I play the weight system on. I like it. It offers a more dynamic gameplay. As far as being pedantic about how realistic it is, if Eleon went for true realism it wouldn't benefit the gameplay, and would probably make the inventory system useless. (Ever actually hold an ingot of copper or iron? Or 100? ) But it does offer a form of game content that would be great if they tuned it up a bit. I have three kind of obvious points. A. In the difficulty settings there could be an off, easy, not so easy, and hard setting. The 'easy' or 'not so easy setting, could be like it is now. I like the volume settings of when it first came out better. Because of the different styles of gameplay I don't think a single set of measures will do well to add to the gameplay this feature could offer. The player needs the choice. Easy should be able to exploit the OP features of carrying tons of ore and food in your pocket. That is how the game is played presently. It seems most people aren't big on changing that. The higher difficulty setting would be for those who want the challenge of dealing with the more realistic volume difficulties. The new wireless inventory system already provides the solution so it is just a 'vehicle acquisition' and 'design' problem the player must resolve. That really just makes the initial gameplay scenario more interesting until you solve these problem. Aside from more thoughtful ship designs and some higher G planets it doesn't really affect much later in the game. B. The games weights systems does needs to be balanced between the resource and the product made. I can hold the materials to make a CV T2 fuel tank in my personal inventory and haul it in a small container, but once built I need a CV or a really strong SV to haul it. This is where I think the crux of the problem lies. That would also lead into questioning the crafting formulae. Maybe some dynamic crafting progression so that the player works his way to be able to manufacture larger capital parts could help. The task of balancing really begs the question of 'how far down the rabbit hole you are willing to go' and will it be worth it. Right now, this really isn't that type of game. But it is there and there's at least one person out in internet land who likes it. C. Maybe, Eleon should make it easy for players to tweak the numbers of volume and weight when they make their own custom scenarios. It would be interesting to see what solutions people come up with.
I'd just like to note that fuel in tanks now has mass, meaning that we can finally compute the deltav for a ship. This should factor into what values are set for fuel mass density and thruster performance.
so ur saying u dont want the mass of ur cargo to impact the maneuverability of ur ship. pro tip if u want this in the current version of the game use a CV. gone are the days of being able to carry 4x or more the resources to make my fully gunned combat vessel (62k ingots) in my small fighter. in short if u need to move cargo y would u use a "small" vessel instead of a large one. ----------------------------------------------------------^SV^------------------------^CV^
Yes, you can make for very dynamic fighting vessels (not fast, they do 50m/s one like the other). But how many thrusters do you use for that? What percentage of your fighter consists of thrusters? Please note, that i did buff not only the thrust, but the mass as well, and the fuel consumption even more. You wont just replace the old thrusters with the new and be happy about that enourmous power. It will suck you dry faster than you can fill it up - AND this fuel has to be lifted also. Its not more power, i want for the ships. Its less thruster.
No,you have to watch what sentence of yours was quoted above that sentence of mine. What I wnated to say is: I Rather have a ship, that is full of cargo but still moveable instead of a shipp that can't move anymore when you put all the weights in you can. And yes, my prefered option turns up when m/v is turnd off but that is not the option i was talking about.
That is almost what i always say. The system should use a more dynamic system. A system where you can move a big ship that uses only 1 small thruster in each direction, fully loaded and still be able to lift of a 8g planet... just reallly really slow. Getting stuck on a planet just because you can not find enough / the right kind of materials for additional thrusters (maybe additional generators/fuel tanks) or later can't build more CPUs to support more thrusters, might be fun for a few once or twice but gets old fast for people who encounter those sitiations more often than not, just because they go out to explore without forging a masterplan in advance. Especially when procedural generation of the galaxy comes into play. There won't be any "known planets" anymore. But i hope we can get a way to scan a planet before landing and easy to use indicators if our vessel can handle it or not. I would say a minimum acceleration of 0.14 m/s in any direction regardless of the number of thrusters/RCS would not only benefit gameplay of the majority of the playerbase, it would also help to balance things easier. Because acceleration can only increase when you add enough power output that surpasses those 0.14 m/s within the games physics. You just can't really get stuck anymore as it can't fall below this value. You are just not really fast, quick and maneuverable.
I'd like to point out the absurdity of a planet that has a gravitational field of 8g (even Jupiter is only 2.5g at its solid surface (assuming you could withstand the pressure) where the atmospheric pressure is 1 atm). Becoming trapped on a planet in an empty ship is very unlikely to happen given how powerful our thrusters are. Becoming trapped on a planet after filling your ship full of loot is a definite possibility, though. But that doesn't mean that we need additional non-physical ship movement mechanics; it means that players need to keep the capabilities of their ships in mind when looting. If you take anything that isn't nailed down (as well as the floor, the ceiling, and the walls), you'll either need to make multiple trips, upgrade your ship on the spot, come back with a more powerful ship, or prioritize the loot that's really worth taking. And if you don't want to deal with any of that, switch off the cargo mass/volume system and be done with it. The whole point of inventories with definite volumes, and inventory contents having mass is that moving stuff around has a cost associated with it, and thus imposes a constraint on gameplay. And (in the abstract) solving problems while working within various constraints is what makes games fun (ideally, the process of finding the solution and the solution that's achieved are both satisfying). EDIT: I interpreted the data on Jupiter incorrectly; surface gravity for planets with an unknown/ill-defined solid surface is defined as where the atmospheric pressure is 1 atmosphere. Surface gravity is proportional to average density and radius; unless a rocky planet is made entirely of iron or copper (or tungsten or iridium, I suppose), it's unlikely to have a density that's any larger than Earth's. Very large rocky planets could conceivably be considerably larger than Earth, giving them potentially high surface gravity if their density is the same as Earth's. Still, to get to 8g, a planet would need to have Earth's density and a radius nearly as large as Jupiter (~50000 km, compared to Jupiter's ~70000 km). So, I still maintain that 8g planets are absurd.
yes thank u i was just about to say that i dont see any good arguments for y thrusters should be buffed. just a bunch of complaining about how the game is hard
Well, to be clear, SV/HV and CV thruster stats do need to be made consistent, and that will likely end up resulting in an increase in performance for SV/HV thrusters (which should help with some of the concerns expressed in this thread). What we don't need is an overall buff to all thrusters (what we could use instead would be larger thrusters).
I disagree. Even larger thrusters? for even more bulky ships? Current ships are built mostly out of thrusters anyway, i dont need them even bigger. I want to build a ship in the shape i prefer, and place thrusters in appropriate amount and position THEN (small alterations included). I dont want to build a ship from thusters amd clad it in something like a hull then. I need a general buff to all thrusters - some more, some less. Let it come with a price, though: i dont want more thrust overall. I just want less thrusters.
y can just dont expect it to be a cargo haler if u want to carry alot of cargo u need alot of thrusters..........
No. No way. Even a ship for just exploring - no fight, no hauling, but with a decent equipment (oxygen, cooler, ...) needs atm about 4 or five thrusters for any of the six directions. If you are willing to take some pain while steering you can cut them down a little, to about 20 overall. And I am speaking of the Jet/S, so you have 60blocks of your ship filled with thrusters. Add a cockpit (45blocks), engine (2 blocks), tanks (4x2 blocks), RCS (4x1 block), oxygen (2 blocks), oxtanks (2x1 block), constructor (3 blocks) and probably, say, 10 blocks of things i just missed out, you have a ship that is 45% thrusters. Sorry, but to me thats just deviant. You have to build your ship around the thrusters, and this is getting much worse when they will have to be exposed.
20 thruster jet s for a scout ship is way over kill, 1 in every direction for a scout ship is really all u need this comment from u tells me i need to stop arguing about this with u.
If you're talking about SV/HV thrusters, well, as I said in a later comment, achieving parity between SV/HV thrusters and CV thrusters would likely result in SV/HV thrusters getting buffed, which should cut down on the number of thrusters you need for SVs. What I was referring to with the line you quoted was larger thrusters for larger ships: CV-sized SVs (which need CV-sized thrusters that aren't just stretched jet thrusters) and the largest CVs (for which even XL thrusters look small; I know I'm not the only one who's found it necessary to cluster XL thrusters into a single logical thruster, when a 6x6 or larger thruster would have been more appropriate). Honestly, this seems about right if you're trying to give the ship the same acceleration in all directions. If you aren't hauling or fighting, then you really don't need that much lateral thrust, and you could probably make do with just one thruster in the up/left/right directions, and 2 in the forward direction (rear and down are the only directions that really need full thrust). Basically, high maneuverability shouldn't be trivial to achieve.
Ah - ok, i never build that large; as SP only i just dont need it. Thats the way i like it, yes. At least i find it necessary to have the same acceleration left/right and back/forth. Values that differ too much inside those pairs lead to pure pain when i try to position the ship accurately, say, between two trees or in the docking bay of a CV. ok, lets do the math: one thruster Jet/S (that with the highest efficiency) has a thrust of 350N and a mass of 430 kg. The cockpit alone has 450 kg, the constructor 1000 kg, the generator another 1000 kg, four fuel tanks 2000 kg. (to count only for the biggest chunks) Thats roughly 4450 kg. Two thrusters, as proposed in your post, have a weight of 860 kg on top. In summary thats 5210 kg. Accelerated by 700 N that makes for 700/5120 = 0,14 m/s^2. Thats not viable at all, i have no clue why you are even considering such a possibility.
Thruster output is in kN, not N, so your calculations are off by a factor of 1000. EDIT: As a side note, if your numbers were true, even infinite thrusters wouldn't get an SV off the ground, as the TWR of a 430 kg thruster that puts out only 350 N is less than 1.
Ahhh... Thats the result if you post at this time... I referred to the config.ecf, because i was too lazy to start up the game itself. There the formatter is stated "Newton"... Sorry. But my point remains the same - i now took the game and threw together just the necessary items, then two thrusters. 87 m/s^2 sounds not too bad. The ship weights 8.41t with 8 Jet/S. I will try and make a real ship out of this, but i doubt i will be successful. A "real ship" for me, in SP, needs to be quite versatile; i just can have only one at a time. So It will need at least a little storage room and some weapons. I will see.
No worries, it happens (it'd be nice if the devs would specify values in terms of base units, rather than with some arbitrary multiplier). You'll be able to add another 25 tons (3.5 stacks of iron ore, for example) to that ship and still have 20 m/s^2 lateral acceleration (I'm assuming you've got 2 rear and 2 down thrusters). Let us know how it goes.
Played around a bit. I have to admit, while i have to undergo through some compromises, such a ship is possible indeed. This are the stats: This can hold 500 Units of ammo (5000 rounds 15mm) and 2500 U general storage. I made sure, all the thrusters are exposed. Oh, that is a habit of mine: i hate a ship that need double the time to stop than to accelerate. Maneuvering get a pain for me this way. But even this ship can move a full stack of Prometium ore in 1G environment - for a a scout thats enough. The look of the sip is clearly debatable - first, i am anything but a designer. Second, i utilized this lack of talent to full extend by taking near to no time on thinking about this. But it should be ovious: i prefer small, compact ships with little to no ornament. The exposed thrusters dont fit into a smooth surface at all, i think. Definitely not my cup of tea. All in all its a ship whose stats look good at first glance. But at least in my gamestyle and progression path it doesnt really fit: I dont know, where to use it. The Jets need significant amounts of Co, too much for a first or early scout. Later on a scout, that could be stationed at a CV to explore worlds of higher difficulty level, would need better armour, eventually shields. The two gatlings are on the weak side, too. With the better armour and the bigger volume the weight of the ship will go up together with the need for more thrusters - one downthruster for sure, maybe two. But should be manageable (even if i just now dont know where to put them...) Maybe in a MP environment this could be of use, where you dont need the generalist ships so much , as there are buddies with other specialized ships around you (just a guess). I wont put this into the workshop, unless asked otherwise.
