For HV's, it is super handy to use [Shift]+"O" to switch the Drill Mode from "Free" to "Fixed". However, this only works if the HV has at least one drill. But this feature would be extremely useful to help aim weapons at a fixed height, rather than bobbing up and down constantly, trying in vain to get a steady bead on a target. I considered adding a single drill in order to use this feature. However, even a T1 drill weighs 1 ton! For a small-ish HV, that's an enormous amount of weight, especially compared to weapons. Why can't we use [Shift]+"O" for a "Fixed" mode for weapons on an HV, even without a drill?
I have been playing around more with the mobile constructors and noticed that, while they are separated into HV and SV constructors now (with different build costs), they have the exact same functionality. Both units cannot provide a replacement if a turret or forward gun is destroyed, and both cannot create even the most basic ammunition for the vessel. They cannot make a SV starter block (but can make BA & HV starters). Since the Survival constructor cannot make a SV starter block either, players must create a BA first or use the blueprint library to make their first SV. Was this intentional? I also question why a SV constructor can make drill modules, which a SV cannot use. Sooooo.... suggestion time. For HV's, lets say that their constructors cannot process anything requiring Sathium, Neodymium, Erestrum or Zascosium. This will allow HV's to create replacement parts and ammunition while maintaining that they are a lower tier unit. For SV's, their constructors cannot process anything requiring Erestrum or Zascosium (they are a higher tier unit). Finally, let both HV and SV constructors be able to make basic BA/CV blocks and devices that fall within their ore processing limitations. Unrelated suggestion, if you loose your Survival Constructor or Emergency O2 Generator you cannot get them back. Some would argue that you do not need them after you construct a HV/SV but I would like to be able to craft them in a constructor (just in case). Side note: The Filler / Flattening tool is LONG gone, but it's ammo still appears in the creative item menu.
Maybe you can add for playfield.yaml : Code: AllowPlayer: false #true or false For when a planet type isn’t supported like gas giant or other reason for prevent player enter on the planet even if : Code: AllowCV: false AllowSV: false And for I think more server : Code: AllowPlayers: Player1,Player2 DenyPlayer: Player3,Player4 AllowFactions: Faction1,Faction2 DenyFactions: Faction3,Faction4 AllowRanks: Rank1,Rang2 #Rank : Administrator,Moderator,... DenyRanks: Rank3,Rank4 #Rank : Administrator,Moderator,...
One thing i think would be cool if the developers put in the game is new playable races, besides human race. I have a idea for two new races. The fire race and ice race. Fire Race: This race can breath in hot planets that human race and ice race cannot breath. While human race has a medium resistance to heat and cold, the fire race has a high resistance to heat, but a low resistance to cold. Ice Race: This race can breath in cold planets that human race and fire race cannot breath. While human race has a medium resistance to heat and cold, the ice race has a high resistance to cold, but a low resistance to heat. In planet description, instead of just one Breathable Yes/No, could be Human Race Breathable Yes/No - Fire Race Breathable Yes/No - Ice Race Breathable Yes/No, to show if the planet is breathable for one or more races, or none of them. And we could use Ventilators in BA, HV, SV or CV to make the air breathable for all races inside of it. Because it would be very boring to make the air breathable only for one race inside the vehicles and bases, and would not contribute to interaction between players of different races. The fire race and ice race would not have this names, it is just to show my idea, and would be cool if this two new races would have a different appearence or form from humans.
My msi will not play the game unless I'm on intergrated intel card it does not play with the nvidia card so I switched it off and goes just great wiith intel?
(I am playing in Non-experimental currently, as I was experiencing too many crashes in experimental. This may have been patched in experimental already, if so apologies!) Enemy Spawners They were annoying enough when they needed nearly 2 full clips of ammo to destroy, now that they are immune to handheld weapons (or just have insane HP, can't tell which) they make raiding POI's truly depressing. Before I could make it through a POI with no deaths if I was extremely careful, but now it is impossible. When enemies spawn behind you you're dead before you have a chance to turn around. They seem to be able to consistently one-shot you at that close range.
An friend of mine asked me to suggest multiple races to chose to play, with multiple characteristics, like one race can breath in some class of planets but not in another, have more tolerance to cold or heat, etc. I think its an good idea, it helps both, single player rpg experience, and multiplayer estrategies, so you can chouse the race you will play according to what you are planning to do in the game.
I don’t test but maybe this can helped for planet : https://www.assetstore.unity3d.com/en/#!/content/30263 But if is compatible with present feature, I don’t know.
Maybe its different with difficulty setting but I have never used more than a few bullets to destroy an alien spawner. Even last night while raiding that crazy pyramid instance I was able to clear the main hall of about 10 spawners very quickly, along with all the zirax they spawned. The spawners literally take a couple of bullets with an epic weapon, a t2 should be good too. Granted I was using an epic assault rifle at the time, and I guess the key is to take a better weapon if possible. I did notice last night that I can now shoot out shutters and windows on a POI with much greater ease using a hand weapon. I cant vouch for standard pistols and assault rifles. However I literally fart when i walk past and the alien spawners explode. Some of them get instantly destroyed by bullets I was firing at the zirax with a shaky aim xD
I recently got my new PC up and running, and I'm not happy with the performance of the game. I was expecting to run this game @ 100-120fps, no problem. Ryzen 1600x @ 4.0ghz w/Cooler Master Hyper 212+ Turbo (2 fans in push/pull) Gigabyte GTX 1080ti windforce (3 fans) 16GBs DDR4 3200mhz 480GB SSD (installed here) Maybe someone would like to explain why I'm getting dips under 60fps on this PC? 1080p 'fast' preset, I still get dips into the 40s when flying around. That's just unacceptable. I don't know about you guys, but I personally consider that to be 'unplayable'. Is the game really that unoptimized? Here is my old PC: I5 2500k @ 4.2ghz R9 390 OC'd 12GBs DDR3 1600mhz 480GB SSD. The new PC doesn't run Empyrion much better than the old one. And this is the 'ONLY' game where that's the case. With the game running this bad on higher end hardware, I'm extremely surprised why more people aren't complaining. Witcher 3 runs 120hz. Optimize your game please. Any developers want to weigh in on this? Do you want a DXDiag?
Ok, lets break it down CPU - the ryzen is maybe 5% better then the i5 you had GPU is a decent upgrade Ram is a good upgrade Same SSD. I think that your bottleneck might be at the CPU. secondly Witcher 3 is an a grade final release game that has been fully optimised. lastly this game is still in alpha. Optimization happens in beta before final release. More people dont complain about it as they understand the alpha game concept. With new content being added monthly your FPS is going to get a lot worse before it gets better and only once beta hits
Ryzen is at least 20-25% better clock for clock over Sandy Bridge, and it's considerably better at multi-threaded apps. Most of the top games are multi-threaded, so Ryzen crushes the old I5 2500k in most games. Absolutely. I agree that the bottleneck probably is the CPU, but the fact is that it's considerably above recommended specs. If recommended specs doesn't = at least 60hz, then what sorta performance should one expect with a PC sitting on the developer's posted 'recommended' specs? Shouldn't recommended specs be relevant to the game's current state of development? I don't see how a 6+ year old GTX 560, which is inferior to the Radeon 6970 I replaced 3 years ago is going to hack it in this game. So I should just avoid the game until beta when they start delivering optimization patches? Check back in a year? If the developers open up more CPU threads for this game, my performance would effectively 'double'. I'm pretty sure the 1080ti could push 4k/60hz on this game, with most of the settings on, but I don't have a 4k monitor. Also, the game feels 'jerky' even when above my monitor's refresh rate. There are a few spots where I'm at 120fps+ flying around , and make a small turn to the left and the gameplay isn't smooth at all. I'm gonna be perfectly honest here. Had I bought this game yesterday, and tested it on my new rig, and got performance like I'm getting now, I'd have absolutely 100% refunded this game before 2hrs was up. Performance/optimization matters. That might be secondary to gameplay for a lot of people, but it's at least = to gameplay for me. I got another EA game in my library called Wolcen, it's an ARPG, and it ran like absolute garbage on the PC with the I5 in it, and the Ryzen rig runs it at 120fps+. That's the 'magic' of multi-threading.
Lighting... and shadows, are brutal on the engine. I know it's an ego thing, but turn shadows off and witness the fluidity. You can then increase shadow detail until you start noticing a performance hit. Yes, it needs serious optimization but it will get there. In the mean time, the game is playable, just need to accept less than stellar graphics at this stage.
I like the game, I really do, it has great potential, or I wouldn't be posting here. Fixing performance/optimization issues, and them adding more options to personalize custom scenarios such as modifying component costs, etc would make me like this game a whole lot more. The potential I see in this game isn't with the developer's vision, but the potential moddability of the game. The game isn't there yet. Not for me, at least. This could literally be one of my favorite games if they just deliver on those 2 things. I don't care about 'balacing changes' for default scenarios. As long as I got the option of modding the game the way I want.
I'm stoked about the custom scenario aspect as well. Rumor has it they are putting lots of user modifiable parameters into config files to enable the kinds of things you mentioned. It's possible to do so much right now, but none of it is very easy. Seems like they've decided to go in the direction of user created content so hopefully we'll see tools and interfaces soon.
I'd like to see planets populated with cities, something represenative of a high-tech civilization. Maybe even a planet that's pretty much a large city. The biggest concern I have for that is, I'm not sure the engine could handle it. All the lights, devices, potential NPCs, etc. This might not be the kinda game where something like that would be viable, for performance reasons.
Argh! When starting a new game, it's so frustrating to have all these pick-able resource targets disappear into thin air after picking. It's bad enough when they disappear randomly, out of sight, long after picking a couple times. But, in my latest restart I've had at least four Akua Berry bushes in a row disappear on me after my first picking. The worst one, by far, is having Penaxid crystals disappear, because they're so incredibly rare and hard to find. But it's no fun when any of this stuff disappears on us.
Please add following block shapes: (Ramp) Corner Small, between 2 Ramp Small in a corner. Tube Small Corner (tubes in xyz). I am probably not the first to want those. EDIT: Ramp Bottom was the name, not Ramp Small. Cylinder Thin Corner Joint, not Tube Small Corner. Are several more junction versions that could be added to Cylinder Thin group.
The Half Cube should have same strength and weight as a Full Block. This since most smaller corner blocks and the Ramp Bottom is smaller than the Half Cube, but still have the strength (and weight) to a full block. Or let the smaller blocks also have less, but then have to adjust many blocks instead of 1.
Several other block shapes "missing" too. Particularly for glass and shutter windows. For regular blocks Pyramid Corners and "rooftops" (like a prism).
