I've reserved my opinion on CPU simply because I don't know what the Devs' intention for this value is. What exactly is the thought behind it? A way to add balance between ships in PvP? A method to encourage thinking about trade offs when designing ships due a limit in devices (like more engines vs more guns vs turn rate)? I assume it is meant as some sort of limiter but since the Mod states (in the link you provided) that there would probably be a way to raise it if implemented that doesn't seem to be the full purpose.
Joined the Official US Server this weekend to see what is was all about. Picked a Starter planet, built myself a little bunker, a decent HV and an SV. Just trying to gather up enough materials to spawn in a CV and get out now. Seems an interesting enough place.
Found my way home after a successful expedition through my Solar System. Some flight paths are a bit irksome but.. what do I have my CV else for? Filled up my Ore CC by mining several Asteroids Just have to pick up "some" Water Containers...under Water...while still being in Range of my Home On one of the Planets the Moon was not only large but also pretty close
When I started the recent game I immediate noticed the name of the Arid Starter Planet - Hades. 'what a coincidence!' I thought. Why? Because in the MMO Imperator Online there was a planned world named...
CPU is Implemented in a Band Aid Fix manner to reserve it a spot in the Code. Actual real balancing & plotting & scheming on it has not yet begun, thus for now CPU is very ignorable at this time.
@SGP Corp, let us not forget Renegade Legion: Centurion, and their glorious easy-to-re-create-in-Empyrion grav tanks. RL had an amazingly unique damage system, and their ship/capital ship/tank pieces were cardboard boxes with the front/side/top/rear/bottom views of each vehicle/ship! I may miss it, a smidge. --B.
Today, I resumed some of my power consumption studies. My CV test rigs are so very basic, to keep variables to a minimum, that I had to build a ramp to actually launch some of them from. The problem is that the vertical launch rigs might have been great for recording some stats in their limited flight, but some stats required that I activate cruise control for a few seconds to flip to statistics page. Apparently forwards or backwards both work for cruise control but not vertical. So one of the stats I wanted to record required I use the rigs that could be set to cruise. Good thing the vertical rigs were built to match the others, as in same number of fuel tanks, RCS and generators. So that I had a pair setup to match for S, M, L and XL thrusters. I hit both my Basic and Standard worlds in my test scenario, so I figured that if I wanted to be sure that gravity was not a factor that I would have to hit one of my high G worlds. So, I went to a world that had the same atmospheric density but 2.5 times the gravity of my Standard world. There I did a quick test were the power results were the same despite the difference in gravity. While my test rig could fly in 5.0 g as long as I kept the nose up, the simple nature of it meant that when I trying to record the data that I lost control and the rig ended up on the bottom of the lava lake. Good thing this was creative or I would have been toast. Below is my preparation to depart. The SV I was using to jet about the worlds might have excessive thrust, but not for vertical takeoff. I hadn't planned it when placing the ramp, but when I went to leave I realized how convenient it was that I could use the ramp to point the nose of the SV up too. Then I hit the world I call A3, 2.0 g and 3.0 kg/m^3 atmospheric density. After repeating the tests with HV and CV test rigs there, I am beginning to see a pattern I might be able to use for estimating the power and fuel needs of my creations. Here's my return flight from my last test on world A3. These test rigs aren't pretty to fly.
@dpburke2, would it help if I yanked all of the relevant statistics for thrusters/rcses out of the config.ecf file for you? I look forward to your results in handy table/spreadsheet form. --Brian
For now I am ignoring in both design AND thought. Like I said, I haven't a clue what its purpose is in the minds of the Devs so I don't even have clue what to say about in discussion in regards even to game play development.
What I want to understand is the impact of atmospheric density on power demands. For example, in space, the power demands are almost neatly calculated as the sum of thrusters being used plus the flat consumption of other devices. In 1.0 kg/m^3 density, a rough estimate of power to move is twice the PU of thrusters being used and then add the flat consumption of other devices to that. In 2.0 kg/m^3 density, a rough estimate of power to move is four times the PU of thrusters being used and then add the flat consumption of other devices to that. In 3.0 kg/m^3 density, a rough estimate of power to move is six times the PU of thrusters being used and then add the flat consumption of other devices to that. At least for a HV, altering the number of opposing thrusters has no observable impact on total PU while in motion. So my test rig HV used 817 PU to move forward whether I had 10 or 4 opposing thrusters (10 M thrusters in 2.0 kg/m^3 with 1 generator, 1 fuel tank, 4 sm hover engines and 1 RCS). That number was not altered as long as I did not alter the thrusters pushing the rig forward. Similar, if I added side thrusters, there was no change in total PU if I was only going forwards. As soon as I added side thrust, then the numbers changed. This is the reason I kept my test rigs to just one axis of thrusters.
Well true, but since that 'expansion' will probably use 'some' space, only ships that are - by design - big (i'm talking about 300m x 100m x 36m or something), will be able to 'hold' such an Expansion. Large enough, it could even be a very suitable core element for the maintenance halls for such ships, with the next smallest device there beeing the warp drive. I'd hope for something in the likes of 2-5 times the volume of a warp drive, but if it is THAT large... granting the same amount of CPU power as the core block (adjusted CPU values of Course - i'm hoping for like 20-30k for CV's -> many mine seem to use like 60-180k). Otherwise I'd go for 2-3 times a warp drive for 2/3 of the CPU from a core. Idk Maybe even different ones without (giving the max at all)… 4x4x5=50%cpu, 5x5x6=75% and 6x6x7=90% Then again, mass should be considered and giving one is Building a big ship, the weight should not exceed the weight of, say, 200m W x L of Expansion x 50m (H), amount of CS blocks. -> by which i mean/propose, that one should just need 1 or 2 XL thrusters more -> per Expansion. Giving we want a big ship, build and equip properly for an immersive RP experience, so putting deco-comuters, condensators, antennas, Radars, etc... also given fact, the bigger the ship, the bigger it's fuel tanks, you cant have a Jet engine, despite a big passenger airplane, run by the fuel tanks of a handheld grass-cutter. Thus, either we Need T4 fuel tanks or be able to use expansions to use as many tanks we Need/want/think suits the build we're working on. (but for sure we need more than 10 T3 fuel tanks, which already is like 800-1000 CPU) Also the bigger the ship, the more likly it is to carry Cargo, because a bigger ship - usualy - holds more People to work in, they Need Food, but will also produce other waste, and Need other Things -> 'Cargo'. As of now, CE's use way too much CPU (IMO), then again, I figured they DO compress the items, thus making their CPU consumption plausible. Regardless, we Need a way to compensate for the amount of CE's we're using in a big ship that is supposed to be a Cargo 'carrier' (only refering to Cargo, not SV's/HV's) Issue is, a Cargo/production CV, sooner or later, will Need to land on a planet, for the HV's to bring materials back, because in SP as of now, you cant Harvest a planet without the CV landet, thus it IS required to be M/V capable, and that DOES require more thrusters than People are used to until now. And imagine then my favorite disciplin, Building vessels that are high gravity capable, by which I mean ~3G+ During my time as admin on a Server that was using my Scenario, I was asked several times to increase the gravity on the Lava planets -> where the zascosium was to be found. It was at 1.5G already I was letting it at that value, due to my experience on a previous Server I was admin on, that there are People that cant handle 1.5g by which i mean, for them it is absolutly NO FUN to be stranded on a planet, that would be 'as extreme' as they wanted. Also I had played on a Server where the only place in the Galaxy to get… not sure which for this specific planet.. Gold or sathium, had like 4 or 5G and was crowed with predators. With this experience, you might understand why I like to build my ships HG capable (collection). Anyhow… so the more Cargo, the more thrusters, the higher gravity, the more thrusters -> exponential (at least feels like). I once had done the math, that if I were to build a ship with 51 containers of which each holds 320k, i'd Need like 10mil MN or 1280 XL thrusters - just to lift of, not one would be used for side or moving Forward, all to the Bottom! As reference, my current Project Mirai has 34 XL thrusters, is able to carry ~20 containers of which NONE (or just one) has 320k, the average is at 120k per container. For which alone one has like 20x (CC) x12 (CE) x50 (CPU) = 12'500 CPU, without thrusters. 34 thrusters each 100 CPU = 3'400 CPU Oh yeah… and to have like 1.4° yaw, one needs ~280 RCS -> unloaded, loaded it'll be like 0.07°.... So that's another 280x80 (i think) = 22'400 CPU Oh, and dont forget about fuel tanks, 100x 80CPU = 8'000 (but it's more like 150 or 250 tanks = ~350hrs standby = 2 weeks + 1 day; MP n' stuff) So we have now like: 46'300 CPU, and it sure is no proper Cargo ship just yet. Mind you, we're talking of a 280m x 72m x 42m ship, class 20 (because it has pipes, living area, and other immersive things)! And we did ignore: * vents * o2 tanks * weapons * constructors * Food processor And this IS a specific Purpose ship! At least since what isnt it's specific Purpose, doesnt use CPU (vent & FP aside, 'garden'). And all this, while I'd love to have solar & furnaces & Stone decos on a CV The Dream goes on... But I hope you can understand why I dont build (anymore) according to the CPU in it's current state. (sorry for the long text)
I believe it's intended to encourage specialization and seems to be based in part on a suggestion of mine: https://empyriononline.com/threads/computational-units-resource-proposal.35756/ I'd envisioned CUs to be useful both for balancing all devices on a ship against each other, and for being an advanced resource consumed by advanced systems like sensors and research systems. We'll have to see if Eleon's implementation takes it there, but that is my hope.
Inspired by @Sephrajin's Traveler, I started work on a new compact mobile base, and the Brevis is the result: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1707684924 Spoiler It's quite upgradeable, fits through a 13x7 hangar, lifts 1.5 kt of cargo, and notionally supports a crew of 6 (and unlocks at level 10).
@dpburke2 That all makes sense. I mean, any opposition thrusters should not affect thrust in the primary axis (ie: forward), as they are not on. Activating side thrusters (left/right slide) would increase power consumption, as you are now attempting to move on two axis. On-planet PU consumption will also vary by gravity, as (in theory) more thrust is required to keep the ship at altitude. Again, a straight up/down move will have the effect of a side to side move. --- Your calculations seem to indicate a fairly simple/linear progression: 0kg = 1x 1kg = 2x 2kg = 4x 3kg = 6x Which, for the purposes of game, seems 'good enough', which I'm a big fan of. Thanks for your work, it's great! --- Fun times: Build an SV with only rear-facing thruster(s) and RCS. Wings are utterly optional, but look cool. Landing gear are highly suggested. To take off, throttle up. If your SV is docked, throttle up, and tap your 'up' key to release the landing gear lock. Enjoy! Be sure and practice your landing technique. --Brian PS: This design works exceptionally well on high-grav planets...
Actually, this shouldn't be the case given that thrusters run at maximum right now no matter how much of their maximum thrust you need. Atmospheric density is what affects thruster power consumption on a planet (it's a bit roundabout since the game doesn't have a concept of Isp at this point). EDIT: If thrusters were throttleable, though, this would be the case. Maybe that will happen at some point.
Working on Symbol of Roman territorial claim. A Monument I longed for a long time now. But not real easy as SI is gonna be a major issue for it.
That is another Try but in Creative... as I did not want to loose all stuff as soon as SI gives the Break-up-Call.
Nice sign and bigger as expected. Spotlights for bases would be ideal for it as they have a longer lightcone!
The lights are at Maximum range and intensity, but as Spots, therefore they lose a bit. Size Comparing shot - This Monument will be a Center Piece of future Roman Settlements .
