Jump to content

Zeddrick

Alpha Tester
  • Posts

    231
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • backer_title
    Contributor
  • Alpha
    Yes

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Zeddrick's Achievements

  1. Mission runners hit those places more than once a week so it's hard to imagine them going because of this. They'll probably get bigger and uglier though -- if my construct is temporary and might despawn if I get bored I'm probably going to make it out of a ton of 'container L' to keep the price down and not bother to use voxel. Mission runners might even start using modular ships where they pick up one container bundle, dock it and drop another as they go around so they'll probably look like they were thrown off the side of a ship rather than being nicely placed under the pads.
  2. The article doesn't say whether this applies only to dynamic cores or if it will apply to static and space cores as well? If it applies to static cores, what is the point of having HQ tiles and if it doesn't what is the point in deleting someone's dynamic cores from their base but leaving the others?
  3. Whilst I think the market changes are good, I think 7 days is a little too short and will catch people with family emergencies, computer problems, unable to start DU because of some wierd problem and waiting on a fix from NQ (e.g. GFN users a few months ago) or whatever. When I had COVID last year I stopped playing for about 10 days. My whole family had it at the same time so 'I'd better log into a video game and move my internet spaceship so it doesn't get deleted' would have been pretty far down my priority list. I think 3 weeks would be a better number and would still result in far fewer constructs at them than there are now.
  4. A lot of people misunderstand the GDPR like this. There doesn't have to be a way to map the ID back to a person in order for it to be personally identifying information. It only has to be true that there is only one real human who would be generating that particular piece of information. So if the EULA says one character is only allowed to be played by one human then the character ID is personally identifiable information even if there isn't a way to map it back to the specific human. A credit card number, for example, is personally identifiable information. I have no way to get the owner's name, address, etc from that credit card, but the card number is only supposed to be used by one person so it's personally identifiable.
  5. Yes, as I said above, " I know atmo brakes have some other problems but this is a good enough example of the problems here for now". This is simply the most convenient screenshot. Atmo engines, vertical boosters and wings are having the same issues.
  6. We can expect NQ to be respectful of our hard work and not needlessly break things that took hours of time to create though. Given that *every single ship I purchased from someone else including the NQ ship shop* has the problem I think this will be *very* common. This type of thing is not rocket science though, it's trivial to make a check which accounts for tiny adjustments like this and it's not unreasonable to ask for that. IMO It's also reasonable to expect that NQ might have run some trials on this before pushing it out in order to estimate the percentage of dynamic constructs in the game which will be broken by this and to keep iterating on the feature until only a small number get hit by it.
  7. Here is an example (and yes, I know atmo brakes have some other problems but this is a good enough example of the problems here for now). I have a ship like this: That's a set of atmospheric brakes. Some of them are OK and the others aren't. I didn't build this ship but it's fairly obvious that the intention here was to put a block of brakes next to each other. None are overlapping and there isn't any obvious difference between the ones which are working and the ones which aren't. This isn't a 'janko' ship or anything, just one in which some glitch in the game caused the elements to end up in a position that the game doesn't like now. I can't see how disabling these elements is in anybody's interest at all. It won't make my ship behave differently, it just creates work for me to have to shunt the elements off and then back to where they were to get them all to be OK. And I have quite a few ships like this. This ship alone has well over 150 red elements which need this treatment. Surely we could de-sensitise the check so that examples of truly overlapping elements are disabled but ones like this, which may overlap on paper but which don't actually really overlap, get allowed.
  8. If that works on your constructs then more power to you. Sometimes it will and sometimes it won't. I have a warp shuttle design I made by putting down a warp drive, then arranging elements around it in an optimal (for cross section) way and then finally I built voxel around the edges (some of it from custom stretched voxels, etc). The warp drive is showing as overlapping, as are about 1/2 the elements around it. I can't just 'move it a bit', I will have to shunt a lot of things around and then perhaps re-make the voxels. There is no stacking here, I just built a ship in the normal way. I also have another ship which has 30 engines, all of which are now overlapping. Moving them all 'a little bit' is going to mean fewer engines fit onto the ship. Just because it isn't a big deal to you doesn't mean the same is true for everyone.
  9. I found one and have salvaged from a couple of others. The ones I've seen were at surface level, mostly but not completely underground. You wouldn't find them through digging unless you got really close and looked through the ground. Easiest way to find them was (and probably still is) with a remote pilot and repair tool to make them glow. Also I believe you could (and probably still can) find them by diving at the ground and having them render before the ground detail did. You are correct, though, that there wasn't really any value there given the effort (I got 2 million quanta for over 10 hours of searching) and really they're a curiosity for people to stumble on now.
  10. I think you might be lucky. The way I built ships was to start with elements and add voxel at the end. Most of my elements were placed against one another directly (not stacked). I don't think this was a bad thing to do though and isn't, IMO, a good reason for breaking ships. Also I have bought ships from Captains Customs and Aerogics, both of which told me no stacking was used. Every single ship I bought from someone else is now reporting stacked elements, including the one I got from NQ's ship shop! This is really silly and doesn't benefit anyone. I also support fixing of actual stacked elements, just not genuine cases of elements with an insignificant overlap. It should be fairly easy to disable elements in one case but not the other.
  11. Yes, it does seem a bit over the top. I get that NQ wants to tweak the bounding boxes for these things and make improvements, but I don't really want to have to redesign my ships to accommodate this sort of tiny change because doing so is time consuming and unrewarding. I think banning actual stacked elements like engines, containers, etc on top of one another is a good change (where players knew what they were doing and it was obviously broken). But what we have now has, IMO, gone way too far. Tiny changes to bounding boxes now mean that legitimate ship designs which were allowed at the time of making now need a fair amount of work. With the exception of 3 ships (2 of which were build in January) every single ship I have ever built or bought is now broken in some way! Many will need significant changes to make them work again because the voxel shells were designed around the element placements. None of these ships are gaining any real advantage from the overlaps. They don't perform better, have smaller cross sections or whatever, they are just the way they are because that's the way they were built at the time. I can't think of a good reason for breaking all these ships. Why can't we have the checker check ships using a subset of the new and old element shapes? Then ships with actual stacking would break (they were never correct designs) but ships which were OK when built will still be valid?
  12. What would be even better would be to use stuff like this to make an actual proper player driven economy with actual diversity (as opposed to the current one where every item is made from the same 20 things which can all be collected in the same way with no bi-products). How about making things like exotic weapons, engines, etc depend on specific components which can only be obtained by salvaging ships, and when salvaging a ship you don't know exactly which components you will get and in what quantity. Then the manufacturers and salvagers have to actually use the market to trade with one another.
  13. I'm pretty sure that's way out of date and at best misleading now. Perhaps you can find the link ...
×
×
  • Create New...