trusted friends in survival and also in creative mode. Keeping that in mind, I'm simply one of those people that doesn't need 100% realism to have fun with the game. In fact I would find 100% realism to be extremely boring and if they implemented your suggestions I would probably quit the game as a result. From everything said I see them sucking the fun out of it for me.

As for Stargates and Jump Drives, stargates are only available through mods. Jump Drives you can also consider to be very short range warp engines.

They can only store enough energy to 'jump' or 'warp' so far before they must recharge again. Jump Drives were added to allow us to access other heavenly bodies in a reasonable amount of time.

As for travel time, when it comes to taking a few real hours to reach another planet, HECK NO. Again I would not find that fun and if it honestly took that long I would never leave my home planet.

Sorry but that would just be asinine. As for Stargates and Jump Drives being pure fantasy, again that's the point of a science FICTION game. It's not real and it is fantasy. Again the technology can be as primitive or advanced as you want. If I wanted to for my personal game play I could explain that the game takes place in an alternate reality or parallel universe where the Dark Ages didn't happen and technology kept progressing. I could explain the Jump Drive and the small reactors as a result of the Dark Ages having never happened. The gameplay and such is what you make of it and for me I would not find what you're suggesting to be fun.

Since the game itself is fiction and not real, there's no reason why the Jump Drive and small reactors can't exist as part of that fantasy world save for one's willingness to accept them. Click to expand. My concern would be that the generator will be pointless. Uranium is so easy to find and so plentiful that I can't imagine building a generator on anything but a custom world where uranium was essentially removed.

Not only that but even with a small miner you can get enough uranium to last for ages in a single trip. How many trips would it take to get the same amount of power with ice?

The worst case scenario I can see is that in any scenario that starts you off with a generator the first thing people do is build a reactor because the generator takes too many ice mining trips to keep running while a reactor is easy to build and fuel. Essentially what I want to say is we already have very easy power with reactors. For the generator to have a reason to exist either the generator will have to be amazingly good or reactors will need to be more difficult to use than they currently are. Click to expand. My concern would be that the generator will be pointless.

Uranium is so easy to find and so plentiful that I can't imagine building a generator on anything but a custom world where uranium was essentially removed. Not only that but even with a small miner you can get enough uranium to last for ages in a single trip. How many trips would it take to get the same amount of power with ice? The worst case scenario I can see is that in any scenario that starts you off with a generator the first thing people do is build a reactor because the generator takes too many ice mining trips to keep running while a reactor is easy to build and fuel.

Essentially what I want to say is we already have very easy power with reactors. For the generator to have a reason to exist either the generator will have to be amazingly good or reactors will need to be more difficult to use than they currently are. Just want to make it clear. I have absolutely nothing to complain about the hydrogen fuel cell itself. What I don't want to see in SE is a blatant disrespect to a fundamental law of thermodynamic. The generator must not produce more energy than what have been used to produce it's fuel.

The ice consumption mode that has been teased here appear to be a direct insult toward any form of realism and feels like a pure fantasy. If this ice mode get implemented, I would feel embarrassed when my friends would ask me 'why are you shoveling ice cubes in that huge diesel engine?' And the only thing I could answer would be 'well. Because it's a troll engine.'

I hope there was some misunderstanding. That maybe this ice mode is not what it suggest and ratter maybe a cheap electrolysis mode consuming power to split H2 and O for later usages. This would overlap with the oxygen generator's purpose but at least it would be acceptable.