http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1303115139 Here you go, have fun terrorizing the Zirax with it.
I failed to read the line about the SV size requirements until after I had the CV (mostly) fleshed out. So it's a failure on my part.
I finally did it. Published the first 3 alien stations, which are hopefully used for POIs and a more alien-like-rpg-experience. The Defensiv Satellite The Shipyard And the Accelerator Check it out if u want http://steamcommunity.com/workshop/filedetails/?id=1303816922 Sadly i left it all blank (without weapons, without NPCs), because i never know the real use of it... for example: Can the persons computer handle 20+ cannons? Which npc do you want to spawn? Maybe i change this in the future but there are actually more alien projekts iam on right now. Easy to copy but the interior is a mess and must be made completly new....i pressent the Alien-Dimensiongate (for persons, not ships) Also maybe a smaller type of a defensiv or repair satellite
So I have a series of Frost HV's. I am currently working on the 4th generation of it and am calling it Frost-X. Still working on it but exterior is getting to a place that I feel like working on the interior now. (from left to right: Frost - Frost-2 - Frost-3 - Frost-X)
Tonight, I studied RCS a bit. Spoiler: Initial RCS testing The initial getup I tried to put together was based on something else I had seen online that supposedly helped one understand the impact of RCS. My problem is that I was watching the roll, pitch and yaw as I was putting the project together and as I watched those stats change I got the gut feeling that I really ought to simplify. Instead of a fancy getup, I built a number of small, very basic blueprints that I could then alter to test the effects of those specific changes. The following was done with the HV blocks and RCS. Test 1 was testing the placement of the RCS. The RCS has a mass of 250. By using the artificial mass block set to 250, I could ensure that moving the RCS would not change the arrangement of the mass. The only thing that should have been changing is where the RCS was. I made sure I only had one RCS on the contraption at any time. The roll, pitch and yaw where the same no matter which artificial mass block I replaced with a RCS. So position of the RCS did not seem to be a factor. Test 2 was to see if changing the core location had an impact, just to be sure. Again, an artificial mass block was used to match the weight of what I was moving to narrow down any variables I might be dealing with. Roll, pitch and yaw were constant whether the core was at the bottom or top of the rig. Test 3 was to see if proximity to the core had any impact. I moved the RCS near and away, swapping with the matching artificial mass to make sure it was just proximity to the core of the RCS I was observing. Of course, I made sure that the extensions off the core never varied in length, that would be a later test. There was no change based on the proximity of the RCS versus the artificial mass. Test 4 was to move onto something that was sure to have an impact. I used the rig from test 3 and simply replaced all the artificial mass blocks with heavier variants. As expected, the heavier the total mass, the more the roll, pitch and yaw dropped. Test 5 was a little more challenging to put together. My first run at hit a snag because the mass of the blueprint was changing along with changes to dimensions. The smaller blocks are not exactly half the mass of the full blocks. So it was back to the artificial mass block. Other than my tiny blueprints, I think this is the most I have used the artificial mass block. While keeping a constant 7.80 t, I would replace the heavier blocks with combinations of the lighter blocks to equal the same weight while extending the width, height and/or depth. Here's what I learned: 1. It didn't matter if you added width to just one side or split it symmetrically, the end result was the same. 2 + 2 for the sides is the same as just adding 4 to the width on one side only. After this quick lesson, it seemed a safe guess that this should apply on the other axis. 2. Adding width reduced roll and yaw. 3. Adding depth reduced pitch and yaw. 4. Adding height reduced roll and pitch. 5. Mixing these would produce even lower numbers where their influence overlapped, and no impact on whatever neither increase had impact independently. Perhaps there is something I overlooked in this study of RCS. I was hoping to find some trick to reduce the RCS I need on some of my future builds, or an easy way to make my current builds perform better. But it looks like the answer is what I thought it was all along, lighter and smaller if I want something to spin like a top. Otherwise, start counting up the RCS and add a few more. Though I was certain that I saw some builds heavier than mine and yet turning better with fewer RCS. Makes me think I still missed something, either that or I am reading in better stats than there is present on those blueprints.
Yay! More experiments being done to drill down into exactly how some systems are working I love that you're doing this. I'd suggest, since your goal is to potentially reduce RCS usage, maybe testing thruster loadouts? I found while working on Jenniphurr's SV challenge that moving my 2 top thrusters (at the time they were both smalls) from a nose-and-tail configuration to a side-by-side configuration halfway down the length of the ship changed my pitch stat noticeably. I ultimately went with them both somewhere between the middle and rear, which ended up giving a result somewhere between the other two configurations. I didn't really check whether moving them out widthwise would similarly impact roll, but it wouldn't surprise me. It seemed to me that having a longer distance from the center of the ship gave a stronger impact on the pitch in this case, though. At least in the case that the ship's overall length remains unchanged. I took note of it and considered maybe doing something with that, but got distracted by other things. Since you've already got a setup for checking this stuff, maybe you'd like to look at that
Thrust also affects effective turn speed. Just look at some huge CVs that have something like 0.2°/s² pitch and yaw and still turn at a decent rate due to a bazillion thrusters.
Ship overall dimensions affect greatly pitch/yaw/roll - as does overall weight. But not thruster placement, weight distribution or the amount of thrust. But if someone is willing to do some more Empyrion science and prove me wrong - Im really interested to read about the testing & checking out the results
That's probably why the T4 Phantom 229 turns like a brick, because of just how wide it is. You learn something new every day.
While building a SV and at last to put in a door on the back, it was very difficult to jump in. Seems that the (male) character have gotten as tall as 3 small blocks in patch 0.7.6 ! Even without a door jumping in have been even more difficult. Also tried a 3x3 shutter door, but the "top" part of the shutter door have been enlarged, almost take up half a block, so bounce the head against it. Sideways is an option ...
I love your CV. Wonderful work! Beautifully done! Kieve could learn a thing or two from you; stop making progressively more challenging stuff and just have a good time building sweet ****. You continue to awe as always Madame.
I stumbled upon this. ... Seems like a very early concept about how Eleon GS did vision Empyrion's galaxy would be. FFW some years ahead and still we have a single solar system. This gave me an idea to propose an idea. Since we are expecting an editor for easy creation of planets, I foresee that we will see many of them on workshop, like we do now for various CV/BA/SV/HVs. Can we make our own galaxies by connecting scenarios of various single solar systems, together?
I cannot prove you wrong. Looks like you may be right, after controlling for other variables. After doing some more testing rigs, it seems like when I move thrusters I am probably changing other variables as well without paying attention to those details, such as total mass. Because when I move a thruster I may not be using the same mass of blocks to replace what else I may have moved around to accommodate the alteration. Spoiler: Testing and data collected Here's my additional testing. Test 6 was to make sure the placement of mass relative of the RCS was not a factor. So I kept the basic rig light and used the heavier artificial mass blocks to move my mass. I made sure not to change the total mass, width or depth. Roll, pitch and yaw remain the same whether the mass is near or far. Even putting all the mass along just one of the branches had no impact on the numbers. Test 7 was a bit more challenging to put together. None of the thrusters equal the mass of any combination of artificial mass blocks. I could replace a generator with two mass blocks to keep that variable constant. So I did two test rigs for test 7. There was a difference between rig A and B, but that appears to be from the total mass change as I have already observed the impact of total mass. Rig A was done up with Thruster S while rig B used Thruster Enclosed M. Since no artificial mass blocks could be used for easy substitutions, I did the rigs and shut off the thrusters from the control panel to do some of my testing. And to be more thorough, I even move the thrusters, making sure I replaced the blocks moved one for one, keeping the mass as well as the width and depth constant. I even did tests with and without generators, with power on and power off. Other than the change in mass from rig A to rig B, there was no change whether I had power, turned power on or off, moved the thrusters, or turned thrusters on or off. So with efforts to control the other variables, there appeared to be no change simply by changing the thrust arrangement of the rig. Here's my meager data from all my testing. And yes, I realize that the RCS was overdone for most of these light rigs. I wanted any changes in the stats to be easily observed. All mass, roll, pitch and yaw numbers are off the control panel statistics. Width, height and depth are actual block counts. LR = left & right Test 7 exceeds my limit? See next post.
Spoiler: More RCS testing I opted to throw in a bonus for Test 7, what if the thrusters represented less of the total mass? So I did up rig C by spawning rig A and adding several heavy artificial mass blocks. Since originally there was no difference with or without power, I just skipped ahead and put the generator in there and powered it up. And the findings are consistent with prior experiments.
Thank you for the information. It is heartening to see scientific process holding Some sway in today's world. Even if it is applied to entertainment..... Now if we could get people in charge Everywhere to do the same it would be a 'I see skies of blue and clouds of white. The bright blessed day, the dark sacred night' kinda world. However, there is way too much focus set on 'Self' and 'us vs them' for that to happen anytime soon. I had come to a casual observational hypothesis much the same as yours. However, you did proper testing, and that I am Profoundly grateful for. One question though boss... Did you check to see if rotational orientation of the RCS had any effect? there is a top and a bottom to the unit and definitive sides. It would be nice to eliminate that particular question, for me. The reason I ask is if you have ever done the 'hold this spinning bicycle tire with handles in a pivoting office chair' HS Science demonstration of Centrifugal force vs Centripetal force. The resistance to movement is different in different orientations. Rcs are, ostensibly, Gyroscopes. Also boss. Spoiler tabs are Great for not spamming the topic. I'm not too butthurt because of the good info. But it is Unseemly.
Was just trying to finish up a build (more on that another day, maybe in the next few) but I ran into an issue of missing blockshapes again. Can we get either of these some day? Both half walls.
