I seriously hope, before the 7500 CPU limitation gets fully realized in game (meaning that you CAN'T exceed that limit or the ship won't fly) we will be able to tweak that limit in the game options to a value everyone finds satisfying individualy in his/her game. (and server adminins, of course) I have written this before somewhere, but i find the 7500 CPU limitation on a CV way too small. I've been trying to equip my latest ship (that one: https://empyriononline.com/threads/what-did-you-do-in-empyrion-today.2826/page-792#post-289826 ) to be in accord with the limitation and it ended up as being extremely slow and underarmed, altough it is not a big ship by any means. Don't get me wrong i'm not against the CPU system in general, but i think it needs to be refined so CVs get a lot more CPU. Or a way to extend that limit. I think that would be the best sollution by far. for example each of these devices could extend the CPU limit by 500 each but draw 1000kPU (whatever kPU means). So you couldn't just increase the CPU limit to infinity, but had also to add generators and fuel. (This would work much better if we finally had decent reactors, of course.)
Without knowing what CPU is supposed to do for the game, I have no clue if 7500 CPU is enough or not. All I can do is put together examples of various BP and post them here as data points. It is why I started this off with the 60 kiloton capital vessel. A CV capable of operating in 2.0 g and thick atmosphere with 32 CV weapons on its hull--a possible loophole in the initial rough draft of CPU. It was the biggest, baddest "completed" CV I had in my collection so far. And so it was my first example. I still have many examples I would like to see and/or add to this thread. Data points for evaluating CPU with. It takes me a long time to finish most of my BP, which is why I have been mostly focusing on converting stuff I already did. This also gives me some before and after perspective on CPU. For example, it isn't the performance of my heavy tank that scares me. Rather, it is actually the interior design of the HV that has me hesitant to complete the conversion to 7500 CPU. I knew it was going to take a brutal hit in performance to get it under 7500 CPU. I shed my tears and got over that. I figure we need an example of heavy tank as another data point in our understanding of CPU. The problem is that some of the tricks used to compensate for the awful handling included changing the location of the hover engines. To keep my airtight interior, this led to changes in the central cabin that I am having trouble accepting. What I can tell you is that as terrible as the CPU limit hit my heavy HV, there was at least one interesting lesson here. I tend to favor the M thruster for HV as the numbers for me never justified the HV jets. But the current CPU values on thrusters actually had me convert what thrusters I could keep on my heavy tank to the HV jets. The performance still drops, but I was able to save CPU and thus preserve at least something with the 7500 CPU limit. In the process of converting my BP, I also realized that I made a mistake and not all thrusters are 100 CPU each. HV M thrusters = 150 CPU. This is why I actually started using HV jets at 100 CPU each. CV S thrusters = 50 CPU. Doesn't change the balance really. You'll still save going with M thrusters, just a small saving though. SV S thrusters = 50 CPU. This actually gives more love to the S thruster. I am a long ways off from converting my starting SV that were over the 7500 CPU limit--two of my SV without any cobalt or sathium were way over--but I have already tested this out and the S thruster really feels the love here with CPU. You can actually save CPU using S thrusters instead of M for your SV builds. I figure that part is a given. Last I checked there already is a line to turn CPU limits on or off in the yaml, but I don't think that yaml setting does anything yet. To be honest, I haven't gotten far enough in my survival game to test that out. Probably because I have been spending most of my time in creative playing around with CPU on many of my other BP.
if the CPU limit gets put in and its under even 10k, it kills all my builds, thus killing the game for me, how about they take out the CPU limit and optimize the game no?
It's not going to be a static limit, so you'll be able to add CPU at the cost of mass, volume, and power. To put it another way, if the devs do make it a static limit for some stupid reason, I'll be right there with everyone else complaining about it, especially given my past proposal on the subject.
I do appreciate the other examples shared here by other players. Especially by those who state that 7500 CPU is not enough and still place one or more examples anyways. I respect that.
In addition to here, I have also been observing the workshop a bit. Here are a few that have interested me lately. Examples of what others accomplished with 7500 CPU or less. Base: BaseProtoV2 by @Semp Containers: 1,840k SU CPU: 7500 Mass: 6.02 kt Dimensions: 54x70x16m It is the container capacity that interest me regarding this base. I think it gives greater context to the 7500 CPU to have more than one example. Yes, that is 1.84 million SU. --------------------------------------- Small Vessel: Merc-AME by @jrandall Containers: 7k SU CPU: 7500 Mass: 49.6 t Dimensions: 11.5x14x4.5m Now my experience with the auto-miners is a bit limited. I tend to favor HV mining myself. If I understand how much storage you might need, then I gather this SV may be a bit inadequate. However, I do think the SV still makes for a great example of what can be accomplished with 7500 CPU. With 4 rocket and 4 gatling, this has a lot more going for it than the 7,000 SU. --------------------------------------- Hover Vehicle: Omicron Cargo by @CrazyZ Containers: 13.5k SU CPU: 7500 Mass: 27.1 t Dimensions: 6x18x4.5m Although this HV is meant for a rail system, not only does it hold more than my Chick HV, it actually looks nice and is better armed. A superior HV cargo transport implementation for 7500 CPU. It can operate without the rail. I did take it for a little spin after all, though some of the handling made it clear that it wasn't really built to be running off the tracks.
Now I also found something interesting. With the change to volume and mass, the CPU limit can be brutal, limiting the capacity of our bases and CV. It isn't just the limit of how many CE can be added to a CC. Each CE and CC costs 50 CPU each, so you can run up to 7500 CPU from storage. So it isn't just thrusters and RCS that can eat up CPU in a build. This is where these next two BP that caught my attention get interesting. In the recent past, when SV/HV cargo boxes held just as much as their base counterparts, some of us would build SV/HV storage solutions to use with our bases and capital vessels, allowing us to store a lot more in a smaller space. While that SV/HV solution is no longer powerful as it once was, @Semp seems to have taken that mechanic to a whole new scale to get around the CPU limit. Instead of HV/SV container vessels, it is the capital vessel that you are squeezing into fitted spaces on a base to create far more capacity than the base alone can do within the CPU limit. Production Facility Containers: 752k SU CPU: 6880 Mass: 12.3 kt Dimensions: 88x124x14m This base includes 5 openings to drop in the CV modules. Now to pull off dropping in the constructor module, I had to rig up some guides atop the base to align the CV. But once I had a guide, I was able to pilot the CV into place. My other concern is that the base needs a really flat space. But the concept is solid. CV-Constructor-Module Containers: 640k SU CPU: 5000 Mass: 1.01kt Dimensions: 6x24x8m Now there was also a container module, but I couldn't get this to park in the spaces provided. Not sure if this is a flaw in the user (me) or in the implementation of the concept. Still, the concept is very interesting. I really wish I could have fit the container CV. I tried to spawning the CV in place, but that was a fail too. At least I succeeded in getting the constructor module in place, proof that at least the concept is solid. Now if we just had something like CV to CV docking, then this would be extremely interesting. But other than players begging for CV to CV docking, I don't think I have seen any clue that we will ever get CV docking. CV don't even dock to bases as things stand. But hey, I didn't need to dock the CV to park it there on something as immobile as a base.
Well - some of the CPU settings are not logical. The HV has 7500 CPU Max and must use Hover Pads, Weapons Towers, Thrusters, RCS,
Well, I finished converting another of my BP, the Reverence, to 7500 CPU. This one actually got better with the conversion as it forced me away from the pattern I was using before the challenge of the CPU limit. Before: 12,550 CPU After: 7,500 CPU Like many of my BP exceeding 7500 CPU, the culprit was the number of thrusters. Part of my challenge here is that the whole idea of this SV was to have twelve thruster pods. Well, I dropped the idea of pods encasing thrusters and went with twelve XL jets for forward and reverse thrust. Thus giving the vessel actually a greater degree of raw acceleration forward and back. Granted, I had to then move side, up and down thrust into the central body of the SV. Containers: 2,000 SU Size Class: 1.16 Mass: 95.7 t Dimensions: 16.5x14.5x6.5m To pull off the 2000 SU, I had to go with the medium cargo boxes, so that is 8 boxes with 250 SU each, but since they only cost 50 CPU each that saves me some CPU after so much was spent on thrusters, generators, fuel tanks and 12 weapons. Oh, yeah, and two ammo containers with 500 SU each. Pushing over 100 m/s^2 in acceleration. Now like a few of my other quick conversions of old BP, I updated the existing workshop entry and didn't bother finishing the texturing and painting of the BP. There are a few more of these I feel I need to get to, if only I can stay focused long enough.
There were a few more on the workshop that caught my eye. After trying some out, I cut those down to three. It is interesting how many BP can function in 2.0 g or greater, but as you watch the redlining it becomes quite apparent they were built on the temperate starting world. Many of my own works have suffered from this problem. So when I took a BP out for a test spin in my custom scenario, I realized that it was redlining terribly. So I hopped a warp jump over to a world with 1.0 g and 1.0 kg/m^3 atmosphere, similar to the temperate starter and that BP was redlining even there. That cut one BP from any further consideration. A couple were cut for being impractical away from the flat surface of a base landing pad. I cut a CV for lack of practical entrance for the player. Was it possible? Yes. Practical? Not really. And I tried out two mining HV, only one made the cut. Glad I tried mining with both of those, because the one had the appearance of being a great mining HV but in practice it was horrible. So here are the three samples of 7500 CPU or less I found that I liked from the workshop recently. Capital Vessel: Excursion by @Semp Containers: 628,250 SU CPU: 6630 Mass: 10.9 kt Dimensions: 46x78x20m Now if you get too close to some of the stuff like generators, you will get roasted. But there was plenty of space and no need to wander that close. Considering some of the signal work in there, I was surprised the ramp for the forward entrance did not activate with a motion sensor too. Seems like I find a lot of Semp's work for 7500 CPU of interest. --------------------------------------- Small Vessel: Bastion K10 (SV) by @Bonedog Container: 10,125 SU CPU: 7500 Mass: 34.1 t Dimensions: 23.5x9.5x3.5m This has a lot more SV to it actually than my own variant. The Bastion K10 might also be a flying cargo container, but this includes more ammo capacity, a second gun, and even a warp drive. You can do far more with this one that you could mine. And this one actually looks far superior. --------------------------------------- Hover Vehicle: Scarab-HRC by @jrandall Container: 7,000 SU Harvest: 2,625 SU CPU: 7400 Mass: 35.9 t Dimensions: 6.5x7x4.5m Of the two mining HV I looked at tonight, the other one had better numbers but worse performance. It was almost as if the other creator had read about some tricks and the numbers for mining but never actually done any HV mining. The Scarab-HRC actually did well enough in my basic test. With how well this HV worked, you might think jrandall has actually used a mining HV. As a bonus, there is even a cloning chamber.
And my ERA-C Avaliereo (Cavaliereo): * CV, class 15 / 134m * 198m * 48m * uses 7500/7500 CPU * offers 51 Cargo boxes (of which most have only 8-16k SU) * 8 Constructors * 28 weapons in total https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1621535332
I feel embarrassed. I have that CV faved and I forgot to make sure it was included here. I love that you listed the proposed upgrades that would take the CV over 7500 CPU.
As a matter of fact, I thought you had it quoted somewhere, and that I re-quoted it in parts… But I couldnt find that..
I am sure as I share stuff here that details will get past me. However, today, I was disappointed with a couple blueprints I tried. Two really cool CV that were 7500 CPU or less from the workshop. I was walking through one and I saw a ventilator surrounded by airtight blocks. That little voice in my head said, "Please don't let them think that ventilator actually is getting oxygen into this room." But a quick check verified growing plots without O2. The other CV had me roasting in a few spots without warning. Narrow passages, so it wasn't like I could avoid it either. Unmarked and unavoidable. And that second CV was so beautiful. Plus there was this beautiful SV, sweet thing, however with 8 rocket launchers.... I checked and it still says a limit of 4 for the device. Now I think the SV below is sweet, but it would have been nice to say I found two instead of one. Small Vessel: Merc-MX9 by @jrandall Container: 1500 SU CPU: 7100 Mass: 78.1 t Dimensions: 13.5x14.5x4.5m They left 400 CPU for additional weapons. With 1500 SU ammo capacity and 21 m/s^2 minimum acceleration, this SV looks like it should put in a good PVE punch. --------------------------------------- Hover Vehicle: Icarus by @Semp Containers: 5750 SU Harvest: 4000 SU CPU: 7500 Mass: 32.8 t Dimensions: 5.5x11.5x4m I would recommend parking this on the ground. Now it was possible to get back into the cockpit from the ground even at 3 meter hover, but I had to find just the right spot to stand.
While I intend to keep converting my collection to 7500 CPU, I need a break from creative. And while the Swallow SV fits my needs for survival, reality is that the Hawkers have been my personal favorites for starting SV. The Red Hawker was the heavier of my two heavy and expensive SV for their purpose, but I loved it. However, being some of the largest SV I have seen without a single ingot of cobalt, it should be no surprise that both my Hawkers were far over 7500 CPU. They were flying engines, large numbers of M thrusters. Before: 18,400 CPU After: 7,500 CPU The S thrusters have been superior to the M thrusters for some time. Now, I didn’t know this when I first started building my starting SV. After I learned this fact, I still chose to keep the M thrusters on the Hawkers. Two reasons. One, the S thrusters didn’t come with a sloped version. Two, on vessels so big and heavy, the benefit was not as outstanding immediately. The sheer scale and weight of the SV were becoming a factor in itself. Well, as one of the few thrusters less than 100 CPU, the S thrusters actually became a way to save CPU as well. So it was time to take the plunge and try and find a way to get around the lack of sloped S thrusters. Containers: 2,750 SU Size Class: 0.95 Mass: 46 t Dimensions: 12x12x4.5m The new version is 2 meters shorter, half the cost, and under half the mass of the original.
Best way to save CPU is to only really include what you actually need and not go overboard putting 5 of every item. Some of the blueprints on the workshop are insane with the excess they have and the absolute enormity and scale its beyond excessive. It's cool, but it isn't really practical. Focus on practical and minimalism and you will do well in the times to come. The big beautiful ship era isn't necessarily over, that can still be had in creative and on special servers, but for the most part it is definitely changing and for the better (less server fires! haha).
Are you saying my 60 kiloton Star Cruiser is not beautiful? Well, other than I didn't finish the paint job and totally skipped the textures.... Still, I will kindly disagree. It just may not look like the big and beautiful ships we have enjoyed thus far. And yet there are a few beautiful capital vessels created by other players at or below 7500 CPU that I have managed to find, so I am not sure even that is entirely correct. Maybe there will be those big beauties we have come to enjoy, just built a little differently.
I have a CV that I think you would enjoy. It is interesting and unique, but I haven't released it yet. Maybe I will on the CV thread for EGS. Built for a9 with volume enabled. It isn't gigantic, but it has everything you need (for a lone wolf, at the least). check this out: Azerikyo
Looks like CPU is getting some tuning in alpha 9.4. Initially, it looks like everything at or below 7500 CPU will remain under 7500 CPU. I haven't checked all the numbers, but nothing I have looked at in the experimental branch went up in CPU. So we should be good that way. There are two good things with this. First, I am lazy. So everything I worked on prior to these might have room for tuning, but there is no need to adjust them. So I will leave the prior posts untouched. Just keep in mind that not all those numbers from before will be the same anymore. I knew this was going to happen at least once, probably several times most likely. Second, none of the changes seem to be radical. Yes, there is a lot of changes and the impact overall is meaningful, but one of my 7500 CPU starfighters is still 7500 CPU, and another one was still relatively close to what it was originally. As I said, I haven't checked everything out. So while there are changes to CPU that improve the balance, the changes are not that radical. This could mean what we have learned dealing with CPU already will be very applicable to what to expect in the future. The biggest impact was to HV, but that wasn't CPU so much as it was in the balance and stats of the HV thrusters themselves. Fewer thrusters created the same results, so CPU spent on thrusters could be saved and spent elsewhere.
