Jump to content

CroolisVar

Member
  • Content Count

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About CroolisVar

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I managed to make the top part voxel of the 2:1 slope using the pinch tool on a checkerboard, but I can't do the thin end of the wedge voxel that way, you need the reactor set as you say. In lieu of a better toolset (the notion of a vertice nudging tool is where we want to be isn't it), can't the Devs just give us a blueprint set with all the slopes, reactors and any other desirable shape pre-made from a free vendor at a market? That would be the easiest solution for all concerned. Then I don't have to go cap in hand to someone who might (snigger) try and make me earn it from them somehow.
  2. I use the brush on the number 2 tool, press E until I get the wedge, then stretch it so I get a 2:1 slope and slap it down. Woop de doo. But then if I want to flip that stretched wedge and place it underneath the first so It forms a sloping girder, it goes all derpy. You can do this with the default 1:1 wedge and it doesn't go all derpy. This is because with that 2:1 brush I am stretching out one voxel, rather than making 2, right? And then due to the arcane ins and outs of voxel behaviour my vertices are being yanked about (along with my brain and my patience). Leaving aside the questions of why we don't have more wedge shapes (one voxel in size to drive the other voxels' vertices) to choose from on the number 2 tool, or why when we do the stretch it simply doesn't just paste in two voxels with appropriately placed vertices , I need to know this: Is there a quick trick I can do to create slopes greater than 1:1 without using that hideous line tool that almost never suits my purposes and without resorting to going and finding someone to give me that reactor set. I have seen Tordan's videos and I've seen him create the first part of the 2:1 voxel slope but only by doing lots of reactor steps tortuously getting a pixel sized something right into the voxel wall fingy. I'm a patient man, almost a tedious bastid in fact, but I can't face doing all that all the time. I've been messing about on a checkerboard with that sodding pinch tool and I'm getting nowhere. There's gotta be simple solutions to being able to knock up the ship design I have in my head, or I'm not going to last in this game. Please tell me the Devs are making a better toolkit than the (admirable but please no) Tordan technique. Thx for replies and listening to my rant.
  3. Do you know, when I saw that you needed to drop 3 months' subscription on this I very nearly didn't do it, thought I'd wait for a reaction. I'm not really regretting it, I sort of thought to myself that I was backing it, maybe I'll get burned, dunno. A twenty quid punt, something that I very rarely do with games (I'm old enough that I know patience, I wait for a popular game to come out in a sale a couple years down the line). I'm somewhat disappointed about the lack of features. I agree with the viewpoint that it's more an Alpha than a Beta. I'm not fussed about server instability, it's only had user load like this for a few days, give 'em a chance. If it's like this in a month regards server instability, then I may have to face the facts that I wasted my money. If it doesn't have a lot more features on the way (actually on the way or in) when my sub runs out in 4 months (1 free month), then I'm out, no more money from me until they make a more feature rich game. But if you dropped 20 quid on a game like this and wasn't prepared to get burnt, I got no sympathy for you. If you dropped 120 dollar on this and are already upset to the point you want out, you're an idiot. Do stop whining now, it's terribly dull. If you feel like you got burned, then stop bending the ears of the rest of us who are going to stick it out for a bit. I don't care about your refund. I can ignore your forum posts (I didn't on this occasion, but that's why you wrote it, right?), but I can't ignore your whining in the chat rooms, where I need to go to get information. It's constant. Whining. Then getting salty about fanbois when really most people just want you to shut up. Shut up shut up shut up. Just bugger off quietly if you don't like it. Jeez.
  4. Besides going to pointless, empty in game locations that you can't return from 'cos bugs. Can I create one at one base and then one at another and virtually go to the other base. Maybe run some machines? Can I do this between planets?
  5. Now we're talking . I just spotted in the last 10 mins that in the nanopack thing production queue there is little down arrows below each entry, just clicked on one for first time and - lo! It gives the BOM for that item. But again, it doesn't show the TOTAL demand for any one material on the BOM, just the demand for that material for the observed works order against the current stock. If there's another works entry further up in the queue that also demands said material, I could be short and not know it. But I keep finding things that are helpful, so clearly I need to do more in game, they are just not quite there yet on total information. But I've definitely seen worse UIs, and I have great hopes for future .
  6. Hmm, as I'm seeing more in the game as I start using the Assembly Line units, I think some of it is covered there. As the nanocrafting thing has a queue, so I was expecting everything to have queues. Apparently not. It's either run continuously (option for safety stock), or run a quantity of just one item type and then stop. No queues. Not sure what I think about that. But straight away I see that some of what I would like is there on the Containers screen for input materials - demand vs available. But I note the demand doesn't scale when you set the machine to produce a set quantity. If I want to produce 10 of a finished item, i should like to know the total demand for materials for all 10. If machine is set to run continuously, then an infinity symbol next to the quantities for single unit would do. But really, what we want to see when we look at a machine is what the next machine up the chain is demanding, so we can just slap on a works order to cater for that, with a queue. Preferably from a centralised screen so we don't have to go visiting each machine in person. We can, of course, just set everything on run continuously and have a huge factory with a dedicated machine for every single thing in the game, but that's lazy and inefficient as hell, and you better be prepared to feed that beast and be able to live with the disappointment and hassle of finding that when you've run short of raw material inputs you haven't got half the intermediates you need as stoppages bite, as well as running around like a twat turning them all on and off to cope with it.
  7. Latest variation on this is being in login queue, and then being disconnected by server just as getting to front of queue. Twice now. Am giving up and going to bed.
  8. On the cheap, plastic seems to have the best compromise for light and damage resistant. On the higher end, umm scandium is it (I forget the name exactly). This is just me looking at the stats, mind.
  9. Hmm, I'm not suggesting we somehow take away the "responsibility" of constructing the nested assemblies, only that we provide the information for what the live demand situation is so a job can be speedily queued to cover it. I don't know why you're talking about 3rd party tools etc., I'm not talking about grand production cell planning, though the demand screen would certainly play a crucial part in that as well. I'm talking about me wanting to build a single Atmospheric Engine S, then a fuel tank and a hover engine, but then having to run around half a dozen sub-assemblies going "OK, I need 3 screws here, then I'll need another 8 screws there. How many screws have I already got?" etc. etc. Sod that - look at screws, screen tells you all you need to build to cover it in one nice summary, you slap on a works order accordingly. Easy and quick. Alternatively, just have the game automatically stick on all the sub-assemblies for you like in Empyrion - but that dumbs it down, does take away the responsibility and is less helpful when you do get into that larger cell planning stage.
  10. Hello Novaquark, I apologise for the pompous sounding post I'm writing, I'm not normally so self-obsessed, but I feel the need to get this across as it's a CRUCIAL QoL thing for DU industry people. In my job (I am a planner for electronics manufacturing, a simple low echelon MRP monkey) we work with the obvious concept of demand. DU is no different. We create works orders (DU "item in queue") for end products that in turn generate demand for sub-assemblies, which in turn generate demand for further sub-assemblies all the way down to a base material that doesn't need to be manufactured. So we have a list of works orders all generating demand for the item provided by the next level down the chain. So far, so obvious. What the production screens in DU fail to do, however, is demonstrate the total amount of demand, currently generated by all loaded works orders in the production queue, for any given sub-assembly or material. E.G., If I have multiple queued works orders that all demand varying quantities of Basic Pipe, I don't know what my total demand for Basic Pipe is without doing a lot of messing about, flicking between screens and doing arithmetic. It isn't immediately obvious how many Basic Pipes I need to make. So, what we need to see is, when we click on a material in those production screens (and ye Gods, the "Ingredients" in the list on the Assembly Lines need to be clickable), somewhere on the screen should be a short list of the jobs, with quantities, that are both generating demand for Basic Pipe or whatever material you are looking at, AND what Basic Pipe production orders we have on as well. This takes the simple format of a bank statement (I'm sure jobs in the queue have a unique job number that you can display): Basic Pipe Total Stock: 24 Job No. +/- Qty Running Total 12345 - 13 11 13345 - 6 5 12211 + 4 9 16611 - 14 -5 16520 + 8 3 This table, nested somewhere on the Basic Pipe production order creation screen, demonstrates to me immediately that I must either move job 16520 and place it before job 16611 in the queue, or create another job for at least 5 units and place it before job 16611 in the queue, or face a stoppage. As a job is completed, it disappears from the list and the "Total Stock" field is updated with its new quantity. In current implementation, this information is not shown. This only leaves the question of what/where Basic Pipe works orders should be included on the list? I would probably go with works orders that are on machines/nanocrafter that have inputs that come from the same container. So if I'm looking at a Basic Pipe works order creation screen for a machine that outputs to Box A, all machines that also output Basic Pipe to Box A, and all machines with orders in their queue that demand Basic Pipe and that pull from Box A should be on the list, displaying their demand/output. If we are going to have numerous sub-assemblies using various production cells, this sort of information summarised this way is absolutely crucial. Without it, we're lost in a sea of demand that we cannot easily describe and translate into works orders. Please, for the love of God, implement . I don't know if this forum has an upvoting system, but if you're a DU industrialist, please upvote and bump, you'll thank me.
×
×
  • Create New...