Dont tweak it.. make it dynamic in proportion to how much volume are being used.. if empty any configuration wether 8k or 320k (for base/cv) should draw 1pu to keep the lcd-screen on.. then the powerdraw should increase in relation with how much volume is being stores.. Just as a easy example: consume 1 extra pu pr 8k volume. PS! None the less.. very happy you recogniced and is adressing this issue
For now the system can be gamed to safe energy by docking a storage SV/HV to BA/CV and then turning SV/HV off. Thru logistics menu it is nontheless accessible and items can be transfered to BA/CV for processing...
Along similar lines I was considering moth balling my starter CV and then using it as my bases storage. Strip out all the thrusters/genies/RCS/cockpit/etc. to use on next CV and just build a shed over the stripped hulk, heh. --- though I don't expect that un-powered BA/CV storage will continue to be connectable much longer, I do think the Player will always have to be able to 'use' any BA/CV/SV/HV unpowered storage. If only to access their stored Fuel Cells to power something up.
My only issue with the weight and volume at this point is the volume doesnt come close to the weight/mass. I mean the amount of weight that can be put into a single block is absurd. If the volume was more appropriate it wouldnt be so easy to overload a small ship. Different materials will very obviously but a single block shouldnt hold more that a ton of the most dence cargo.
Just idle vs active is sufficient. Like the constructor do now. Active only while moving materials around. And im good the transfer times just like the constructor.
Actually, not really. At 7.8 kg/L, a solid block of iron the size of an SV/HV block (0.5m on a side, 125 L volume) would have a mass of 975 kg; a solid iron CV/BA block would be 62.4 tons (solid copper, at 9kg/L would be more massive, and solid sathium at ~18 kg/L (assuming a tungsten analog) would be 2.25 tons and 144 tons for SV/HV and CV/BA blocks respectively). The only blocks that actually come close to solid density are the CV RCS blocks.
Interesting, but it just seems like its too easy to overload a CV, but the HV is probably about right. Basically, i think my new ships are gonna be much smaller. I mean 6 cubes is plenty of storage for me. The hangar bay is the biggest area now. Except maybe the growboxes.
If your CV is overloaded, you probably aren't using big enough thrusters; with the current settings, one XL thruster is capable of lifting itself plus 80 kt in a 1g environment (0.1 m/s^2 acceleration, but still technically lifting), for example. In my recent builds, I tend to aim to carry between 4 and 6 times the dry mass of the ship, with enough storage volume that the cargo mass could be carried as 5 kg/L iron ore. Incidentally, 80 kt of iron ore would require a volume of 16 million L; that's 50 maxed storage arrays (of 40 blocks each) or 2000 cargo containers in total.
2000 old cargo containers? Now thats about right, but the new extesions, arrays? Is that what we are calling them. 50 is 5 rows of 10, its the size of the floor of my hangar! Not to mention the old containers where 1x2 so twice the size. Noone ever put 2000 containers on 1 ship, speaking of us mere mortals anyway
I guess you can add at least one zero to the number. I think it makes things really interesting to need capable logistics for moving heavy stuff, even if it is just fetching some tons of water from the water extractor. I think i will try the new system in my next run.
Oh, no, I mean the new 8000L cargo extensions; 2000 of them is quite a few (equivalent size of 10x20x10) for a small ship, but consider how much volume your hangar has and how much it would store if you filled it with cargo containers. If your hangar is 4 blocks tall inside, then that's 200 cargo extensions, or 1.6 million L (8 kt if filled with iron ore). And remember that as the dimensions of your ship increase, the volume increases by that factor cubed. So, double the dimensions of your hangar, and you can squeeze in 1600 containers . The reason it was difficult to use large amounts of storage in the past is because every container had to be accessed individually. Now it's just a matter of adding more cargo extensions to a cargo controller.
CV: Almost ever since I started playing online (Alpha 7) - aka - build my second CV after my first online Hours, I aimed for at least 3g capable. Later when I had started the Vertigo Cluster (high gravity System), I aimed for 4-6G as well. So many ppl told me: it's OP, too much.. imagine all the power need.... Now.. we NEED even more thrust (if you want to carry something more than just the bare Minimum). Basicly you Need to decide what you want. At least we dont have CPU 'in place' right now, so that helps. I've been told to test the capablities with Promethium ore, figured, I rather use CS blocks L. They're heavier, and take alot less Slots to spread accross boxes, and they give me a REAL indication of wether or not one could build a CV with all the Cargo boxes full, or not. For example: My Zyrion A9 has 16x 16k Cargo boxes, thats 256k SU. That is 16x 266 blocks or about 4200 CS blocks L in total. The Zyrion itself is built by 4700 blocks (not sure if that number includes t3 fuel tanks and decor-plants?). Ergo: Hardly possible to build another (same) CV out of the Cargo despite the Cargo is as heavy as the ship. True, with that ship I could probably load 2 more times the same Cargo (so 3x 4200 blocks) and still be able to lift off 1.5, but it dont have the room for all those CE's. Anyway… Your main Job is to find a balance of Cargo volume you Need, and room on the CV you're willing to spend on that, while there is the ever-ongoing-balance-fight for CV-size(meters/blocks)-thruster Count balance. The more thrusters you have, the more weight you have to lift, the bigger the thrusters are (valid for CV only!) the more effective they are -> if the ship size (again: meters/blocks) is matching the thruster size. Basic examples: (my bias) It makes no sense to use S or M or even L thrusters for a CV with a length of more than 300m. It makes no sense to use L or XL thrusters for a CV with a length of less than 80m. If you want a Cargo ship as by my defnition and the Image above, you'll end up with something like 16x 40blocks at the purest Minium (1CC + 39x CE's) - for which you need at least an area of 15x15 blocks, while looking utterly ugly…. Mind you, that would be a - not really, but almost - a very cube only to store Cargo, Nothing else -> 30x30 meters. Some (very few) lvl 20-25 CV's of mine are smaller than that. Then again, THIS is the reason I like big builds. It gives a "better" Sci-Fi Feeling, and it's more practical - in a Cargo storage sense. But in the end, you need practice, or do alot of math. I have the practive to buld ships that they defy 3-6G 'by default'... Now.. some of them cant lift off , so I WOULD need to do math as well - I just reduced it to count CS blocks Long Story short: I think what most ppl have an issue with is that while they buidl the CV they not only Need to place thrusters big enoug in Advance, but also Need to ingore the 600-1800m/s2 thrust (About size class 4-15)they provide on the unbuilt/unfinished CV (done about 15-25% of hull/interior-skelet/draft, no device (fuel tank, Generator, etc) at all)... Example: I had started a faction super carrier, 8 entries of each 2x 14x7 Hangar doors, a 150m Long production are with 16 constructors and 20x 320k containers. While I was working at the skelleton of the CV, it had round about 30'000m/s2 thrust to the bottom. (yes, 30k m/s2!!) When I disbanded the ship, less than 50% of interior, not even 5% of hull done, it was down to 100m/s2. Then I started to think About M/V... -> RIP
