I noticed this issue as well. But there were a couple of things going on. The snipers were engaging at a range where they weren't even rendering in. Then with the flamers, the flame was super bright to the point where I couldn't even see the enemy.
I'm actually ok with nerfing the CV thrusters as it supports my in-head concept that CV are meant more for space and should be more lumbering in the gravity well of a planet. My thinking is that the SV should be the major go-to for ground-to-space and general planetary flight. SV are the yachts in comparison to the CV's tanker/freighters.
He Changed the Thruster Force in the Block Config, "Thrust-to-Weight: For the most part, Ships made of regular steel aren't too much different in handling than they normally are. Ships using heavier armors will be significantly harder to move and be ill-suited as a cargo ship (as expected). They're best used with Turrets (SV), since aiming with fixed weapons is extremely difficult due to slow handling of heavy ships. HVs have an advantage in that they have slightly stronger thrusters with lower power consumption and cheaper Hover Engines that can support the massive weight of heavy armors, coupled with stronger shields they make the ideal tanks they were originally meant to be. CVs though, they're slow. A decent CV can reach 100m/s in space at T2 with plenty for weapons, but it won't be moving like an SV fighter like they do in vanilla." You can change anything back to default if your serious enough.
Agree, also since the majority of your weapons cannot be used on the planet, makes this point extra valid.
Yeah, exactly. You could but you don't normally send a carrier up a river, that's what smaller destroyers and patrol craft are for. The right fit for the proper job. Earlier, before V10 I would understand having to allow the CV to function perfectly on the planet because you needed to be able to get your HV to the surface somehow; but with SV-HV docking now a thing, its not really a necessary thing anymore (the nice firepower against heavily armed POI is another matter).
I'm aware of that. I was asking the goal, because a smallish, unarmored SV is not performing very well Try reading the question; the example used is an SV with no armor (steel and carbon only) and two fixed gats. I just happened to notice the same treatment was given to CV's when I looked into the SV issue The main issue here, unfortunately, is Eleon's dumpster fire of mass limiting speed instead of acceleration, which is beyond anyone's ability to change in a config mod. If it were handled properly, thrust reduction would just result in slower acceleration to speed. What Eleon has in place instead gives you instant acceleration to a fixed speed. Because of that, reducing thrust just lowers the speed even further- so you just have near-instant acceleration to a still lower speed
But what I am wondering is if there is some hard cap on what a thruster can do (regarding top speed of ships) without the boost or if it just comes down to thrust-to-weight ratio. I have actually been going in and modifying both the thruster force and the mass of blocks. I like the overall philosophy of GR but I think the changes go a bit too far. That and it absolutely breaks nearly every BP I have. I am not a good builder at all so having working (albeit with some changes) BP's are a must have.
It's the worst of both worlds- and again, it's an Eleon issue, not Vermillion's. You get a speed cap reduced by mass. Pulling numbers out of an orifice that probably aren't too far off: if you look at the statistics page, you'll see a vessel capable of 6g acceleration that somehow can't make it over say 70 m/s in space. Some speed cap is necessary due to engine and optimization limits. It's the way it's implemented that's an issue With proper mass reduction of acceleration, reducing thruster force would slow ships down, but only to the point of making them take longer to get to a given speed. I could get behind that idea all day long.
Gotcha. So force and mass affect both acceleration and top speed. Now I really get why there is a boost to deal with this issue. Having a really hard time trying to find the right balance to my liking. Fighters just feel useless at this point. Standard steel blocks/cockpits are just too weak and they got popped really easy. If you try and use armor blocks, the ships are too heavy. Honestly what it feels like is that there needs to be an advanced small thruster that is a 1x1x1 block. This way you could keep the small profile of a fighter and not have it be soo squishy.
40m/s on a planet isn't so bad. The problem I can see with your ship is that it's BIG and is using only 4 S or M thrusters per side, and I assume it's full of stuff. Those thrusters are great on a small fighter, but they aren't gonna do squat on a larger SV like what you're using. It's for this purpose that the M2, L1 and L2 thrusters exist. Upgrade your thrusters and you'll see your original speeds or better. (I don't know what you're using on the rear of your ship though) I just wish that Eleon would add more thruster shapes for the M2 and L's. Originally, Eleon did a crap job of balancing block mass. 8kg of steel armor would make it a hollow cube with paper-thin walls. Then they gave thrusters so much thrust that you don't need more than a single S-thruster, when the A11 flight model requires a minimum of 4 for thruster torque (Bad Eleon! Learn to count!). Followed by better-than-CV thrust on large jet thrusters for SVs that can't handle that force, no matter how large you make it. Not to mention the mass-enforced speed limit designed to slow down "heavy" (CV) ships instead of the obvious solution of cutting their thrust. Which caused more problems than it didn't solve.
That's kinda the issue- the advanced thrusters that don't look like crap are hard to integrate into the design aesthetically, and I have to insist on that. What's the purpose in surviving if you can't look cool while doing it? Amen to that. Been calling that tendency out for a long time. Proper solution isn't just a block mass increase or a thrust force reduction, it's proper acceleration calculation... which is three frakking variables to crunch. Acceleration = Force/Mass The unnecessary over-complication drives me nuts
I can add the missing shapes to the M2 thrusters since the models exist, but not the L1 and L2. It would probably cause some problems with the workshop and use up more IDs though.
If you want to because you want to, by all means. I can just tweak the numbers for my game till it feels right to me- or Eleon actually fixes the mess If we had proper math being done, it would seem "right" for larger SVs and CVs to net out at 1-5G accelerations to say a 150 m/s top speed, depending on how much fuel and thrusters they can support, with small fighter SV's maybe topping out in the 7-8G range. Throws everything off that these thrusters don't use reaction mass despite all the heat and flame, so "fuel" is far lighter than it should be Carrying enough fuel to accelerate 100 kilotons at 4G should be a mass penalty all in its own
This. Absolutely this. It's really silly that I have to make a shuttle SV that has like 60m/s thrust and it will still not go max speed in space with even a bit of cargo.
I don't know what to do now. I just had two cheeseburgers and now I feel 'very comfortable and satisfied'. Can someone pls help me? I checked all the meds. Nothing helps. I even tried taking a walk outside and get stung by a spider but I even get more satisfied. Seriously, I'm having a lot of fun. The balancing, the slower pace, the item naming (!), just to name a few fresh and well executed aspects. Coincidence that version 1.0 is announced? Probably ;-)
Got to say I'm not really happy with power draw progression on BA and CV CPU extenders. I'm going to play around with the numbers and see if I can find something I like. I think for both BAs and CVs I'm going to start with 50>75>150 and see how that goes. My other thought was to use a 50>75>125 progressing but that seems a little low on the end. The energy draw for HV/SV extenders is even worse. Probably going to give those the same treatment. Also the mass on HV/SV extenders is crazy high when compared to CV/BA extenders. Or maybe the CV/BA mass is just crazy low. On a side note you should be able to trim out quite a few like form the CPU extenders area of the config adding/reworking how they reference each other.
Sorry dude. I'm afraid Well Fed is a terminal condition. You're going to die... at some point. Well, they're subject to change based on feedback. Unlike the devs, I get this stuff done in minutes instead of months. But what the hell does this mean? I've read it 3 times and it still doesn't make any sense:
What will happen if we cut the maximum from the number of cpu extenders, but they would need a bit of increased power?
