Msoul

Yes that seems to be correct. In my experience it reports industry state identically to the dedicated getState() function call.

As far as I know, it is not currently possible to directly distinguish the unknown error status for industry units using the standard lua functions. This functionality has been requested a few times but I suspect the emphasis would instead be on eliminating scenarios where such an error were to occur. However some lua coders have cleverly gotten around this by monitoring the time it takes for a given recipe to complete and subsequently infer a server error has occurred if the reported state is still reported as "running" past the point where it should have completed.

If you have not done so yet please exit the game and re-run the launcher to update to the latest version. There was a patch released about two hours ago that likely addresses your problem. If that still fails to stop the CTD from occurring then I strongly recommend reaching out to NQ support for assistance. They will be able to pinpoint the cause and advise you on how to proceed.

Hmm, do you find this is occurring immediately after leaving build mode with consistency? Since adding thickness is not working perhaps this could be attributed to the intermediate stage of reloading your construct after making a change in build mode. There is a small window whereby your client replaces your construct's mesh with a lower resolution version while it waits for the server to send the detailed one that includes your most recent changes. The length of this window is highly dependent on things like construct complexity and network speed. Consider reaching out to NQ support with your construct ID, they should be able to pinpoint the cause and can likely offer you suggestions and/or raise the issue with the dev team.

Please double check that you have linked your steam account with your DU account as that is a required step. Also I am not sure if this process will work for accounts created before the steam release. There was talk of accounts being linked to payment processors where if your first subscription based purchase is made via Steam/Xsolla then all subsequent ones must also be made the same way. I could easily be mistaken thou so if the process is still not working then definitely reach out to NQ support for help. Also give this post a quick read, maybe it will help you narrow down the problem. Wishing you guys all the best. I hope you figure it out and have a great time.

Haha well said. The whole situation is rather contradictory but I totally understand why some would feel that way. Still given time both the sentiment towards and relevance of sanctuary may change. Putting the pricetag vs value issue aside, I do think there eventually needs to be a way, even if it is only for those hardcore completionists.

Everyone who participated in testing the game before release was given a Pioneer Pack. I think the only exception were beta keyed accounts but in that case they were also able to play for free during that period. Whether or not that is good enough is of course debatable but I don't think anyone was left empty handed.

I agree, it is a lot better if new players all start on the same planet. This helps maintain a level of consistency to the FTUE and keeps things more lively. However the Sanctuary moon should eventually be made an option for future expansion. The problem is that backers somewhat paid for that privilege due to the additional sanctuary territory unit(s) given in the supporter packs and they may not appreciate it if NQ were to just hand new players one for free. There probably needs to be some sort of compromise whereby new players have to at least earn their sanctuary tile. Maybe something like making it a reward for completing all VR tutorials and challenges?

These are great solutions but as usual alt accounts make things a lot more complicated. The current "soft limits" for individual accounts (ie: calibration charges, construct limits, mission capacity, etc) can be instantly bypassed just creating another account. Personally I would prefer a more gradual effort based method whereby these limits start at zero and require active investment to into your character to further increase (ie: performing related actions or completing quests). It still does not fully solve the problem but alts become a lot less attractive if you have to actually do stuff to unlock that potential. Unfortunately DU has always been framed under the passive talent point approach so it stands to reason that most players here prefer to have their stats increased without expending effort. The other option is to make quanta generating activities require more individualized player interaction like forcing alt mission runners to fly separate constructs and also dodge asteroids. Not sure how such a concept can be applied to territory mining thou as it is completely centered around passive income generation.

Those are interesting ideas and I can see how they help to provide more opportunities for players to get rich but there are also problems with such an approach. The first is that it makes the process of scanning for rare tiles far more tedious and time consuming (ie: something that is already heavily criticized). Perhaps that is not too concerning if your intent is to balance things such that everyone is capable of acquiring said tiles, but therein lies the bigger more fundamental problem. Regardless of how long it takes or how much effort is required, if everyone is capable of simultaneously owning rare tiles then eventually they will. This effectively eliminates the whole concept of resource scarcity which in of itself is meant to be the primary motivation behind pvp. It also disincentives market trading due to reduced interdependence between players/groups for resources. To put it simply, the idea works well from a single player perspective (ie: individualized progression) but it sacrifices a fair chunk of the mmo aspect. I am not necessarily saying its a terrible idea but its definitely not ideal either.

Rokkur I think you might be misunderstanding a little bit. This is not about whether the feedback is positive or negative in nature but rather the amount of effort and thought put into it. Blunder appears to be making the case that because NQ appears inactive here, that there is no reason for anyone to put in any effort towards either of these activities. I have expressed my opinions on that already and again they are just my opinions. I have nothing to do with NQ, and while I do think the way some people express themselves on the forum tends to be counter productive to their goal, that is their choice and I do respect it. All I am trying to say here is that "Dual Universe is great" and "Dual Universe is bad" are not particularly helpful to anyone let alone NQ and there are others who wish to have more thoughtful conversations. To be perfectly honest I can't believe that pointing this out has led to this kind of response. Perhaps its best to just move on at this point. My apologies Snapsis I did not expect this to go so far off topic.

If that is the way you feel then so be it, but please understand that not everyone feels the same way you do. Their are still those who love this game, who believe in it's future, and who want to have serious conversations here on the forums. Yes some have expressed concerns regarding NQ's current level of engagement and future prospects but these kind of concerns have existed, to varying degrees, long before this forum even came into existence. While I do agree that holding such beliefs discourages people from providing constructive feedback, it most certainly does not stop them. In fact I would argue that its not unusual for some of the biggest critics/doomsayers here to also present some of the most well thought-out and meaningful suggestions. Even still, I too hope that NQ can alleviate some of the uncertainty floating around, but it will most likely take time. Now with regards to the forums itself. You are correct in that it is not my place to control the narrative or organize things. If I came across as a "cop" there, then I do apologize. All I wanted to do was offer my thoughts and suggestions on the matter, similar to what you have done here. Everyone is free to ignore me and I expect many will. The main thought I was trying to convey is indeed that both NQ and other players would be more inclined to interact/monitor feedback on the forums if the quality/consistency of it were increased. It seems we disagree on that point but this particular thread (as well as the one I linked) are clearly geared towards discussion/feedback on Dual Universe's ore distribution. Given this I felt it was appropriate to make such a suggestion. Also I personally want to understand why players feel the way they do about this particular topic and since Snapsis also expressed some interest, it seemed appropriate to invite him to the party. PS: Two parties is fine too. If you want to host your own then go for it.

There is already an active thread dedicated to this topic so perhaps share your thoughts there. Also could you please elaborate a bit more when you do. Its obvious that you have some opinions on the ore distribution but its not exactly clear what they are. The figures you quoted highlight the exceptionally high rate of tile acquisition for Talemai so I presume you believe that needs to be decreased. I tend to agree but I don't see how that ties into the ore distribution. Furthermore the opinions I have heard regarding said distribution have been all over the place. Some believe everyone should have access to a T5 tile, some want it to remain a scarce resource, and some want territory mining completely removed. There are also concerns regarding the current permanence of tile ownership. Some think its perfectly fine, some think territory warfare will eventually balance everything, and others think we need an interim solution. Unfortunately most of these thoughts get thrown around without context or justification so its hard to say why certain players feel the way they do. Just overall, I think it would help if more people chimed in with detailed thoughts on a given forum topic. Yes the witty one liners and gut reactions can be fun on occasion but I feel like its become too commonplace and causes topics to derail rather quickly. I want the community's voice to be both heard and understood when it comes to serious topics. Now I get it, some people can be really passionate, but if and when NQ peaks in on said discussions, it would be nice if there were less people flailing around and trying to set the room on fire. Ideally that will also encourage other players to share their perspectives.

Well said Kezzle! I think the only other possibility that could lead to this behavior is if he is not toggling build mode between his two constructs. If you followed the above SicZilla and are still seeing a red part outline then make sure you are in build mode on the correct construct (ie: your speader) when attempting to deploy those piloting elements. Dual Universe's edit mode is not global so you can only modify one construct at a time. Simply look at the specific construct you want to change and press the B hotkey or right click on it and select edit construct.

Lua is a major feature for Dual Universe, so much so that it even has its own team lead. Development runs in parallel with the other major features but lua is a bit unique in that it also ties into just about everything. Last I heard there are some long term plans to add script protection/trading functionality as well as overhaul some of the older systems but the immediate focus could be dedicated to adding lua support to upcoming new features. Either way don't let the silence fool you, things are happening in the background.