AstroOwl

This has nothing to do with "getting op weapons". It's not about turret production, it is about trading.

You still can be lucky enough to find a trading post which buys them. No guarantee, though :)

A nice idea of having some marking for that. Dunno, though - if someone haven't seen this post, DTU would say nothing to him. Maybe just say "Beta" in title? I guess i'll do both. I've redone Alligator with new thrusters, now it rotates even better that pre-patch one :) Link to post

This was the answer, thank you. Altering properties of productionindex.lua made new factories use new values. Now i'm wondering how do i renew sector stats =D

Targeting Cards are used in production of Targeting Systems (Targeting System factory).

My bad, of course: for something restricting rotation speed and using stress on crew as explanation, "inertial forces" would be better term. But, whatever, maybe i said it wrong way, so i must clarify: imo, gameplay comes first. If we have a suitable explanation for a gameplay change - good. We don't? Well, better to not explain that change at all, than to explain it in an obviously unfitting way.

That's useful info, saved me the time of figuring that out by myself. Thanks for updated ship =)

Thanks =) Complains are not so surprising, it's not necessarily sing of a bad builder - but it is important to show, imo, that it's not the end of creativity, but just a new environment for one. So that good builders will not be discouraged by changes =)

Last sentence is the most important one, i agree with it. Gameplay need some means of restricting and G-forces are plausible explanation for why restrictions are there? Okay, G-force it is. Gameplay don't need such restrictions? Good, in that case ships have, ehuuum, inertia dampeners and G-forces are not an issue. I won't defend the idea of G-forces just for the sake of realism, it's not a sim. G-forces, as any other phenomena, is just a way of justificating desired gameplay changes or moving towards desired gameplay, be it hard, easy, casual, hardcore, realistic, arcadish - whatever. Nothing more.

Pick "Beta, newest changes" in Beta-verisons tab of Steam, in game properties.

I've redone the Alligator for new beta thruster mechanics. Here is the stats for 7-slot version: Standart version is of Trinium and Xanion, but i also added Trinium + Avorion, in 7,10, and 12 slots variants. Link for the xml files:https://www.dropbox.com/sh/01oly918cub1xxf/AAD4XAxncJcsNseTnRqCf726a?dl=0

I would personally vote against rotation buffs. Some artificial buffs to reduce sliding? Yeah, probably. More rotation? no pls. Well, probably non-linear calculation of momentum (easy to get to, say, 0.25 rotation, but hard to increase it further). That might work. Alligator was made with abusing terrible thruster layering mechanics. If you try such ship in Beta, then yes, it is percieved as nerf. But if you build the ship in a way good for Beta mechanics, and then try it in stable, ship would also get "crippled". This change is not "nerf", it's just another, much more sane approach to creating ships. Attempting old approach in new mechanics, and vice versa, would end badly. I've just redone Alligator for new mechanics (Link to the post). Changes compared with old Alligator in stable branch: Thrust: 42.4 -> 59.8 Br. Thr: 57.4 -> 66.5 Yaw: 0.11 -> 0.27 Pitch: 0.18 -> 0.23 Roll: 0.31 -> 0.35 Improved dynamics of the ship. In every aspect. At the expense of: Hull: 213K -> 180K. Yeah, thrusters now take space! That is really terrible(no). Mainly because we are so used to possibility to achieve high rotation/braking with almost no volume dedicated for thrusters. Achieving high brake thrust required a lot of space (partially achieved by reducing engines volume), but rotation was rather easy to achieve. I don't think we need more rotation buffs, tbh. Most of the thrusters volume was dedicated to brake speed.

Well, i don't care much about realism, look from just creative and aesthetic point of view, don't want this game to be a hardcore sim... And i LOVE the fact that big ships can't easily be rotated ar 1-2 rad/s anymore. That was terrible. I was just trying to get decent braking thrust and ended up with terrible feeling of a "battleship" rotating with speed that would kill all its crew. For me, new situation is "creation without frustration". That's just my point of view, of course.

Tested the newest (w/directional thrusters) version. Wonderful! It handles very well, stops fast. Even when i upscaled it up to 15 upgrslots, it still had 0.2/0.12/0.12 rotation and its braking thrust and strafe thrust is still high. [screenshot w/15 slot version stat behind spoiler] "Large" version is an overkill, of course. No wonder it turns slowly, but, let's face it, such large ships aren't even needed. 15 slots version would serve as a good and impressive all-in-one (trading, fighting, etc) flagship for lategame. There is one thing left to desire, and that is: generators/shields/hypercores made of Xanion or Avorion. (All blocks of one material can be replaced with their analogues of another material via xml editing, but this thing is all Trinium, so it's not that easy: no need to replace all Tri blocks with Avo blocks, as Avorion hull is not so suited for Executioner style). I mean, it would be so cool to fly such ship in endgame, but in that case, some internal things are better working if they are Avorion. It would also be cool to have Avorion "turret hardpoints" block, but.. that would go against Executioner style, once again. Dunno, maybe it's possible to find a couple of places where it would be suitable to place Avorion hull to allow Avo turret placement. But the really beneficial stuff would be upgrade of internal systems. TL,DR: Great ship, sir. Handles well in new mechanics, i'm impressed =) P.S. look at that crew capacity! that's the most badass passenger shuttle in existence, i think =D

Ah yes, i misread you. Cap on acceleration based on G-forces: certainly no. Also, it makes no sense that it is dependent on mass or size in any way, as stated above. 10G of acceleration is 10G in the ship of any mass. Rotating with 0.5 rad/s on a 100 m "lever" and 0.5 rad/s on a 1000m lever yields you different linear movement, however, so this is where big ship is not the same as small one.

I agree on that: There would be nice to have some ship size dependent soft or hard cap on rotation speed so that big ships can't be as fast-rotating as small ones I don't think it is really needed to buff thrusters at the same time, though. Other than that, yeah, i agree. Probably though it should be (instead of mass) dependent on either volume or "longest axis length". Not necessarily implenmented via G-force, physical explanation might be different (on none at all, there is no explicit explanation for strange speed vector redirection when thrusting mechanics, but most people seem to not care that much). Subjectively, i just dislike the situation when i try just to achieve decent braking and i end up with capital ship rotating like it's 3 meters long. Comes to the situation that i place thrusters close to CoM on purpose, just so that i won't end up with disgustingly (from aesthetical POV) high rotation speed.

That's actually much better than nothing, thanks, i'll check that about this - seems that i'm too stupid to get this. Like, in which cases do factory production scripts address .exe and in which they address productionsindex? If they are looking up the values in productionindex, why changing it don't change anything? Thanks for the help, anyway, i just need to learn about all this beforehand, it seems.

They don't produce more thrust overall anymore. Stacked thrusters produce more thrust in a specific direction, but lower thrust in other directions. If you would compare only the braking thrust, then sure, it is benefit, but you are sacrificing something in the way actually. And you can't get as much benefit as you want anymore. Already talked about it in this post: http://www.avorion.net/forum/index.php/topic,1797.msg9087.html#msg9087

This, sir, is REALLY impressive. Not a purely decorative replica, like some detailed replicas unfortunately are, but a really playable ship! Nice braking thrust, considering that it is for new thrusters (after "nerf") - it should be scaleable without strong maneuverability loss. I personally think such fast rotation speed is even too much for a capital ship, but.. that's my subjective opinion. Would be nice if devs made achieving fast rotation harder than achieving high braking thrust, so that capships could brake reasonably without being too fast-rotating. Cargo bay is big enough for not-very-high-volume trading, and enough for accommodating all that turret factory ingredients for weaponry you are assembling for this warship. I like it. It's good how now, with thrusters scaled by volume, upscaling the ship don't completely cripple its maneuverability. By the way, you can automatically fill ship with minimal crew by using this "/crew fill" script from Aki: http://www.avorion.net/forum/index.php/topic,830.0.html

Thanks =) Yeah, it could have been more maneuverable, but with thruster-slicing system i always feel like i'm cheating. I mean, any ship can be made very nimble, but i feel like... it's not right, so i have to stop somewhere. Would be better w/new thruster mechanics where thrusters would actually require some space. Yeah, thought about it, but if you really are on an exploring spree, you need at least radar(deepscan) upgrade + object detector + lowering HS cooldown to minimal amount, so i'm more inclined towards 5-6 slots domain. Good idea overall, might be useful for those who want to make money by selling asteroids and finding secret stashes. Well, i dunno, wouldn't call that a dream, but i glad you like it =) Working on big (30 000 + cargo space) cargo hauler, balanced for new thrusters. Still working on details. Thanks =) I made versions with all-avorion functional blocks already, need to update the first post. I haven't replaced trinium thrusters, crew quarters, etc, since it changes nothing except giving much more mass and slightly more HP. Link for the folder with different variants (upgrade slot count and materials: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/gcib2tsb2x8tj55/AABkXZ5bCYYXDOmGlu4G3Y1Va?dl=0

No need to set it on zero. I set it to 0.1 in server.ini and die from asteroids as often as from enemies (never, that is).

Clear similarities with X3 makes me think that. Strategic mode implemented into the game even during early access makes me think that. Possibility to create factories which sustain you with goods makes me think that. Inability to formally label a sector with your name changes absolutely nothing. Well, example of X3 already have been mentioned above. And avorion is just a best resource for shipbuilding residing in most dangerous space - and nothing more. It's like saying Space Engineers is a game about acquiring Platinum, or Elder Scrolls is a game about acquiring set of daedric armor, or Warcraft3 is a game about acquiring Minotaurs/griffin riders. Well, you get the point. P.S. i am against removing crew salary, at least in the current state. P.P.S re-read my own message, realized it might seem rude. If so, excuse me, that was not my intention. Thing is, there are a lot of things pointing towards the idea of making muiltiple ships, forming if not an empire, but something like corporation, shifting towards strategic play as you progress through the game or want to fufill large-scale tasks.

One of the solutions for illegal goods is to make your own mine/station in a non-patrolled sector not far from desired turret factories. Once you get that illegal Warheads, ExpCharges or whatever, go to your station and use it as temporary storage for illegal gods. The UI of "exchange cargo" allows to transfer just one unit of cargo per click, though, so it can be sometimes easier to swallow the opinion penalty than to do that clickclickclick for hundreds of warheads.

Thank you so much, that's good to hear and makes me smile like an idiot =D Really inspires me to something else. But right now i have a lot of RL stuff. Probably in a week or so i would be more capable of doing spaceships. Then i would make something new, probably with more emphasis on hangars and balanced for 11-12 slots initially. That would include using new thruster mechanics, of course =) You can do that by selecting ship from "saved ships", clicking "to Clipboard", then picking just a core block, pressing Ctrl-V, and resizing ship via Q button until you get enough upgrade slots. This was covered in this thread: http://www.avorion.net/forum/index.php/topic,1523.0.html Now, as for the scaled verisons of the ship. I made versions for 8, 10, and 12 upgrade slots, all of them both in Trinium+Xanion and Trinium+Avorion variants. That don't take that much time: Here is the link to Dropbox folder with XML files for all 6 variants: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/gcib2tsb2x8tj55/AABkXZ5bCYYXDOmGlu4G3Y1Va?dl=0 Now, beware: 1. 8-slot Alligator is quite nice and good to use, i even improved it a little over previous variant. However, 10 and 12 slot variants wouldn't have the maneuverability of smaller versions. 2. Once the thruster changes will hit base game (not beta branch) (maybe they even did it already by the time you read it), Alligators would be much worse, all of them. I welcome change to thrusters a lot. Alligator, however, relies on broken thruster slicing mechanics, so it would suffer greatly. So, it would be time for me to finally dump Alligator and make some new combat ship to share. Thanks for your support =)

That is because thrusters built in such a way are redirecting force from other directions. Their power is volume based, but distribution of power can be governed by shape. I mean, when you split cube into 4 thrusters facing forward-backwards axis, you get more brake thrust from such array than from a cube, but at the expense of thrust in other directions. If you split thrusters into very small layers, they would provide almost no thrust in other directions, unlike the old system. So there is a reason not to make ultra-thin slices: you will achieve redirecting of all thruster power to one direction, but you will not get additional power.