Did a quick and dirty test in a new vanilla creative game, and while reduced, the problem is still there. Used my Far Trader build that I've posted screenshots of in other threads, it has 2x each rear and fwd large thrusters. When I replaced each large with 2 mediums, the ship still had a top speed of 100m/s, but took something like twice as long to get there. Perfect, this is how it should be. Less thrust = longer acceleration to achieve speed When I cut it to 1 replacement medium for each large, top speed dropped to 67m/s. This is the problem. The top speed should still be 100m/s, but it should take twice as long to get there with 2 med thrusters as it does with 4 mediums. Or 4x longer than with 2 large Note these are space values. Whether the smaller thrusters can generate enough thrust to counter gravity for liftoff is completely different. Atmospheric drag and gravity are going to reduce top speed (as well as the hardware burden of rendering the surface)
Regardless of the size of the ship, the max speed in space should always be the same (physics engine processing speed, probably). A megalith 10k block star destroyer with a single small thruster should be able to eventually reach 100m/s ingame. This even has a basis IRL / in Kerbal Space Program, with Ion Propulsion (nasa link) (wikipedia link) (KSP link). Very efficient, very low thrust, very high ISP (thrust:fuel efficiency). In KSP, an ion thruster with sufficient fuel (and time) will eventually get even a large ship somewhere else.
The key word here is eventually. Those of us arguing for a more physics-based model are not suggesting that a massive CV be highly maneuverable- only that in space, there be no mass reduction to the speed cap. If it takes 20 minutes of acceleration to reach 100 m/s or whatever, that's fine. It might take 5 mins of thrust to accomplish a 90 degree turn I would also couple that with restoring the old warp threshold- remember that was nerfed as a band-aid fix because the cap impacted so many CVs Longer acceleration time means a smaller vessel with higher acceleration has a better intercept chance, while higher final velocity means there may be a chance to outrun pursuit. It would lead to all kinds of emergent gameplay
Yea its still afubar. Always will be CPU. Its simply impossible to balance properly. Its the wrong way to go entirely for controlling large builds. Long post but consider this missed idea for a minute and what it means for the games creativity. No CPU. Limits built into the starter blocks, as its been done since 2014. Starter block, has flight controls tied to it, your starter block is fundamental to how your flight controls work, this is a fact, has been from day one of Empyrions inception. Your flight controls parameters are created by the devs, the settings of those parameters are set, by the devs, all of those settings or flight controls are literally built into the starter blocks you lay when starting a build. The devs could if they choose, give us access to those flight control sets for each starter block via yaml if they really wanted. This is literally the PERFECT foundation for completely controllable flight controls, and many types, and every restriction and far more than CPU could ever offer and in a much more controlled manner. And I find it absolutely incredible that after building the perfect foundation for multiple dynamic flight control sets and multiple REAL classes of ship, the devs go with a system that utterly ruins all flight controls of all starter blocks and really damages creativity, for a voxel building game its the very worst feature that could have been introduced. CPU should never have ever made it into this game. So why is the multiple new starter core and class of ship a better idea ? I will explain why. CPU is the stick, that punishes you for not doing it the devs way. New cores and ship classes is the CARROT that drives new innovation. CPU, restricts all starter cores, stopped many large strange shaped builds for the costs of just steel blocks, thats damaging creativity. CPU restricts the shape of which you build ships for performance reasons, rather than building freely to any shape with no penalty as the carrot system proposes. CPU completely makes physics look, well backwards, constant thrust, but top speed limited to 67 m/s, it makes no logical sense to do it this way at all. What you got with CPU update, new restrictions built into every corner of the building side of this game, 65,000 dead workshop builds, the largest disruption to our playerbase in Empyrion history, and the loss of anything logical in the flight control set. What you could have had. Starter cores for new classes of ships. Rather than have just 3 flight control sets in this game, HV, SV and CV. Empyrion should have expanded on its incredibly perfect foundation for such a system they were already using..... Here some simple basic examples, and there could be more or less, whatever but these examples should really highlight what this game missed here, SV Dropship, - any thruster facing downwards has 4x thrust. Now the devs can tie into these flight controls, any top speed limit they like, and mass limits they like and it feels much more natural to do it this way, as pretty much every game in history has done its flight controls, tied to the block for that class of ship. Its important people understand the system we use right now, is this very system to a much less detailed degree basically. So its not a hard change even today. So back to some examples, these dont have to be all of them, there can be more, or less, and they can literally be anything people request, given the willingness of the devs to do it, because its all possible and its possible even in Beta or even full release because of the perfect foundation already in place in the game in how it currently handles flight controls, as they are attached to your starter cores. [ Tier 1 ] SV atmo scout SV atmo fighter SV atmo logistics [ Tier 2 ] Sv space scout SV space fighter SV space logistics SV space dropship [ Tier 3 ] CV scout CV Explorer CV Corvette CV Frigate CV Destroyer [ Tier 4 ] CV Battleship CV Carrier CV Super Carrier CV Ore Capture CV Mass logistics Open your minds for a minute, to all of those new possibilities. All of those could have also been new workshop categories, imagine the initiative that would have driven for new builds on workshop, and teh creation of half a dozen new front pages for specific class of vessel. Imagine building on these cores with more than the 3 current options we have for flight controls. This system can bring into play every restriction the devs wanted with CPU in a way that feels natural to the player, or un-noticed, it also opens up the door to creativity, rather than slamming it shut as CPU has done for variety of shape, new cores and flight controls opens the door for you right now, when you cant get something to fly right on the current CPU starter cores, to have an actual option of choosing a different starter core for that ship and seeing how it works, right now you have no such option. There is literally not a single thing that CPU brings, that can not be done far far better through that system of new starter cores and flight controls with real class of ship. Empyrion right now, could have real frigates and rel destroyers, what we have now is literally just CVs. All the same, all with the same flight controls and restrictions. A CV so called scout in Empyrion flies like a so called CV battleship and they are so called because we have no actual way to define any class of actual ship in Empyrion.'To define a class of ship, in any game, means it MUST have a set of rules for each class. Those rules are, literally speaking, the flight control parameters built into the starter cores. Those flight controls define true differences. This is all very fundamental stuff that really, its incredible it was not done this way. We will never see in Empyrion, any proper class of ship with just CPU, new cores and flight controls can be added tomorrow if the will power to do it is there. Why will this work with CPU, because you can turn CPU off. That huge CV that shouldnt be able to turn on a dime and bunny hop away like it weighs 16 kg can be prevented very easily when doing it at the flight control set of the starter core. That would be a problem of the past and a bug free one at that. Each class can have its flight control set up to be a step up from the last tier. Ship classes, with a top speed of, whatever it might be, will always reach that speed, given enough thrust time, not this skewy all over the place system we have with CPU where you never know if your going to be THOR HAMMER punished for not doing it the devs way...... I mean lets face it, compared to the carrot way, the stick way absolutely SUX, does it not.... And can we, as scenario builders, create our own new starter cores and flight control sets via yaml, well no, the game has not even unlocked the true options to fix this properly for modders, it completely ignores a massive chunk of its playerbase wanting access to these things. Love the game, dislike CPU or any other feature that restricts creativity. But people should really think about what it could have been and maybe think about the fact, this is still possible. As for the survey, it does not have a ''thumbs down'' because of the known public dislike for CPU and the absolute fear of being embarrassed about just how poor this feature is in this sort of game. And thats really a reflection on just how bad the CPU feature is, when teh devs have to skew there own survey to try and hide that , its really time to at least add the options for others to fix it properly to a gamers standard.
Why should weight affect top speed? Surely it should just affect how long it takes to accelerate to that speed and how long to accelerate?
I want to urge the developers to keep CPU and resist the calls to remove it, but to consider making some big changes to it. I think giving modders much more freedom to play with CPU and the flight model may also give players more time to see its potential. I think it should also remain an option that can be disabled. CPU should be about specialisation. There has to be some limit placed on things like turrets and thrusters, or the game gets silly or hits engine limits (1000 turrets). Currently the item limitation is arbitrary and it's per item. So you can have 6 miniguns and 6 laser turrets, but you can't have 12 lasers. This means every end-game ship is the same - huge, and with the same guns. CPU offers an alternative where we could replace item-specific limits with an overall limit to "stuff" and then spend that on what you want for your ship. An all round ship, or a gunboat with only missiles, or a mining ship, or a cargo hauler, or a construction ship. No pre-defined classes telling you what to do, just interesting block-by-block decisions about what you want your ship to be good at and what role it should have. Size should also matter. If you build a big ship, you should be rewarded with the ability to have more stuff (CPU). It doesn't make sense for a small corvette to have the same amount of guns as a star destroyer. But unless we want everyone flying around in huge boring bricks all the time, there should be an advantage to being small. That advantage should be speed and agility. So the default flight model should reflect this - top speed should be based on the amount of blocks, or something else that reflects size. Not everyone likes ship-specific speed caps. There are legitimate concerns about realism - in zero-G there is not much limit on speed up to the speed of light, for a big ship or a tiny one. But, I don't think realism of this type is within our grasp anyway, as speeds in real space are 100 or 1000 times what we see in the game - the whole idea of visual range combat driven by pilots is in a sense ridiculous. But in epic sci fi, we generally see small fast ships contrasted with big plodding behemoths. And this is fun! Our sense of size, and likewise epic-ness, comes in part via movement. Big structures seem much bigger when they move past us slowly. There's a human tendency to always think more is better, but high speeds and agility on big ships makes them feel cheap and tacky - like a toy. It's why even a Class 7 in the game tends to feel relatively small when you're flying it or when it flies past you, but not when you're walking around it. Most importantly, different speeds opens up so much interesting gameplay potential. When ships can't turn quickly, they have blind spots! A small ship can get in these blind spots. Turret placement suddenly becomes important, and rows of protected guns all facing forward become a big risk. A small ship with less guns can actually use its speed and challenge a larger ship. Huge ships clash in interesting ways as they slowly glide past, spinning to try to protect vulnerabilities or bring turrets to bear. Small ships can finally dart through an epic battle between capital ships. Chases become interesting because one ship is faster - escapes are possible. Ships need to choose between brawling capability and pursuit ability. Different ship configurations really matter - should haulers have more cargo or more speed to avoid pirate attacks and haul cargo quicker? Should ships have lots of anti fighter guns or a couple of big anti-cap ship weapons? To achieve all this, both speed and CPU needs to be linked to size, either directly or via some requirement that takes up space, like really big engines for example. Then we could achieve specialisation and differentiation in ship equipment, capability and role. So I hope the CPU and flight model is developed in this direction.
Im not sure if it's due to the new CPU system, or due to the new flight system, but HV's behaviour is not like it should be, mainly gravity seems to have hardly any effect, and the hover engines dont react promptly enough to terrain changes
CPU is not abut specialisation and never was mate. Its about restrictions, slowing the level up process with nothing new, MP lag and keeping builds small. Specialisation is precisely that, specialised things, not a feature you slap on everything that makes everything more bland closer to the same in size shape weight....... Specialisation is literally new starter blocks with new flight controls with new flight parameters and new devices, like clocking etc, stuff like that IS specialisation the completely distorted attempt at bluffing us into believing CPU is any kind of specialisation is nothing short of insulting. These so called specialised ships dont exist in Empyrion........WHY ? CV figate. CV Destroyer. Cv battleship. All with own flight controls, THAT, is specialisation, not CPu where we slap teh same crap on everything trying to penilise the flight control system if we do not comply with said dictated rules. Empyrion, no such thing as a true frigate or destroyer or battleship or supercarier in Empyrion, they are all literally just a CV and all of them can be made the same and to do what all others do, nothing special there, now pit a new starter core with new flight controls against that, GAME OVER its so obvious what specialisation really is, and CPU is just not it. Sure you can just randomly call your CV whatever you like, that is not a defined class. Defined class actually need rule sets to match. CPU is not defined and is not specialisation. Its one rule set for everything, stupid and not specialised. Homeworld games, do they use same flight controls for all ships...nope...... Name Any flying space warfare game with battleships and frigates and destroyers, that use all same flight controls for all ships, they dont, its stupid, , same deal, we are one of the very few games to lazy to do flight controls properly for a game that involves so much flying. Literally the worst thing about Empyrion is CPU, or the fact we dont have a better option. Most divisive feature in games history, instantly ruined 65,000 BPs on workshop caused our forums to burn for weeks and we still get these threads with people saying oh CPU is cool BUT fix this bit or that bit, not one person have I spoken to yet that thinks CPU is perfect in anyway not a single person, by all accounts that a failed feature that needs fixing in some way. To address the false argument , you have yamls go mod, but yamls require the devs unlock the code first, so how about that devs ? Because I asked a Unity guy specialist about this and he told me he cant do this because Eleon can cause him legal problems, oh ..... We need the yamls unlocked for starter block atributes.
That post seems needlessly rude and I think detracts from the points you were trying to raise. CPU is not currently about specialisation, but should be. "Defined" classes are one option to create specialisation. But I'd prefer to specialise my ship in the way I want rather than a small number of predefined classes. So, specialisation can come through the block/design choices rather than a rigid definition. Currently specialisation through block/design choices is theoretically possible, but as correctly you point out, kind of pointless. That's because it's always best to get a T4 as quick as possible and then throw a shield and the maximum weapons on a ship. Let me suggest a specific example, under the assumption no-one is seriously demanding vanilla give the option to place 1000 turrets on a ship... Let's say the engine and gameplay can only reasonably handle 30 turrets on a ship. Currently the approach is to force you to have 6 (max) of each type. If you want to omit one type, you can, but why would you, when it just weakens your ship? If the game removes those limits and instead had enough CPU to fit 30 of any turret type you choose, you can have builds with say 30 missile launchers or 30 lasers (specialisation in weapons, while still being balanced). Replacing the specific limits with the overall limit improves your design freedom without punishing you for choosing a niche. The overall limit increases design freedom, but only if you remove the limits on specific items. The current approach to CPU is awkward for a number of reasons, but a big reason is that the individual limits haven't been removed so there has been no real benefit. I support the idea of different flight controls, but don't think it should be tied to ship "classes". It was unfortunate that many designs broke due to CPU changes, but if we have to chose between breaking workshop builds and never changing or improving the ship design system again, I'd prefer to break some workshop designs. I say that as someone with multiple ship designs and many thousands of downloads on the workshop (including some that broke due to CPU changes).
I would like to see cargo extensions cheaper in CPU cost; it feels like they get a double CPU tax: when you make something with a lot of cargo hold, you also need a lot of thrust; to be able to move it when it is loaded so in a way you pay double CPU points for cargo so to say and from a general perspective: something that is able to hold a lot of cargo doesnt need a lot of computer power, its just a hovering/flying box, with a lot of thrust. I think a highly armed fighter build should cost more CPU than a freighter.
And the point made by @piddlefoot is that lots of ships became obsolete and design system was not improved, and it only changed for worse. Making up with meta-gaming for the lack of purpose of CPU does not make CPU the magic problem solver. Mass, energy consumption, weapons rework, thruster output and proper physics could already achieve much better "control" on ship design than CPU. We really never needed that extra layer of artificial complexity to force common sense into builds.
I didn't design the current CPU system. I support something different. So I don't see what his point has to do with me. If he politely criticised my suggestion specifically, I'd be happy to respond.
Actually it's You that criticised the tone of his post and then you wrote what I quoted in message #114. In the chronology of things, you are the one not getting the sense of his message (yet criticizing it) then you make a statement showing you did not understand what he wrote. Now I think you will not understand my explanation either, but at this point it's not important.
Well, I really like the pilot mode for flying around but, I don't know if that's related to the flight model. I like volume/mass as well, just not the idea of mass decreasing top speed (Eleon seems defiant on this one). The CPU system is... well I actually don't really care about it. It does add tiers for ships and I do play with it enabled since hunting for advanced cores and stuff gives me something to do in the mid-late game. At least it's not a hard cap like weapon limits so I don't mind it, although I do understand that many people felt the time developing it could have been better spent elsewhere. There was some initial disappointment because when I first saw a CPU system being added, I honestly thought that it was something that will finally allow us to place our ships under AI control. But it turned out to be nothing more than another limitation and restriction for public online/PvP "balancing" stuff. At least that is how I see it.
So it's also a technical limitation and not design choice? I skimmed through the forums looking for a dev response on it but, couldn't find any. I'll gladly send them a bit of code but, with my level of programming skills, it will probably cause their offices to blow up so I'd rather not...
