Cornflakes

who are you to decide which ship is considered ugly?

A few things: to cool down atoms you have to make them slower, not keep them locked up tighter.
With locking them up tighter you heat them up more.
But then, you also have the problem that individual atoms dont have a defined temperature but only large groups of atoms have a temperature due to temp being a statistical measure.
 
Its also dependent on the linear movement of atoms, not on "oscillations because of their electrons".
Its electrons dont make an atom oscillate in free space.
 
But regardless, theres something else that we may can tap into for power: vacuum fluctuations.
With the right setup they have a measurable effect and even provide very small amounts of unusable work.
We have yet to figure out how to extract power (pseudo)continously.
We know how to build batteries using the same principle, though.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect
 
 
Also "lock down how to manipulate quarks", and how should that provide power?

I'm sorry, but you most likely do not pass the turing test.
Aside from that, please clarify whatever you meant with that post, its absolutely not understandable.

i think a generalised rail system would be a better way to implement this instead of specialised elevator objects.
 
rails, rail riders/motors, junctions, "ramps" to mount/unmount rail riders from rails and some way to supply them with power
and you can build anything you could ever need in terms of fixed-track movable objects.

you dont need a phd to play factorio either and that is more confusing when you look at an already established factory
 
factorio is also a good example of how building complex production chains should feel.
perfectly fine and logical when you do it yourself.
gigantic, confusing and a messy when you look at it as an outsider because of its complexity and size

Many exploring and mining type games have a way to process raw material collected into a usable form. Imagine in minecraft smelting iron ore to create iron ingots.
 
I would like to propose a similar system for DU, but one that allows substantial factories, with complex inputs and outputs.The basic idea is that with exponential increased complexity of a refinery, you get linearly increased yields of materials. Similar to how some mods in Minecraft work (ic2, mechanism, etc) and several other games work.
 
So a simple smelter would turn 100 units of ore into 100 units of metal, but maybe adding ore washing gives 106 units of metal. and then adding an input of flux, grinding, and sifting gives you 112 units of metal. Real life ore refining has many steps with many machines, feedback loops, inputs, and outputs. Add to that there is no reason to stick with real life limits in this game. Maybe a matter fusactor can take some of the rock scrap and break it down to get the last bits of ore.
 
As an example of how far you can go, with a pile of machines and process, look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_refinery#Common_process_units_found_in_a_refinery
There is a list of common processes involved, many of which require different inputs, output, feedback, and have multiple working parts.

 
 
Constructing and running a large complex orbital refinery seems like a blast. A nice part about this system is it doesn't really impact normal gameplay. You could still make your iron with a smelter, and at a reasonable rate. You just get increased efficiency with increased investment.
 
Devs could add the system later, and / or add onto the system later. Little changes by adding such a system into the game post release. The system is inherently balanced because of linear gain from exponential effort. This means that (assuming last level is high enough) only the biggest refineries could justify implementing it.
 
Anyway, that's my idea. I'm captivated by the image of pipes running all over between machines, with conveyors and furnaces burning, all infront of the backdrop of a planet.
 
Let me know what you think.
 

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

Point C is pretty much common place for cannons that are big enough in RL.
or would at least be no change in the guns themseld but only in the ammunition stores and ammo distribution.
 
From what i can tell from the graphics i can find "classic" iowa class battleship turrets have no magazine per se, only successive buffer rings which are supplied constantly

@CaptainTwerkmotor: stop accusing Velenka (or anyone else) of being a griefer just because his opinion differs from yours.
 
@Velenka: 
the thing with borders, or rather with limited-throughput choke points, is that they make strategic combat less of a "i have more cannons than you" slugfest but make them more dynamic.
 
with free FTL the attacker can just drop his attack force on a chosen target without much thought beyond "do they have more guns there than i can bring", with reinforcements/supplies making a beeline to the fleet through interstellar space.
 
whereas with bound FTL or gates the whole ordeal becomes a lot more involved and needs actual strategy.
"can i get there" "how do i get there" "can i keep the route safe for my supplies" "can i cut off their supplies" "can they cut off my retreat" 
and so on and so forth.
 
with free FTL its straight up firepower vs firepower at any interesting installation.
 
with bound FTL you can have large power multiplication effects if either side is smart.
a well placed fortress can defend many installations at once by holding a gate connection to the weaker defended backyard, even against technically superior forces.
a smart attacker can get around strong defenses when he finds/builds a gate connection around the fortifications.
 
 
its as simple as that limitations in strategic movement would make more interesting gameplay.

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.

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

Ah, okay.
confusion cleared

"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

@CaptainTwerkmotor: stop accusing Velenka (or anyone else) of being a griefer just because his opinion differs from yours.
 
@Velenka: 
the thing with borders, or rather with limited-throughput choke points, is that they make strategic combat less of a "i have more cannons than you" slugfest but make them more dynamic.
 
with free FTL the attacker can just drop his attack force on a chosen target without much thought beyond "do they have more guns there than i can bring", with reinforcements/supplies making a beeline to the fleet through interstellar space.
 
whereas with bound FTL or gates the whole ordeal becomes a lot more involved and needs actual strategy.
"can i get there" "how do i get there" "can i keep the route safe for my supplies" "can i cut off their supplies" "can they cut off my retreat" 
and so on and so forth.
 
with free FTL its straight up firepower vs firepower at any interesting installation.
 
with bound FTL you can have large power multiplication effects if either side is smart.
a well placed fortress can defend many installations at once by holding a gate connection to the weaker defended backyard, even against technically superior forces.
a smart attacker can get around strong defenses when he finds/builds a gate connection around the fortifications.
 
 
its as simple as that limitations in strategic movement would make more interesting gameplay.

source where?
 
do you have any idea how large of an effort it would be to compare every and any newly created blueprint with all already existing ones?
 
it has to compare thousands (or even millions or even billions for the hugest devices) of voxels with all the other blueprints that already exist.
thats thousands of compare actions with endless amounts of blocks.
i dont want to pay the power bill for the poor server which has to do that
 
theoretically possible? yes
feasible in an MMO environment with thousands of people putting in blueprints? not by a long shot.

"abundance of materials", about 5 earth masses for the sol system.
spread over a volume many many thousand times larger than the solar system.
mining or hiding isnt exactly effective if theres a single rock every dozend solar system volumes

@wickedcody123
 
how on earth should mod support work in an MMO environment?
 
who should guarantee that the billion and one mods that will be tried to be pushed onto their servers arent game balance breaking in any form or combination?
 
how would you prevent uber cheat mods getting into there?
(trolololo i modded an uberlaser into the game with 0 mass and no energy or ammunition needs and a single rock as build cost! i own the universe now!)
(trolololo i modded in an uber refinery that makes indestructible construction material from rocks!)
 
who would be responsible if the mod you submitted causes a server crash with player data loss?
 
the list goes on and on and on and on.

Unlikely that any spacecraft thats not designed to be buoyant in a gas giant would float.Considering that the (predicted) density of /metallic/ (solid, it doesnt get much denser for it) hydrogen is 0.8g/cm³.
Where as water has 1g/cm³, iron has 7.8g/cm³ and aluminium 2.7g/cm³
So a spaceship will have a higher average density than any fluid in a gas giant and thus sink.

Never underestimate the speed of player progression (wow players hitting level cap within 24 hours of a new expansion, etc)
 
Reverse engineering could be another component of this. I could buy Super-Dutrilithim scooter wheels from the market, and instead of using them I'll take them apart and try and learn how to make them myself (be it an eve like skill, blue print, or player knowledge).
 
Wikis are also a thing, so trying to hide mechanics behind obfuscation wont work well either.  I like Thoger's train of thought. Make infrastructure the limiting factor -- so much so that the first breakthrough into the next big tech level (such as space flight) can't be be done solo or by just one player organization, but by many many groups and individuals. Politics will naturally slow down progression to a better future

You can turn antimatter engines off.
You just cant do it with mechanical valves but with electrostatical ones.

studying physics does things to your mind maaan!
 
The realistic physics may not be a good idea for a game, but maybe the "basic idea" of the whole can be used?
 
Maybe in the form of interplanetary "acceleration gates" or similar?
Something that can throw you through a solar system at faster than normal speeds or lower fuel consumption.

sounds interesting here. BUT...I've been playing games and MMO's for 20 years. I've been in Societies, Gilds, and Unions on many different games. But remember, we all start out as solo players. Some stay that way for a few hours, some for days and weeks. Its their choice. I see people saying that solo player and ...by hinting seriously ...people in general...cant do what groups can do. Who made and invented Microsoft? Some big research team at a major corp? Nope, some of the richest people on the planet are solo people, people that went it alone and made it big. Its not any more impossible for a player to build a custom cruiser that everyone wants alone rather than sponging off friends to get it done then selling it himself. If I see new player enter a game and 2 minutes later start asking...begging...to join a group I feel sorry for them, they admit openly they are worthless alone, how sad for them.
 
In an open world game people can do what they want, and should. I believe in helping others, I have many times, but when I joined groups one person stood by saying 'go here , do this, do that' and did little or nothing themselves. I will help others, but demand from me and you'll be fighting alone. Period. If you need a big group great, I'll watch and see what you accomplish as a group, and if its truly grand I'll applaud you all, or whoever takes credit for it all at least. But dont think for a second a single person cant do well, as Elon Musk or the many like him, I dont see him taking a back seat to some group he 'needed' to win, and we shouldn't think people here should need one either.

im pretty sure that most pilots have not that much of an idea how to build a good jet engine, and the people who build jet engines wont have that much of an idea how to fly an airplane which has the engines mounted.
 
sure, a pilot will have more understanding about avionics and aircraft technology in general than joe average, but will he know how to build an engine from scratch? very unlikely.
 
i think there should be at least two basic skill trees which are mostly independent.
using and creating
obviously, in the one you learn how to use stuff for the greatest effect, in the other you learn how to build stuff with the greatest effectivity.
 
there is some overlap, basic training in the respective other tree would be necessary for the highest echelons of both trees, but not much beyond that.
 
you dont need to know how exactly the HEAT warhead is built to use it for maximum effect, you only need a rough idea of what it does :shrug:

im pretty sure that most pilots have not that much of an idea how to build a good jet engine, and the people who build jet engines wont have that much of an idea how to fly an airplane which has the engines mounted.
 
sure, a pilot will have more understanding about avionics and aircraft technology in general than joe average, but will he know how to build an engine from scratch? very unlikely.
 
i think there should be at least two basic skill trees which are mostly independent.
using and creating
obviously, in the one you learn how to use stuff for the greatest effect, in the other you learn how to build stuff with the greatest effectivity.
 
there is some overlap, basic training in the respective other tree would be necessary for the highest echelons of both trees, but not much beyond that.
 
you dont need to know how exactly the HEAT warhead is built to use it for maximum effect, you only need a rough idea of what it does :shrug:

"What is order for a spider, is chaos for a fly". Everybody has they own style of gameplay and what is for you is "ruin" for other people can be "best fun". MMO stands for "MASSIVE" game, so devs try to create something to satisfy a very vast spectrum of playing needs. And we, as future players, should rather carve our own niche, than forbid others having fun in different ways.
 
In infinite universe any style of play will not be some else problem - you can always can just change planet