Ezghoul

I call them brushes because of the ability to add and remove mass with them. From an artistic standpoint it may not look like a brush but it's your only tool to create or sculpt with.

This idea I hope gets implemented. As ship builders and architects get more accustomed to using the Toolsets provided, we are going to start developing our own brushes (custom shapes). Either by merging shapes, creating stamps/molds. From what I have seen it's possible to create duplicates of these forms which is great. The problem is, how do we store these for later use. Sure we can create giant tool boards in our workshops but this leaves our biggest asset open to being copied, griefed, destroyed or lost if our land area is taken in PvP. I would like to request a way to store, name and sort custom shapes (brushes) for later use, hopefully in a similar way the primitives are.

@CaptainTwerkmotor actually you explained what I was trying to convey. I completely agree. Just because something is possible, doesn't mean you should rush to get it done. Once again I'll point to Eve as a reference. The first group to build a Titan (Named Steve) got it blown up shortly afterwards (a few months later). History does repeat itself..... Hopefully people recognize the implications of this.

If all you want is to design there are many free 3d tools available out there to use during your planning phase. Blender is one of most well rounded open source tools out there. If your looking for a way to import a design to Dual Universe and just add resources to have it built for you on the other hand, I have to object to it. This is not Empyrion and such a method would remove the need for organisations/teams/projects. You really shouldn't expect to be able to build something that large by yourself, at least not in a reasonable time frame. JC said something to this effect in one of the videos (he was referring to people wanting to build a DeathStar). I would like to say here, I'm not saying I'm right and your wrong or anything like that. I just don't think it would work in DU or fit NQs implementation based off what little we have been shown.

@Wardonis I agree that creating a blueprint shouldn't cost resources, which is why an ingame planning/wireframe mode would be amazing. However you would probably want to know if the design would work as intended. Just like in the real world prototyping is not free of cost. BUT people tend to use low cost materials for prototyping. This is were the trial and error stage comes into play.

One big question is what's the smallest unit we can "sculpt" with and is rotation locked to a grid or can we freely rotate on all 3 axis.

I have the feeling that until the game/community grows more, bigger ships may be possible but not profitable. It's easier to get 100 people into fighters/bombers feeling all bada*# for a fight then just a hand full of bigger ships. I'm sure there will be many smaller multicrew ships but battleship/cruiser+ is asking for a lot of commitment. Manpower, resources and manning are probably going to be the limits. Not restrictions set by NQ. I'm willing to bet that many orgs will be Building massive ships. Unfortunately the first org to complete such an undertaking will be the first one to LOSE it. From my experience in other MMO s it's better for a clan/org to have steady progression then to do one massive project that may fail as soon as it's finished. Edit: Sorry for rambling a bit. My biggest point is Eve's golden rule "Don't fly what you can't afford to lose". Every noobie hears it and almost every noobie disregards this until they feel the pain of loss.

I understand that it would be helpful for flight tests but trial and error is part of the experience NQ is trying to create. I highly doubt that DU will use aero dynamics ingame. More likely we will only have to deal with mass, weight, inertia and gravity. From what I've seen regarding skill progression, NQ wants first hand knowledge and practical application to play a big role in how well something is accomplished. If you have a creative mode you diminish the risk of trying/designing new things and lower the player skill needed. For logics and scripting, players should have to learn how to build breadboard constructs to test things out before applying them to full-sized ships/turrets/drones etc.

Another approach would to be implementing a wireframe blueprint mode. It would show in the DU world as if your building a ship but you would only be using place holders/empty blocks. I think this may be a more useful implementation when working as a team anyway. The team foreman could layout placeholders or "guide" blocks as needed to help direct the rest of the people building. Another benefit is you wouldn't require the skills to place or use specific blocks (if that's a thing) to guide your crew. In my opinion it would be a mistake to split the community of builders off into a creative/offline mode.

The first thing I think of when I read this is Tribes (except with more variations/customizations of course). I'll echo those above and say I hope to see it later in development!

Thanks for the info @Lord_Void. Do you by any chance have a reference? I would like to read/hear what they have had to say about it.

From if seen in the dev blogs your correct, most crafting is done in inventory (I rewatched the April dev blog after posting last night). This raises the question then of wether building a home actually serves a functional purpose other then for storage, to show off artistic skills/taste and a trade console. It would be a shame to have the ability to create an amazing building but have no reason to be there...

Just a quick question, forgive me if I missed a post somewhere that explained this. Has anything been revealed about the mechanics for refining materials and crafting components? Will this all be done on the fly in your inventory or will we have the opportunity to construct production chains/factory's for this? I can see the benefits of inventory crafting, but i have always enjoyed setting up factory's and figuring out the logistics/supply chains/efficiency's etc.