Thanks @geostar1024 . So I guess with all said and done it comes down to wonky values & moment of inertia calculations. as you've mentioned previously; Incredibly cheap power use vs. torque. Possibly a mulitplicative constant being off. Was a pretty silly question on my part. But in my defense the end result -is- rather well disguised...
Yes, it does, but it is pretty simplistic. It deals with movement - force, acceleration, velocity, torque. It has a simple calculation of mass distribution presuming density is constant across the object - you can specify a center of mass. You can generate a force at a point, which can also apply torque depending on its offset from the center of mass. It handles gravity. Empyrion seems to use all of this for XYZ movement but (prior to 10.6) not for rotation. I suspect it is just because they wanted the ships to handle in a certain way (mouselook rotation) and using torque to create angular acceleration didn't make the ships handle the way they wanted. But 10.6 has torque generated from thrusters suggesting they're using the ability to apply force at a point now. The physics engine in Unity does not deal with stress calculations or objects with differential densities. The physics engine is good for movement in the local area, you can for example shoot at a bunch of barrels and they go flying and tumbling somewhat realistically. I have found the built-in engine lacking for high-speed movement over large distances. If you are going to do a space game, the vast distances take you far outside of the accuracy range of a "float" and you need to start tracking positions with double/decimal data type, or in another coordinate system, and/or use tricks like multiple cameras to deal with near and distant objects. So it doesn't really work for interstellar travel so well. Empyrion seems to work around this by compressing distances. For example the moon is like 8 km away. If you do that I guess the physics engine would work fine in all cases. It makes space feel small though.
I also wonder how the 'CPU Tier Zone Restriction' is gonna be Lore Justified/Enforced...? Well said! & Peoples need to freakin quit screaming at the Devs if they ever even think of trying to fix parts of the Code that can no longer hold up to the current vision of the game... just like how one can work on a big CV & get whole sections done then work on other areas then realized what they just tried to do & what they completed earlier can't work together now... sometimes one just plain has to N Menu delete chunks of a not-working area & try something else there. Peoples screaming at the Devs is like trying to ORDER them to NOT delete that not working area & FORCE it to work cause the Screaming Peoples can't stand the thought of waiting on that proper fix & want that CV done NOW... while forgetting that THIS IS NOT EVEN THEIR CV BUILD, IT'S THE DEVS'S CREATION!!! Also the Devs need to get the Foundation done sometime... & it's kinda hard for them to do that when people keep trying to scream them off it... Agreed. IMHO Politics has no place in Empyrion Subject Matter, is all too easy to weaponize into Flame Bait, & in general is just plain not relaxing.
I wonder the samething but I could accept the idea that only Ships of a certain tier are allowed near the Starter planet on any server besides that I don't think you can justify it.
Really ?? So they decided to activate this CPU feature in which restricts a lot of their builders who love this game and annoyed a lot of players. Just because one group on one MP server complained long enough??????? Without even trying to open it up for discussion to the rest of the community?? It's not possible for even PVP games to get rid of everything considered "overpowered" why would Elon let a few people on one server convince them that a Space ship BUILDING survival game could?? There are just somethings if you play PVP you have to accept. There is always going to be something that is OP even when you balance it out.
That's a valid point but Hummel stated that the CPU has nothing to do with performance at all. That the Class system was about performance. Elon continues to say this CPU feature has only to do with limiting "Jack of all trade" ships. So just going by what the Devs have said this has nothing to do with Unity or the engine they've created limitations the class system was about that. So although I don't agree with people screaming it's understandable why they're annoyed. It seems like this change has nothing to do with their "vision" . I know it's optional but it seems to be a clear bias against those who love to build in this game.
The positives about this is.. I 'm sure there will be server admins who won't use the CPU limit and of course we can turn it off if we want. With such a change as this one since it has nothing to do with performance it would have been nice if the Devs at least let us all talk about this before it became a feature in game.
Thank you @Ian Einman for the detailed info, definately helps me to understand a few things a bit more.
I made it to the space station (start system) Imagine my surprise however when NO ONE has optronic *anything* to sell. T3 is still a fantasy apparently...
I suppose CPU would make sense on a PVP server as it would make fights more competitive. I couldn’t care less about PVP though so CPU is just a creativity tax to me which is utterly idiotic in a creative shooter. I only enjoy playing on one extremely difficult server and it’s gonna have CPU enabled. This is the first time I’ve questioned if I’ll keep playing this game in over 2200 hrs of play time.
I am new to PVP and so is most of my faction. None of us like the current purposed implementation of CPU. We all expected something that gave us soft caps on weapons and propulsion. I would guess that we are playing on one of the servers that are not being mentioned outright. Based on what people fly there I do not think CPU as currently implemented will be easily adapted to or universally accepted. Part of that opinion is based on the belief that core limits and specialized structures do not go well together. If you can only have 2 CV one will be a full-on fighter and the other a spare or a PVE do all ship. How will you have a miner a looter a cargo ship and a fighter when you can only have 2? I have also listened in to conversations of XPA members and from that, I conclude this is not what they were thinking of. That is just an impression as none of them said that directly to me. To conclude it is my opinion that this is not what most PVP players want or expected.
Would people feel the game was short changing them if the block model of a ship was strictly a logical model used for construction purposes (something modal that you performed the same way we do it now) but that the actual physical implementation of the ship/base that resulted was a singular hull mesh with devices deployed inside/on/prepositionThatFits sort of thing? This would impact how damage to the hull vs devices was done (think "a hull takes HP with deformers to visualize hull state" much like drones are done) and how the process of performing repairs got done, but it would totally avoid the tooManyBlocksFlyingInFormation problem.
This is basically the merged-hull idea. It might be acceptable depending on the implementation, but it would require considerable work on the part of the devs to implement. In any case, it's not really relevant to the concept of CPU.
I had the same idea.... recurrently. And I am pretty sure it was suggested a few times, but I can't remember the reactions either from players or from the devs. If I remember well, the "PC performances" problem was minimized each time it was brought up (like it was for CPU) and some secondary concern was put forward, like difficulty to properly model damage, can't repair the blocks individually, players want to be able to change the ship at any time, etc. There is a stickied thread here where players brainstormed around such an idea: https://empyriononline.com/threads/...and-si-for-ships-but-not-like-you-think.9938/
It's not. Block counts and performance issues aren't really a factor - this is the devs' ham-fisted attempt at ending the 8-layer Combat Steel Deathcube meta. Which is why everything else >10HP also has a CPU cost attached - anything that might conceivably be used to soak damage as a defensive layer gets CPU-taxed, because the devs had an idiot-ball moment and forgot Class Size was a thing.
When I built to 7500 CPU I built with maximum efficiency as this was relatively restrictive and involved some compromise. Now if I build a general use ship for both SP/MP to the spec I need and its say 1.1 million CPU I may as well slap guns, engines, lights, tinsel, glitter, unicorns and anything else that comes to hand on it rather than waste 500k CPU making it far laggier for the server than it would normally be. An interesting way to attempt to address server lag if that was indeed the purpose. As an addendum I not only wonder at how many people realise how hard the hit is going to be on Efficiency in Live over Experimental but also have people noticed their ship dry masses are significantly lower (one of my old size 1 CVs is 25% lighter on spawn in before any changes)? If building to what you believe to be an adequate m/s of lift you will find the max ground to orbit payload capacity is significantly lower than it was. Boosting may get you to orbit if used in a staccato manner but that is risky to rely on at best. Quote by Kieve "Which is why everything else >10HP also has a CPU cost attached - anything that might conceivably be used to soak damage as a defensive layer gets CPU-taxed, because the devs had an idiot-ball moment and forgot Class Size was a thing". As you said had the devs (and or server owners) fixed class 5 as a hard coded max but also hard fixed 7500 cpu there would be no as you say "Deathcube's" although calling blockspam ships with pathetic weapon damage, range and capability PVP is a bit of a strech. Its more sealclubbing in molasses using cardboard tubes as weapons. The tools to prevent this were already in place but not implemented and the solution they have come up with overly complicates things in a manner that penalises those who PVE especially on SP.
Well from the looks of it, @imlarry425 's idea is exactly what is discussed in the thread I linked here: https://empyriononline.com/threads/...and-si-for-ships-but-not-like-you-think.9938/ And here are all the messages from hummel-o-war, and also Rexxus. Read these, and see by yourself if "performance" has nothing to do with this, especially starting at post #35 : I think it is clear, from Hummel's reactions and Rexxus' last post, that this idea had merits regarding performance economy, and that the developers were not the ones making objections here. If performance was already a problem in 2017, how can it not be the case now, with all the new devices and functions the game benefited from that time ? .
I remember that thread, and I know it's been suggested before. I'm not attempting to suggest that a merged-hull idea wouldn't have a notable (positive) effect on game performance. All I'm saying is that the decision to "tax" blocks and other objects with CPU was not made with game performance in mind.
If it was made to try to change the PvP 4-layers armor meta, like you suggest, then what was the problem with that ? Did you read what Rexxus mentions ?
