Cornflakes
-
Posts
384 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Cornflakes
-
-
My concern is that in the gameplay video the remove tool acted instantly. Maybe it could change function when targeting voxels placed by another player?
Demo/prototype effects are wip, dont panic yet
that you can add and remove giant wall sections in space engineers creative mode doesnt break the balance of the main game either
-
So... basically, the reactor turns to an anchor?
That as well, yes lol
-
@Cornflakes
Yeah, if in the Lore there's an element that can soak up gravity, then I don't think people in FutureSpace have any problem containing the schwarzschild radius of a black hole. I mean, at this point, just make it a very very very costly thing to craft a singularity reactor to even out the scalability and output of the device and IF the devs decide to go with Element/Reactor degredation to create a need for engineers on a ship, the engineers' duty could be to repair said reactor, due to it malfunctioning below a percentual threshold of integrity.
I mean, with great power, comes a very large power bill, right?
But yeah, your Singularity Reactor should be like... deep engineering tech stuff and a logistical nightmare to handle. As for the lower tech reactors, we can assume same gameplay aspects of maintenance but with all reactors must follow a disanalogous chart of degradation to power output.
In simple terms : The more power a reactor produces, the more maintenance it requires, with a Singularity Reactor being the jack of all trades, being able to either act at a low output for cruise and high output for combat, but, at the cost of faster degradation.
Fair?
keeping the schwarzschild radius away from your containment walls isnt that hard as long as you dont accelerate :V
But as soon as you accelerate with the gravtiy tethers that should hold it in place not online it will more or less fall through your ship while continously exploding lol.
Yeah, faster degradation sounds good.
I'd also like to note that they need ever more time to "spool up" the lower they are powered down and thus its possible to "brick" a singularity reactor by overfeeding it.
Adding so much mass to it that its decay rate gets too low for it to power up in any useful timeframe and it becoming a low power "radioisotope" reactor.
Low power high reliability output.
and redonkolous mass.
-
As for Zero-Point, in my opinion, that is just too impossible to harness as a power source. Harvesting the sea's tides, that's a possible scenario, but harnessing the literal tide of the universe, that's quite improbable. We can't even contain dark matter, let alone Zero-Point, although, the Devs are free to go with any possible tech direction when it comes to Zero-Point, as the Resurrection Nodes go for a quantum mechanics thing with their logic, although Zero-Point should be unreliable and only be used as a "charger" function when a ship is idle to save costs on fuel, if it was to be implemented.
We already /have/ used microscopic amounts of zero point energy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect
we just dont know how to do it in usable quantities or in a way that doesnt require a new setup for everytime we want to extract power.
And "dont even […] dark matter": we dont even know what it is or if it even exists or is a phantom effect of unknown forces.
We know less about dark matter than about zero point energy
(And its als pretty unlikely that dark matter has any use)
On topic:
For the high power/high danger variants:
Hawking radiation direct matter to energy converters.
Or simpler: low mass evaporating black holes.
The only limit is your capability to push matter into a black hole the size of a mote of dust.
Converts mass to radiation to be converted into usable power at your capabilies.
Gets more powerful the smaller the mass of the black hole is, but gets more dangerous with that.
As it gets smaller with evaporating it radiates faster and evaporates faster.
long story short: it continues to produce power with a damaged matter injection and emits ever more and explodes at some point.
An antimatter bomb massing a couple of tons basically.
Power output thats in the area of human activities needs big and heavy singularities. So its likely that singularity reactors would be mostly used in stationary installations rather than ships.
Pro: high, controllable, scalable power output.
Can use anything as fuel.
(100% feasible to modern day physics)
Cons: extremely heavy for anything smaller than a suns power output.
extremely hard to contain (you have to use gravity to contain it instead of cheap electromagnetics).
When your mass injector goes down the thing goes ever hotter and explodes.
Its a freaking /black hole/.
/it eats your ship when you lose containment/
Linky (black hole evaporation):
-
Do it, you eloquent you
If they reply, I'll put the answer on signature as a badge of honor or a brand of shame so Corn can be happy about it.
I have nothing about assuming limitations.
But you always phrased it like it was a done deal and NQ confirmed it the way you claim it
And i highly doubt that the limitations will be very strict, considering the basic thruster control example they gave.
And with such things being necessary for basic functioning of a craft.
-
so you have no source, great.
then stop claiming that DPU's will have significant power draw
-
You are both wrong and correct. Let me explain.
A script to run, will consume energy, and ships can't have an unlimited amout of power to support your automations. This is the balance between the two aspects, automations VS manual. And you can't have 100 players manning 100 guns. It's counter productive, but you CAN have one player, coordinating batteries of turrets via an in-game console. That's more like how a giant battleship would function. Keep in mind, a weapons' targeting system would require a lot of code and by the way I reckon this, DPUs will consume power depending on how many lines of code operate in it. So, here's your balance. You can make a ship being a one man deal, but it will be VERY, VERY, costly to get it out for a joy-ride.
i'd like to see the source of your persistent "DPU's require power" claims.
-
Seeing as how this thread is just going to be mainly an idea I believe this is a fitting place for it.
So from what I have seen from the tech demo there is not much in the way of building or mining (yet), but I do imagine that when the game is fully released and we are drawing dicks on the surface of planets where ever we go there will be mining lasers and various other types of items we need to worrys about. But my biggest issue with the tech demo is placement of items at the moment there is no clear definition on how we will make stuff I understand that you can adjust size of the block you will place but there needs to be a preset up for everything so let me get to it down below!
Blueprinting before building & Shipyards
Rather then placing a bunch of blocks I want you guys to direct your selves to how making a ship in the video game Shores of Hazeron (now closed) and how they worked out ship construction, it was based on a building that let you design a ship made you deposit minerals and materials to build the ship so you can fly it around and told you everything from power consumption to firepower and everything in between. The biggest issue currently is the fact no one wants to fly around a fucking 1km ship getting every detail right so you would need some type of shipyard that would generate the ship for you and would progress through building stages until the shipyard is done and you have finished producing materials. Yes I know the developers want the game to be how they have it in their game but that is quite annoying to do I really do believe barely anyone is going to get beyond a 2.5km in size and it is going to be very few people and or groups who do go up to 2.5km.
Advantages
The advantages to having it this way is that people would set their sites on the stars, combat, trading and much more where if someone who just made an exact replica of Voyager from Star Trek would be very reluctant of loosing it find a very very far off place where no one has gone or rarely goes because they spent x amount of time on building it and they have every exact idea correct and they do not want to do it again where if it is a blueprint and assembled in shipyards then it is as easy as queuing up another construction job and gathering the materials.
Disadvantages
The disadvantages to having this system is you are limiting the key element that people are looking into this game. (insert more disadvantageous crap here.)
Now I know a lot of you are going to express you disappointment with this but please I am open to seeing all of your comments and hearing criticism and if you would like to grow on these ideas please do so!
Aaaand... why not both?
Do it like in space engineers.
build your construct in the world or in some "VR" designer, then press a button and save it as a blueprint.
for example your intrepid class builder is done, presses a button and saves his design to be replicated when he wants/needs to.
Why forbid building and iterating in world space?
-
Not at all. Facebook's face recognition software can tell your face in a concert's crowd. And Voxels are like pixels, as I said, just in a three dimensional plane. You compare inventories of voxels. It's simple really.
And how many hundreds of millions did facebook spend on make that workable?
How many servers does facebook dedicate to that process?
Does it work in a time frame that would prevent selling bootlegged ships or blueprints?
doing billions of compare actions is simple, yes, but far from being computationally feasible
-
sometimes you need a real language to get things done, for example when you need some real performance
-
Try making an mobile game in C++. Phone will explode xD
Siri will come online on its own and it'll start chanting the call of C-thulu.
loolwut?
nooo?
thats not how programming works
there are even frameworks for wrapping your C++ program into a thin layer of java that your android can run that without headache
same for iOS
you also have exactly one try to guess in what language the operating systems themself are written
-
Exactly. It was made for an era that internet connections were not that strong and Java suited them. The same reason why mobile games are mostly coded in Java as well. Limitations. A PC these days has no such limitations in place anymore.
Java is no good thing in any way
With more limitations you need less java
-
This isn't really how it works. Large objects are indeed subject to greater stresses than small objects when in orbit, but the effects are backwards.
Any object in orbit around a larger object experiences a certain amount of tidal stress. Essentially this is the difference in the force of gravity on the near side of the object relative to the force on the far side of the object. Given a fixed diameter object, such as a moon, the difference between the near and far sides is much greater in a low orbit than it is in a high orbit. If we increase the diameter of this moon then we also increase this difference. Earth's moon, for example, experiences enough tidal stress at a relatively high orbit to keep one side facing our planet at all times and create a bulge on the near side.If the Moon were brought closer to Earth then the tidal forces would increase, the bulge would be exaggerated and we could start seeing seismic activity on the Moon (as well as Earth). If it were brought too close then those tidal forces would rip it apart and, instead of a single moon, we would have rings. The distance at which this happens is called the Roche limit. The stress isn't related to "entering" the gravitational field or how high the object is when it "starts," what matters is the object's distance relative to the Roche limit at any given time.
On the opposite end we have small objects, such as spacecraft, satellites, most asteroids, meteors, etc. These objects are so small that the tidal forces they experience are negligible even at extremely low orbits. If someone were to try to launch a huge object at us, such as Ceres, then it might break up during its approach (though the effects would still be devastating, intact or otherwise). If, on the other hand, someone picked one of the small asteroids then it would likely remain intact right up until it hit the atmosphere. Actually redirecting the object towards the planet is the real challenge; in addition to the high energy requirements this kind of attack would probably result in a tug of war between attackers and defenders trying to redirect a specific asteroid months or years in advance of the actual impact.
As for game purposes things get a bit more difficult. I highly doubt this game will have anything resembling orbital mechanics and it sounds like we won't normally have collision damage. It is possible that the devs could code a special exemption to have objects which fall from space and hit the ground at sufficient velocity to explode, though it would be a lot of extra work on their end to code both this system and a method to push asteroids around. On the other hand bombarding a planet with conventional weapons could be made as simple as pointing your guns directly at the target and firing. This wouldn't work with orbital mechanics (unless you use lasers or particle beams) but it might work in DU's physics with the main concern being game balance.
EDIT: One thing I should also mention, if someone does manage to throw an object at a planet that is large enough for the Roche limit to actually be a factor then it probably doesn't matter whether it breaks up before impact or not. Either way you can pretty reliably count on wiping out all life on the surface.
In addition to that are (large) asteroids and satellites completely "different" classes of objects in terms of gravitational stress.
As a satellite generally isnt held together by its own gravity but by its own mechanical construction.
A satellite would "work" in any gravitational environment (excluding movable parts like solar panels) where the gravitational stress over its lenght wouldnt exceed the forces experienced at launch (the 8ish g of acceleration) and then some.
Because thats what all satellites have to endure in their lifetime and that doesnt destroy them outright.
So the minuscule stresses of gravitational shear in whatever terran orbit arent exactly harsh compared to the stresses compared at launch.
-
Perhaps a combination !
Making a Conveyor element would be a bad idea in my opinion.
Especially on large capital ships and stations.The conveyor system is a HUGE source of lag and netcode crap business in Space Engineers. so ... make it simpler perhaps ?
Proposition:
- Magazines can be anywhere on the ship as a container
- Turrets / Weapons systems can be anywhere on and into a ship.
- Both are required to be anchored or connected to a voxel material of type "conveyor" in order to be online.
- This voxel conveyor material can be used for transporting ammo, electricity as well as water or whatever "pipes" are required in the game
thats mostly how SE's conveyors work for the most part, though.
At least to my knowledge.
It also doesnt really matter if the conveyors are voxel or mesh elements.
As the only thing that matters is the connectome, the net graph which describes how individual elements are connected.
If you call them voxels or not doesnt matter.
For the connection checks it could mostly be done iteratively.
The (passive) connector blocks dont run any code on their own.
When the first functional block (anything with an inventory or energy consumption/production or a network port, depending on which connector block we look at specifically) starts to build a "net" (using a flood fill algorithm or similar) through all the connector blocks it can reach.
connector blocks keep track which nets they are part of (this would condense down to 1 net or x nets if there are different power tiers, say when you have multiple independent high power weapon subnets connected by medium power interconnects for general system load).
Other attached functional elements ask any connector they connect to if they are already part of a net.
If theres no net they go through the process i outlined.
If theres already a net they join it and then can exchange materials/power/data with all other functionals in the same net.
When a connector gets damaged the whole process repeats to guarantee that broken connections dont continue working.
This would limit the heavy calculations to when changes are made and lets modules communicate "directly" without having to invoke all the connector elements for it.
With mesh elements which have an orientation and defined connection points the whole process can be made more efficient.
general connector elements would be two-terminal elements which can only connect to two other elements. (Straight piece of wire without intersections)
Then there would be crossing elements which have three or more terminals.
Using such a sheme would allow to build a more detailed connectome including crossings.
So you could calculate a detailed connectome with all "edge" connections between all "node" crossings and can tell quickly how many paths there are from A to B and if an individual connector is important for their connection and if its removal would reduce/remove transport capacity between A and B.
It would also greatly accelerate recalculation of connections in case of damage.
It would also enable easier calculation of throughput limitations (you cant supply two 2 megawatt lasers through one 2MW cable)
Image for clarification of second part.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5b/6n-graf.svg/2000px-6n-graf.svg.png
-
"Depending on the size of the object, I mean. Take for instance, comets/meteroids/asteroids that explode/fragment even before they reach the earth's outer atmosphere. A good example is what happens between Io and Jupiter for instance."
Thats not "when the orbit is too high", but okay, that makes more sense.
-
-
If the orbit it too high: say for instance outer space orbit, the gravitational field of the planet will tear the object apart before it even reaches the surface.
trees sit pretty comfortably very deep in our gravity well and arent being ripped apart by gravitational forces of earth.
What kind of gossimer strands are you using for bullets?
-
"Everyone wants everything to be for free, until they start creating things they want others to buy. Ahh...Sweet capitalism is coming to Dual Universe."
What does your statement have to do with mine?
-
all of which get destroyed by the people that want p2p.
Theres a difference between "wanting" and "seeing it work".
None of us want to pay anything.
But theres the small detail that the servers and maintainance and bugfixing and continued development have to be paid with something.
And the p2p people prefer a working and good game over a free one
-
-
- Plasma MHD (?)
is mostly a more efficient way to make power from (very) hot stuff instead of using a turbine
or in addition to a turbine.
they still need a source of heat as for example a fusion or fission reactor.
- X Ray (?)
thats just a variation of fusion :V
-
I gotta research the lore then if there're these kind of stuff.
“The Novark was designed in kyrium, a very high-resistance material, graviton-absorbent; that is, able to handle any type of brutal deceleration for the vessel and its passengers.”
https://devblog.dualthegame.com/2015/08/13/dual-universe-part-3/
-
A tractor beam, sure. A cable... I mean... come on
why not?
use one for a fighter, use hundred for a frigate to dock to a battleship.
theres freaking /gravity absorbing material/ in the lore of DU, materials with high tensile strenght are far less far fetched
-
Because science :V
And limitations set by mass
I don't think the devs will let us build a frigging server-hogging spaceship, they'll have mass limitations per engine thrust, that'll make some ships literally unflyable "because science" and as of yet unknown limitations are bad reasons not to include things in a game
why not include some form of boarding grapple / tractor beam / whatever?
have it have a limit on the force it can transmit and make it so that the ship which wants to stop another one have to overcome the targets engine power with its own.
has uses as a crane, has its uses for hangar management, has its usage for docking.
make it as general as possible and somewhat internally consistent
Resource Processing
in Idea Box
Posted
All the support for ClockworkRose! /o/
I'd love to have some complex system of mineral processing using ever more and ever larger machinations.
It always annoyed me that "refineries" in voxel games are so tiny.