Are you also going to increase the BA/CV storage proportionately at the same time? If not then you just created the same issue we had before, where somehow SV/HV storage is able to hold more than it's BA/CV counterparts. As it stands right now small blocks are 1/64th the size of large blocks and as such they have 1/64th the storage capacity of large blocks. So if we changed just the small block values then it becomes advantageous again to use small blocks over large blocks simply because you can store more things in a smaller space proportionately. People won't put cargo boxes on their CV's because they can park a SV in that spot and have even more storage than if they used the correct boxes. Sorry, but I'm not a fan of any of that. Just a little math to drive my point home, Let's say that they chose your smaller value of 400 SU for the small blocks but left large blocks alone. 64 small blocks to one large block so 64*400=25,600 You would be able to store 25,600 SU in the same space as one large block simply by using small blocks instead. What should have been 8,000 is now 25,600 I can now store 3.2 times as much stuff in the same space simply by using small blocks. That's a big no from me. Ps. This whole system was created to fix such issues.
Both me and @geostar1024 petitioned long ago for the mass and volume to be accurate. They refused for most items citing gameplay issues. Hell, I did all the math involved in almost item volume and mass. A prime example of this is logs and wooden planks. With logs being 5 Liters at 8kg each being made into 40 planks at 200mL 2kg each. It doesn't add up and for gameplay reasons it's not meant to. Earlygame players onfoot have to be able to cut trees, carry the logs and planks necessary to make biofuel and build a base asap. So now i'm gonna throw some realistic math at you. Presently a log at 5L would be roughly 8cm across and 10 high and weigh only 380 grams, instead of the current 8kg. The current wooden planks at 200ml each would be about the size of an iPhone and weigh only 150 grams. Not the kind of thing you'd build a base from. On the other hand, if they used realistic dimensions then a log at a still-carryable size would be 31 liters each (round, 20x100cm) and weigh 23kg each and would only produce around 3-4 planks each of an equal length. It would take roughly 12 logs to make a single side of a Wooden base block. Assuming that trees dropped wood logs relative to their size, it would take at least 2 "birch" trees per base block. The conversion of iron ingots to steel-L blocks is worse. Since a steel block is 2x2x2m and is made of 10 steel plates, which is only 2 iron ingots. Iron ingots are 0.8L (5kg) which is over 3x a normal ingot's size and more in-line with an industrial ingot for heavy machinery. The accurate mass of 0.8L of iron would be 6.3kg (dimensions 40x8x2.5cm per ingot). Either way you wouldn't be able to carry more than a few of these, letalone a stack in your backpack. A CV/BA Steel block using 2 ingots would have walls 0.066mm thick. Thinner than tinfoil. Realistic thickness would likely be 2.5cm (assuming the blocks are hollow and consist of nothing but steel plate in a cube) and work out roughly at 600 Liters of steel. Which would be a little over 4700kg (4.7t) or 749 Iron ingots per block. Btw, 2.5cm thick armor is double the thickness of hull armor on a modern naval ship. Bringing it down to quarter thickness (0.65cm per side) would leave the mass at roughly 1.2t, only just over the current mass of a CV steel block. Storage also suffers from this problem. You can't just unrealistically increase the internal size of a container to accomodate newly-realistic values of the items intended to be stored. Though originally storage containers were measured correctly and had the correct amount of internal space (6000L). It was only later that it was increased by 2000L, larger than a regular storage container can physically hold. Don't demand physically accurate dimensions everywhere if you aren't willing to live with the consequences. Even if you are, make sure everyone else is too.
Oops. Okay, wrong tank. The Tiger I's turret is 25mm thick. Removed the tank, kept the boat. Wow, imagine 250mm thick armor on a CV block. That'd be 36-38 T per block.
@krazzykid2006 True. My 'whole point' was more from the (pure) building aspect, not Gameplay wise. It is mass/volume balance thread, and to me, the (amount to) use of containers - and it's consequences - belongs to that as well. BACV: 1 CC+39 CE (full) = 320k 40 * 50 = 2000 CPU This leaves 5500 CPU for thrusters, RCS, tanks and Generators, more than enoug for a BACV. (if you keep it with 1 CC) HVSV: 1 CC + 3 CE (full) = 1k SU 4 x 32 = 128 blocks = 32k SU 128 x 50 CPU = 6400 CPU This leaves 1100 CPU for thrusters, rcs, Generators and tanks, hardly enough to move the contained Cargo, and it's own weight. The Point/reason of my previous post was that currently the HVSV storage uses more than 3 times the CPU to store only 10% of it's BACV equivalent. To me, this doesnt sound right either.
But....you are talking about CPU values, which aren't balanced at all yet. You don't go balancing CPU values by 100% unbalancing the mass/volume values in the process. If you want to increase small block values to 400 SU, sure, but large blocks have to be increased to 25,600 SU at the same time.
One could also just eliminate the "real world" names all together. This is what I have seen in other games. Whose to say there aren't more undiscovered elements out there.
That doesn't actually change the overall problem, though. Even if you assign arbitrary densities to each element, you still have to make everything that's built from those elements have consistent properties. Self-consistency is the core issue here.
This is actually a really good point. The Output of the SV thrusters is ridiculous. When you take the volume of thruster Jet M/L/XL/XXL and fill it with thruster JetS you always get more thrust partly really a lot of thrust. So the only thing you gain with bigger thrusters is style and fuel effency. This ruines the game with W/V system turned on . This ship i built shows why. I built it just to lift things in my SP game i startet two weeks ago to test Alpha 10 and the W/V system. There is nothing in the ship except of thrusters, RCS, Generator etc and a "large" Cargo container to test the lift power. Thats it, this ship consist of nearly nothing else than engines and generators. When its empty in its current state it has an upward acceleration of 116 m/s² The pictures show what happens when i load it with far less than that what the volume (of the ship) would allow.
In alpha 9 i figured out for myself a system with better balanced and generally higher thrust for all the thruster we had then. It is pointless now with the new weight system and several new thrustertypes. It took into account thrust, thrust mass, thrust per volume and fuel consumption per thrust, what i consider to be the main features, and tried to generate a curve of higher efficiency to higher levels (with some tradeoffs, of course). While the new masses are not set in stone, or at least in clay, its way too much work to renew that. And i noted, that to me a smaller thruster is much more valuable than a bigger one, even if the bigger one yields more of everything in the same volume. Its just the flexibility of the smaller one in the design process that wins the price. But my opinion is, that the thrust output of ALL thrusters, SV and HV, is still too low by a factor between 3 and 5. As it is, any ship that should be able to transport significant loot has to be made mostly out of thrusters. (Well, CV are a exception in this regard)
Exactly and for that reason Mining HVs s*** when when the W/V system is turned on. Also: Yes the smaller thrusters allow you far mroe flexibility in Design and that's just another reason why the bigger thruster(s /jets) should be advanced in more than just a bit fuel efficiency.
It's worth noting that according to the mass of that cargo container, it weighs 6930 metric tons. Which is the weight of the Eiffel Tower (not including restaurants). An SV is simply not meant to lift that, because that would be ridiculous. Like expecting a helicopter to lift a cruise ship. Also, exposed thrusters will be a requirement in future and can be enabled manually through yaml editing. So stacking dozens of S-thrusters won't be possible.
Yes, thats ok. But you cannot lift this with HV, either. But - there is a way you can. Use more thrusters. MORE. MUCH MORE. The result is something like this (i actively use it in SP): Dont look closely at the design, please - thats another story... But look at he stats: This baby can lift nearly 1000 tons with a payload of 800 tons. And it uses 118 thrusters Jet/S for this. Is this really necessary? Couldnt we just say, they are just three times more in everything (weight, fuel, thrust, costs) and we need only 40 of them? At least I dont see the benefit of being forced to pile them up to such stacks. And this doesnt make it better. I wont use one thruster less than before, because i _need_ them. With the current stats there will be one obvious solution: More surface. The ship will get structures like heat exchanger, where the thrusters sit in. This will be protected by shield-like stuctures at the outside in the required distance. While i dont care for the look of that (i am anything but a creative) this will be impossible to build in survival because of its complexity, what imo is a huge drawback. Another problem that just would vanish if the thrusters had appropriate thrust...
I totally agree. I have nothing to add. But a "like" simply wouldn't have been enough here. Thruster stats s****.
What do you call "appropriate thrust" and on what formula is its appropriate value based? Also for future consideration: CPU.
As i said above: factor 3-6 above the level now. One Example: Block Id: 697, Name: ThrusterJetRound1x3x1 Volume: 30, type: float, display: true, formatter: Liter Mass: 430, type: float, display: true, formatter: Kilogram ThrusterForce: 350, type: int, display: true, formatter: Newton EnergyIn: 90, type: int, display: true, formatter: Watt would be (all stats x4): Block Id: 697, Name: ThrusterJetRound1x3x1 Volume: 30, type: float, display: true, formatter: Liter Mass: 1720, type: float, display: true, formatter: Kilogram ThrusterForce: 1400, type: int, display: true, formatter: Newton EnergyIn: 360, type: int, display: true, formatter: Watt and overall a little tweaking (as imo the payload is too little compared to the thrusters mass and they consume too little energy): Block Id: 697, Name: ThrusterJetRound1x3x1 Volume: 30, type: float, display: true, formatter: Liter Mass: 1400, type: float, display: true, formatter: Kilogram ThrusterForce: 1400, type: int, display: true, formatter: Newton EnergyIn: 450, type: int, display: true, formatter: Watt Of course this is not calculated thoroughly in respect to the other thrusters, or even the thrusters of HV and CV. Just a direction where i'd wish to go. The goal is, to avoid piling up too much thrusters. It must be sufficient for an average ship to use two or three thrusters per direction, and it must be cheaper in respect to performance AND volume to use the bigger thrusters if more power is needed than those two or three little thrusters can deliver. The jups in volume currently are too big by far: from 1x3x1 to 2x5x2 it 7 times more volume, while the power goes up just by factor 2.4 . Thats way off from being of interest for me to ever use it.
S Thrusters are not viable at all, with the exception of their regards of their resource requirement (no neodymium/sathium), unless you wer Talking About Jet S. Sadly, nor are te Jet XXL thrusters (SV). The bigger the engine, the bigger it's power - or at least that's how it should be. This said, we currently cannot build viable Cargo Transports within CPU Limits -> and sure not as HVSV! By that I mean, if you Need 2-3 travels from the current Autominer Depot with your SV to your CV, and every 2-3 Autominers you'll Need to travel your CV back to your BA, this means that you'll have to travel for 12 resources (8 ores, pm, mg, pt, h2o): * 3-4 times with your CV to your BA * 24-36 times with your SV to your CV So with the recent SV been done for Exploration, I thought the next (SV) should be to Transport. But I'm seriously getting issues (CPU/thrust-power wise)… If i stay within CPU Limits, i cant lift off. If i can lift off, i'm waaaay beyond the CPU Limits. The Austerty is there for visual reference, as it's a length of 10.5m. So... * the small containers: 12500 SU, 24 Jet S, 489m/s empty, 208 CS blocks, 10m/s loaded, 7100 CPU * the big containers: 32000 SU, 26 Jet M, 643m/s empty, 533 CS blocks, 10m/s loaded, 15050 CPU And mind you, there are only CC, CE and thrusters, and the core, obviously, in these 2 builds. My Conclusion: Basicly any and every SV that wants to carry more than 10k SU WILL exceed the 'current' CPU Limit of 7500. Because the examples shown here have no RCS, no Generators, no tanks and no engines to left/Right/front/rear…... All I want is to be able to get those 32k Cargo and stay within CPU Limits, yet, the CC's alone exceed that Limitation. (where they dont for BA/CV) I dont want to make a Transporter for 1/3 of the 10% capacy of the BACV Limit. Sure one could move 'all the contents' of a single T3 AM into those 10k, but one (me at least) is usualy not harvesting just 1 AM per planet.... Thus (to me) the term 'transporter' doenst apply for that. They'd be basicly a 'pickup truck', im comparrison with those 20t and 40t trucks (Transporters), IMO. @Moonsugar The Austerty can carry 2k SU Cargo and 500 SU ammo, she can fly/beat 7 G within a MVff enviornment, but only 1.5G with MVn So 3-6 times more bit not be enough for more Cargo storage, but, I agree, gives a good start off
The ship i posted above can carry ~ 65k SU in 4 Controllers and 2kSU Ammo; several little Containers are ready available from inside the SV. It was meant as a transporter and i think i can call it such. The CPU? oh, yes... its a little off maybe... 45650 units... To be true, i care about those CPU not the least bit. The devs stated several times, it has no meaning yet, so why should i? It will change about two dozend times until i have to deal with it.
buffing sv containers and thruster just for the sake of lifting cargo is a bit narrow minded. combat sv are already very fast buffing the thrust event 2x would give it so much acceleration it would be broken. on the cargo side buffing them any more then 2x would would defeat the point of the of the volume system. in short if u need to move cargo y would u use a "small" vessel instead of a large one.
In my opinion the stats of the bigger SV jets are narrow minded Not if you also increase the weight of the thrusters a lot. This way the thrust you gain with a thruster is not that overpoewered while extra cargo doesn't affect the thrust that strong. I never saw a combat SV that is too fast. I rather have a full moveable ship instead of a full not moveable ship like now. That sentence doesn't make sense in my head. But i would like to see it this way: The bigger my ship the bigger the cargo it can take. (strongly simplified!)
