You're on the right track Lazer. Open Logistics via F4 (or however you like), go to the Container w the oversized bit, then Connect to it via that top middle icon; the Container & Toolbar get that lovely orange tinge. Then move the object from the container window to that orange toolbelt. Next hit F2 to open the Factory, in that window you can click-pick-up the object and drop it into the factories input box. --I'll mention that the "T" key will switch between your normal & the connected~orange Toolbars; and no, I won't tell you how long it took me to find about _that_ little darling! heh.
The quick answer for switching the bottom tool bar is the "T" key. It will switch the bottom tool bar back and forth, it's a real time saver.
After reading more of the thread, I have a 2 cent oppinion on the weight/volume balance discussion. A lot of posts were around the idea of real world physics or volume mass relationship ships. But I don't think those actually matter in a game. What matters is the gameplay, progression flow, and being consistent. I have fun finding loot and it's more interesting salvage that loot with the mass/volume system. I'm encouraged to build larger vehicles or specialize them. However if my loot is a wrecked CV that I'm expected by the progression curve to use to make into CV or SV, it stinks to haul it back to base 1 piece at a time. I also hadn't thought about it possibly making more sense now to break down blocks into components by salvaging instead hauling them back whole. I just did whole blocks because I was used to it. But on the other hand, I don't have a way to break down the giant XL CV thruster I found in a loot box or the 100 combat steel.
I don't disagree with anything you wrote @Lazer295 , "What matters is the gameplay..." <-- Absolutely! To me the part that's teeth grinding are the inconsistencies. Well, and the 'Magic Mass', heh. Personally I think one 'good' way to have consistency with Mass & Volume is to just use what we all know, the real world, but add in some Future Magic. Eleon can of course come up with whatever system they like, but it seems like a lot of work for them to create their own consistent Alt-Physics. Additionally by implementing a self-consistent system they could automate lots of annoying little values that all have to be manually entered right now. Like they did not long ago with the armor block shapes; just a short script to populate all the HPs & Masses, no hand entry anymore. I think a decent compromise between having to 'suspend disbelief' & 'hard core Reality' is to basically have the majority of the total mass for Armor blocks be 'throw away' materials. So instead of hauling a thousand kilos of steel just to make one large block, maybe you'd only haul 20, 50 or 100 kilos of steel/whatever, then mine, refine and 'fill the gap' with Carbon & Silicon, from a right-next-to-your-base local source. For the rare loot stuff Eleon could minimize things like XL Thrusters and instead gift us rare Ingots, Ores or components; so no 3,000 SU loot
The way it is now, it's a race to get a functional CV ASAP so you can carry those XL Thrusters, or other large chunks of loot. That is the mechanic. Don't bother trying to make an HV/SV that can handle the big stuff, it's a lost cause.
@xerxes86 , @2metragluposti , when I came back and started using Mass & Volume, which I do like, I ran into the, 'how the heck am I'm gonna get this home?' pretty quick. Now I like HVs quite a bit & often skip SVs except for scouting, so I set out to build a true HV hauler. Goal was to comfortably haul 500 tons. I managed to do so with a lot of effort. If interested details/pics are here; https://empyriononline.com/threads/what-did-you-do-in-empyrion-today.2826/page-931#post-348502 But no way can it honestly be considered a "Starter"craft. Nor, imo, is it reasonable to expect an average newer player to know enough of the game mechanics to be able to build something similar. It uses 52 Large Thrusters, 22 RCSs & 24 2x2 Hover Engines. Hardly a 'quick' build, heh. <Btw, if you do build an HV hauler I can't stress enough how much of a difference massive lift makes!> I've been advocating Capitol Hover Vessels for quite a while, even if only as a very nerfed CV version of what the HV starter combo engines do. That could offer an early game hauler with a reasonable payload & price tag, while not requiring hundreds of blocks.
... a) dump them against a factory BP you have no interest in spawning that requires tons of everything, or b) dock that XL thruster to a built for purpose 8 block dink CV and haul ass back to base.
As long as your HV/SV has the right VOLUME for it, or better YOU, it can carry XL-Truster home with ease. Put the 3500SU device into your CC, strap yourself into the seat, hit F4, link yourself to the CC, put the XL-Truster into the VT and up you go
According to Law conservation mass. The weight of the parts must be equal to the weight of the object. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass But in the game, it 's a brutal imbalance. see img And for engines look at the game KSP Thrust-to-weight ratio (TWR) https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Thrust-to-weight_ratio
Indeed, if recipes conserved mass (and components had appropriate densities), then a lot of problems would be solved. You can't really set thruster TWR until you know the mass of all the components, since pretty much all of the blocks are substantially less than solid density (required so that mining is not prohibitive and players can carry some amount of components on them when on foot). The other problem for Empyrion is that there's no explicit propellant expenditure right now, so it's not straightforward to define an Isp; about all we can say is that the mass of fuel consumed is the mass ejected, but when you run the calculation for any thruster, you find that the input power to the thruster is orders of magnitude too low for the thrust produced from the amount of mass ejected.
Sending men to the moon required a huge propellant tank with a tiny box tied at the tip where the pilots were sitting, it also required billions of dollars and a whole industry behind it working for years. Is that what we really want in this game ?
I meant to continue by saying that we can't have realistic power consumption for thrusters if we don't want our ships to be mostly fuel. We also can't simply increase the energy density of fuel, as the realistic power consumption for thrusters would be orders of magnitude beyond that of everything except shields and maybe constructors (and it would make biofuel entirely useless for powering any kind of ship). On the plus side, this gives us some leeway in determining what the power draw of thrusters should be; on the minus side, it means balancing becomes somewhat more subjective (i.e. not something than can be determined just from the physics).
Are you looking for an explanation on how physics should work in game, or for a better, more consistent "subjective balance" ?
I haven't chipped in to this feedback thread so far because I thought my complaints were likely to be addressed by the larger community. Although some have I now feel I should contribute my opinions and see how other feel about it: First of all I'd like to say that I have loved this system since it was first suggested and I have tried it with each iteration/version. However, I never play it more than an hour or so before I find it unbearable. The order of things I dislike: 1.- my personal inventory (presumably a backpack of some sort) should not be able to hold more than a cargo container twice my size, that's just silly and reminds me of that other silly arcady exploration space game where the inventory can hold more than the capital ship..! 2.- Cargo boxes should be able to carry considerably more mass and volume than they currently do. Why can't I fit a constructor into a container that's nearly twice the size of the constructor? 3.- Engines of any sort shouldn't be so affected by the volume. A ship is already pretty heavy and these futuristic engines can put these ships in orbit in a matter of seconds, surely they should be able to still move with their cargo containers full. I have an HV that aside from its engines and cockpit is made purely from container extensions, but I can barely put a few ores in it and it'll stop moving. So overall I really like the system, everything about the mechanics is great! But the actual weight and volume needs to come down a lot, so that they have less effect on the engines of vehicles in general. I really want to use this feature, but as it stands I find it unplayable....
Yes, we really want real physics, at least a little bit resembling it. Because EGS is fantastic and nothing real. (It is very bad for a game. Because a fantasy it isn't interesting.) Why so many people are required yes because there is no technology. manual assembly it is also required kilotons of documents, permissions, certificates and other unnecessary crap. Fuel weight has to equal = 90% and weight of the ship of 10% to put it to orbit. There is a simple formula. (But planet at you much less and fuel weight will be much less. It is just necessary to calculate the weight and the size of the planet. to calculate coefficient of the necessary fuel for going into orbit.) To reach Mars fuel is almost not necessary only on landing. it is enough to disperse the ship to the 2nd solar escape velocity. More than 11.2 km/s. and switches off all engines in general. until we reach Mars (by inertia).
Players who love space. Сreate social poll. People want to play real space or a fantasy not realistic. Look on game KSP. They already create KSP2. As you think whether there will be your game EGS so popular in 2020 year. when create KSP2 (or new analogs). It seems to me that about EGS just all will forget. (because EGS fantastic, it is very boring.) And EGS yet not BETTA.
My suggestion : you go to space with BETTA google translate and play KSP-X with the players who love space, while we humble earthlings discuss mass & volume for Empyrion. Mmm ?
Well part of this review for KSP not 2 didn't sound encouraging to me. Think I will pass. "The game has been acquired by Take Two Interactive, who took no time in introducing an anti-consumer EULA that cannot be declined and turns Kerbal into essentially a piece of spyware that harvests your PC for data."
