Wyndle

The DSAT only requires T1 ore. You don't have to leave Haven to produce them. The groups that pool effort and resources can have a DSAT very fast and many DSAT in a short order from there. In other words, it will be on the market after the groups get first pickings.

To be more specific on the fountain effect: a set of visual effects (straight, curve, splash, etc.). with a reflective response (amazing for light wizards). Do not limit it to static cores. This would be amazing to add to high tier builder's ships and go a long way to improving the feeling of life being put into the game.

I would love to see a few different "sliding glass" door elements. Perhaps also a model that accepts some form of image/SVC as a frosted/etched/painted effect even if it must be on a non-moving part. I would love to see one or more iris door element. I would love to see more animated elements with a water fountain effect being the top of that list.

DU can survive without AvA but a bad implementation of AvA can kill the game in a single day. I want AvA but not at the cost of the overall game. In another thread there has been discussion of instances being created to which I suggested using player tiles and constructs to have AvA combat ladders. It may be required for AvA to be in a different engine or flavor of the current engine to be playable or fun. Instances could give that transition without breaking the game. Edit: I don't think instanced combat should have impact on non-instanced assets. I suggested ladder combat because I did not want instanced combat to potentially put my territory at risk. This would give NQ room to slowly work on AvA while keeping the FPS crowd somewhat sated.

You admit that 99% of the time players don't require BP timestamp (workarounds already exist too) and that fleet battle is an important feature for the game even if not what everyone wants. I am describing tradeoffs and shaving costs; as any for profit business running an MMO would internally. I could be off base with some or even all of my descriptions but still be on the right track. Further, in 5 years the tech could advance enough to void all of my points at which time I would be championing to get timestamps added in. Until then, thanks for keeping me from boredom.

I'm not talking about the game failing to work but rather in terms of nanoseconds of latency being added for each direction of communication for each layer of each polling of the database. For a solo player it would not make a lick of difference but in a fleet battle every nanosecond of latency saved can be felt in real time. Without the fleet battle being possible we may as well play minecraft.

The default sort in the game client is probably a reflection of how that database is constructed rather than actual timestamps and may be subject to change. There may have been a component of visuals taken into consideration when they were deciding if they should give players time stamps in game but the info could be tucked away in a sub-menu to address visuals. Even if it is 500 MB, NQ is still on the hook to store 1000 MB + RAID overhead across 2 or more servers that have to be actively monitored and maintained. That adds up fast.

Needs a decay timer. Reclaim the forum space!

As opposed to telling someone to get a job at a plant or factory to see it for themselves? It doesn't matter which stripe of industry you are in, stuff wears out and breaks. Having video footage to point to for an example is lazy, yet effective, for my point.

According to the kickstarter campaign the Sanctuary Territory Unit (STU) is intended to be a cash shop item. Having a tri-planet safe zone has dampened the value of a sanctuary moon tile. Despite that, I have not seen or heard anything to indicate the plan for the STU has changed.

I never said the data did not have time and date information attached. In a digital system it is impossible to have data that isn't time stamped in some way. Passing (or validating) that information back and forth between the direct and tangentially related servers and the client every time a player opens their inventory or changes their sort method or starts a search... that is where database bandwidth becomes a bottleneck. There are ways to mitigate the bandwidth used here and not providing that information to the player was part of the solution NQ chose. 600 GB of storage for a consumer system does not equate to 600 GB of storage for a data center. First and foremost is redundancy, meaning that 600 GB of data will live in at least 2 places at the same time for at least double the storage and storage servers required, each with at least two power supplies. Also, commercial grade storage costs way more than consumer storage because it is made to a much higher standard with more expensive sub-components.

Pick any episode of any season of Discovery Channel's Gold Rush series and you have better than 80% odds of getting at least a few minutes of break/repair footage and dialogue. A well tuned factory is the opposite end of the spectrum from that example but even a well tuned machine requires tons of preventative maintenance on the regular.

If we are talking about "at some point in the future" when the hardware and software has improved then sure. This idea box forum is in the Beta section and I don't see a leap of technology happening before the end of the month though. Under the current circumstances it would be a death by a thousand papercuts for a QoL feature but it is reasonable to assume the technology will improve eventually. I have and will again admit that I could be entirely wrong since I haven't seen the internals of how the servers are set up and working. I've only had experience working with multi-Terabyte and multi-Petabyte databases on top of the line commercial hardware (we won't talk about running private WoW servers), so I could be wrong about database bandwidth causing latency in the game as well.

The blueprint system is divided into two parts. When you save a copy of your construct it generates a Core BP to store the data. You cannot place a construct directly from a Core BP, instead you make a usable copy just called a blueprint. A Core BP has unlimited use (as many copies as you can afford) but a blueprint is a single use item used to place the construct.

If it has the ability to use resizable bar you're golden. If it has at least 8GB of GDDR5 it should be capable enough for 1080p. DLSS bugs have recently been addressed so an RTX 20xx may see an uplift in performance and the RTX 30xx will shine (though the 3050 is not worth what they're charging).

I just stumbled across something that may or may not help with blurry visuals: Check your FOV setting. For some reason it was cranked up to 120 on my client and I didn't set it that way since my latest install of the client. I dropped it to recommended and most of my distortions went away.

There is not going to be more than a marginal (unnoticeable) increase in performance past 20 GB if we're only discussing system RAM. As Msoul mentioned, a fast SSD (NVMe preferred) and resizable bus (GPU setting) will have more impact on performance. Assuming a fast and consistent ISP, I suspect you can push the number of constructs displayed in game to max and not tax your system (fans may ramp though) if you have 64GB of DDR5. Edit: Something else that may improve performance: Under the graphics settings the second option "Number of threads" should not be set to the max as you need to leave at least one thread available to your operating system. IMO, NQ should change it to default at half available cores (half performance and all efficiency cores where available) with the slider not being capable of capturing the entire CPU.

Its one of the few ways to keep the trial server from becoming false advertising over time.

Or a really slow onset of symptoms that is still building.

An example of where/how such a feature could become a game mechanic or even a mini-game would be a set of challenges that can only be accessed from direct interface with a construct's core you own, not in build mode.

To be completely honest I hope brake stacking stays in at least until we have an assortment of models and shapes for various transport elements. I can do far more for the impact of the visuals with a stack of L brakes than I can if they all have to be unobstructed; even if they require some portion to be exposed externally. The M brakes are a better design for incorporating aesthetically on the outside, but obstruction isn't just brake stacks. Now that I think about it, even the lander in the FTUE has lights over part of the brakes.

It means they don't want to give an answer but they can't leave in rule breaking (even if only an aesthetic rule) in their own shop.

So our backpacks can transform raw minerals into space faring vehicles but we can't instance a virtual environment without breaking immersion? I agree that to truly call something "tested" there have to be real stakes and conditions (pencil towers... grrrrr), but that doesn't mean we can't test the basic responses for a configuration and/or scripts before we invest real time into making the voxels look good. It is a logical and beneficial tool in the design process of any complex product.

I got the same sensation when I started a new account and saw the FTUE myself. It's a diamond in the rough, and all of us salty players will be the grind tools to shape and polish it into something amazing.

I've never been a big fan of surface mining and I can tolerate auto miners. I came to love digging to mine and I have no problem venturing out of safe to get the good stuff, but I miss having more than microgravity. I would very much appreciate a few of the rocks generating a tad more gravity. If realism is a factor in deciding when or how to choose which rocks to increase gravity for base it on the RL electromagnetic values of the ore in the rock. Almost everything else you mention is currently tuned to heavily encourage group play. It is possible for a single player to do everything in the game (slightly easier with alts), but it would be a full time job instead of a game.