Yeah, a door for on-foot personnel is probably a good idea anyway (mixing vehicle and foot traffic is generally a bad idea). Something different to try, at any rate . I'd be tempted to use that for a BA, but my current project concerns a CV :-/.
So, as it turns out, the 10x9 door side frame is pretty much exactly half a block thick, so putting it on its side allows a smooth walk onto and off half-blocks on either side. Looks like I've found my new favorite hangar door. . .
No ist not. Either dont use 100 T2's like you do with T1's or build bigger ships. Again, have you checked/tested your ships un-/loaed turnrates?? My issue woth this saying of yours is this: Most ppl get a class 5 or 6 CV and think ist immense hughe, over the top.. etc... It is not! Then they Claim that ,big, ships can turn on a dime. Yes it's built from big blocks, but that doesnt mean the ship is big, as a matter of fact, most of those ships are shorter than 100m. This said, if ppl would actualy use Long ships such as: * Yamamato: 263m Long * Nimitz: 333m Long Which then as well would have to been built to hold a Crew of 1500-2400 ppl, those ships would have a weight that make you whish for an RCS T3! And yes of course they can not turn quickly, mostly because they're in the water, and in order to turn, must move Forward. A space ship has more Options - and less obstacles - on that matter. But as soon an ingame ship is of that lenght (and according width/height) it wont be able to turn on a dime anymore!!! But "you" dont ever experience that, because: "oh 20 blocks lenght is sooo hughe…." bleh... All realism aside, it's still a game. Oh and if you think some CV's turn too fast, why not just remove some RCS T2's manualy? My CV's usualy have turnrates of aprox 2.5 - 5.1° yaw - unloaded. Loaded, that's like 0.5° - 1.5°.... Just saying in regards of overpowered! Mind you, I tend to get pain in my wrists when playing for Extended periods if my ship has turn rates (much) lower than 3°. (preferable 5-6) So that's the Point where I'm coming from. ---> Maybe they should even increase the "power" of the RCS T2... but making it 1x1x2 or even 2x2x2... which would avoid that Micro CV's would have a dozens of them installed…. But then again, small CV's should be allowed to turn fast (specialisation), Arent they? My biggest CV has a turn rate of 0.3° while beeing 474m. Using aprox 1000 RCS t2, it's already very difficult to move that CARRIER, and that is even UNloaded, I havent tested this with loaded just yet.... Bet it'll be somehwat around 0.001, if even that high.... Long Story short: It's the VERY SAME as with the Jet S... True, they've been OP.. back in A7+A8.... by now.. they're balanced! (or 'you' build/use to small CV's!! ;; If i'd slap an XL thruster on a starter CV, it'll be OP as well…) The Problem lies somewhere else… With the Default size limit of class 7, one can barley build proper Sci-Fi ships. Neither, Star Trek (250-600m) nor Star Wars (1.5 - 12km) ships are that small, takling about CV's not SV's. IMO, a REALLY GOOD ship, wich everything concerns (accessable devices, Crew, pipes, Food, production - it is required, and it already is provied by todays currently used carriers and submarines, so dont tell me i shall not build/use that in my sci-fi builds in the future, just because the size gets bigger. Reality is bigger than we are 'allowed' to build, "everybody" cries for realism, but insists of castrated Micro-carriers that are a bad joke compared to their real Things, but DO want all kind of realism mechanics, without giving them (ship, cv) a chance to be as big as they have to be in order for the mechanics to apply - or counterfit the drawbacks. Good ships, PvP and PvE capable RP ships DO have a 'class-size' of 15+ - unless it is a starter ship. If they shall be usable by any means. I mean, you dont expect a 300m carrier to have only 1 Kittchen for all of it's 2000 Crew? Dont expect me to have my CV's only equiped with only 1 AC either.... This is what really annoys me the most, ppl want realism in a sci-fi game, and destroy the ability to build usable sci-fi ships. So why Play a sci-fi game if they want a todays-realism-sim...
@Sephrajin, have you not even looked at the numbers provided to you in the config file? @geostar1024 is absolutely correct here. T1 RCS CV = 20,000 torque SV RCS = 150 torque A small block is 1/64th of a large block, yes? 20,000/64=312.5 312.5 torque is the number that SV RCS should have in order to be balanced. Pretty far from the 150 it's at. Edit I'm not even touching on the fact that the SV RCS uses 3 watts energy in and the T1 CV RCS uses only 1 watt energy in. Ummmmm.........what? I could include the numbers for the T2 CV RCS, but these numbers are already crazy enough without including those into the mix. So let's just decrease the T1 CV RCS torque down to 9,600, increase it's energy in to 192, and remove the T2 all together. Sounds good for CV's, right? I'm not actually advocating that that is the direction that should be taken here, but the numbers don't lie. We don't even have the illusion of balance right now.
My Millenium super dreadnought is 490m long and is a class 76 atm (still finishing the internals). It's not meant to handle like a fighter jet, as such it does handle like an overly responsive cruise ship at only around 24 T2 RCS. It still has enough internal space to fit several hundred thousand more T2 RCSs. With a ship pushing the maximum limits for what is physically buildable using so few RCSs, why would anyone need a more powerful RCS? With the recent change of block shape volume determining mass values, the mass of the ship went down and it became even faster. And this is with combat steel armor 2-4 blocks thick over the entire exterior hull.
24 RCS? I don’t think I’ve ever put more than 4 in my largest ships - I’ll have to check, but I think my Citidel-class CV’s have 4, and they maneuver just fine. I’d think with that many controlling rotation or pitch would be like trying to roller skate on ice.
What's the absolute turn-rate unloaded? You got me wrong, what I tried to say is: CV RCS T2 does NOT need a nerv. But back to Topic of thrusters… specificly the new 3x7x3 thrusters….. So you guys say those are fine? I just streamed my testings, of a Cargo Transporter SV with 16x 15750 SU... thats less than 8x 32k su! As you see, left and Right are immense amount of thrusters…. Note: All These thrusters give an unloaded thrust of 98m/s2 to the Ground/lift off. Next to the SV, in Brown, is a CV with 2x ~250'000 SU -> one side stores more than all of the SV.... But the CV handles the double amount with ALOT less S thrusters…. Btw.. the SV has an unloaded weight of 215t, in the screenshot it has stored 16x 252 =~ 4200 CS blocks Conclusion: I say, SV's thrusters & RCS need a SERIOUS overhaul of improvement, urgent! EDIT: The planet has a gravity of 0.8 !
That SV is carrying almost 89x its dry mass, which is kind of ridiculous when you stop to think about it. As far as CV and SV thrusters are concerned, there are also balance problems there. A CV S thruster puts out 8 MN, and has an SV size of 4x4x4, while the SV XXL jet thruster only puts out 1.33 MN and has a size of 3x3x13 (and yet consumes half the power of the CV S thruster). Volumetrically, the CV S thruster is an order of magnitude more powerful than the SV XXL jet thruster (and the larger CV thrusters only get worse). The more general problem here is that nothing is properly balanced, particularly when you start comparing SV and CV parts. Until mass, volume, input power, thrust, torque, and HP are set in a self-consistent manner regardless of block size, we'll continue to have balance issues like this. EDIT: Also, SVs could use substantially larger thrusters (CV-scale thrusters basically), especially for large transport SVs.
It would be enough (to start) if the current 3*3*X SV thrusters would be improved for their power Output. I very much dislike any and all of the volume/mass mechanics, until H/SV thrusters and their RCS' are improved. You remind that I should have checked the CV for it's mass... During the stream I did note that it is ridiculous to argue that a 2x2x2m iron block has a different volume than a 2x2x2m CS block, basicly it's 252 vs 1051 blocks per container of 15750 su. I agree that it makes (some) sense for the (used) mat/weight wise, but since 2x2x2 m blocks differ in size of what we're able to stuff in a Cargo, I have a hard time to 'follow'... Then again… It's a game, and I'm thankfull that 6x XL thrusters (CV) fit into 15k SU of an SV, it is also 'about' the same 'volume' (blockwise) as 252 blocks of CS... (while I temporarily agree that a thruster has more empty space than a Basic block). And @geostar1024 , in regards of the first paragraph: Please note that the 'SV Cargo Transporter' was made for visual reference of (mine at least) real survival Need. Basicly, with all those 250RCS and 186 3x3x7 thrusters, it's barley enough to Gather the autominers (t2;guess) without clearing inventory after every single spot, planet, whatsoever. I truely belive that, by visual reference only, the used dimensions for the SV should require alot less thrusters to be moved. Mabye something like 12: 3x3x7 thrusters just downwards. (tops) This should give enough thrust for the vessel in 1g to lift off while loaded. But not 186 ones, of which 12 are 3*3*13 thrusters! True, by real accurate math and Physics laws, it might not be possible to lift a ship of this weight with those thrusters with Cargo loaded. But this is the Point where 'we' (read: community/eleon) need to find rules to adapt the mechanic, while keeping a playable game in mind. Balance is required, yes, but please get those 'only 100% realistic values' out of 'your' head please. Dont get me wrong, we Need accurate values one can do math with. What I had in mind were Kind of 'translators', or 'value modifiers' if you will, which scale the realistic (real world) numbers and puts them into relation for the game engine, so a proper handling still can be achieved (and beeing able to do math how much X do i need for Y...) Gn8
Well, my personal opinion is that everything should compress to solid density in storage (or a constant multiple times its volume at solid density). That way, everything would be consistent, and the more material there is in a block, the more space it would take up in storage. The current set of volume values, though, is wildly inconsistent. Well, I noted that the XXL jet thrusters are a factor of 10 weaker than a CV S thruster, so if the XXL jet thrusters had their thrust increased by a factor of 10, you'd end up needing just 19 for that ship, which could seem more reasonable. The values used by Empyrion already aren't even close to real-world numbers (for thrust, and especially for power consumption), and I've not been using or proposing real-world numbers anyway. The important thing is the scaling between thrusters of different sizes and cross-sectional areas. If all thrusters conform to the same scaling law regardless of size, then one can the thrust up or down to achieve whatever other balance is required.
@geostar1024 ahh i'm sorry, i was refering to my own first Paragraph as a Response. Everything after is 'gernel speech', please note that the word in question is quoted, and the post not edited. EDIT: What I ment by that quoted word is 'you - the Person who thinks like that', not 'you - the Reader/adressant of the last used @' -> hence the Quote. 4am here, way too late already again
Understood, although I'm not sure that many players are considering what realistic values would be for nearly anything in Empyrion . . .
It would have to extend into the bounding box of the hangar door, and overlapping like that isn't allowed.
I've notice this inconsistency with volume and have never really understood why the Devs are doing it. "In game" a block of steel takes up the same space as a block of combat steel yet you can't place the same number in a container. I would understand if this was done as a fudge for mass but the game already accounts for mass separately thus the inconsistency.
