Blondersheel
-
Posts
59 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Blondersheel
-
-
I use imgur and it works just fine, so there has to be something you're missing. Make sure the link includes a file type extension (I.e. ".jpg") at the end.
-
To avoid large posts?
Yes
-
Narcelles (misspelled) = nacelles = engine pods
-
Part of the problem with Hangars is that they really do work "better" with one single gargantuan hangar than with lots of little ones.
What do you mean by this? You basically said it works if you hide your "giga-hangar" in the center of your ship. Does this cause some issues that you didn't mention that having the "giga-hangar" exposed would solve?
-
I dunno. In my gameplay, i am not eager to make "more" money. I am interested in getting Exotic and Legendary items as soon as possible.
I don't think research stations are a path to money any way you look at it...if you want money just sell the items. However, if you want exotic and legendary items, then AstroOwl showed the math that says its better do upgrade in groups of 3.
The only scenario where I would use 5 is when I have a group of 5 exotics and I want to be sure I get a legendary. Even though you're still better off over the long run to upgrade in groups of 3, it's really shitty to lose a bunch of exotics when you have a bad luck streak.
Here's another way to look at it: If you start with common items and upgrade them through research, how many will it take you to get a legendary with groups of 3 or 5?
With groups of 5: it will take you 3,125 common items (at 5 per upgrade)
With groups of 3: it will take on average 1,545 common items (at an average ~4.34 per upgrade)
That's almost exactly half the number of common items required to get a legendary! Clearly it is better to upgrade in groups of 3 when doing any kind of bulk upgrading.
-
Cool designs and I like the walk through of your design evolution!
Might I suggest use of the "spoiler" function to organize the designs a little bit more? You could put each variant under its own spoiler so people can open them up if interested.
-
I find those values to be higher than necessary for most purposes.
I totally agree. I also like larger ships to "feel" larger by having lower maneuverability so I plan accordingly.
For smaller ships I generally target somewhere In the ~0.5-1 range (0.6 equates to about a 5 second turnaround time). For larger ships I shoot for 0.2-0.5 depending on how large the ship is. 0.2 equates to a ~16 second turnaround time so any slower than that and I find the ships feels too combersome.
I would only consider going up to ~2 for fighter-sized ships
-
I've had good luck scaling any ship with the following process:
1. Get in the build menu of the ship you're trying to scale
2. Select all the blocks on the ship
3. Ctrl-c (also works if you start at this point with a template)
4. Exit the ship and found a new ship
5. Ctrl-v
6. Use left alt to select an appropriate anchor block
7. Scale as desired and click to build (you may need to try targeting different sides/areas on the starter block
8. Check newly built scale
9. Ctrl-z if required and repeat scale adjustment to fine tune
10. When happy with the scale, turn off safe mode and delete the starter block
11. Voila!
Once I started using that process, I've been very successful
-
Very faithful NCC-1701 you got there, shame it's outdated! And that freighter man, i absolutely love those rings. It inspires me on many levels.
Thanks Mobiyus! Funny, but your saucer sections are one of the reasons I want to rework the NCC-1701. I want to work in a bump on the top/bottom like in your cavia porcellus. Thanks again for the saucer XMLs.
I'm definitely happy with how the freighter turned out, but it needs some DTU love. Hopefully soon!
-
I did want to scale it up a bit, however due to the position of the origin block I just cannot get it to copy and paste scale.
Try holding left alt and selecting a different anchor block for the scale. Then try moving around to try and target different sides of the starting block. I can always get it to work this way.
-
Nice part designs!
-
Yes, I'm familiar with the changes, just haven't gotten a chance to experiment with them yet, but I'm looking forward to it. I do like that the way Avorion is coded makes it harder to maneuver a large ship than a small one and don't want that to change.
I didn't really mean to take a stand for or against the current and/or beta thruster mechanics, I just wanted to clarify a few things on the real-life physics side as there was (and still is) some misinformation floating around. Seems that I'm not getting through to everyone so I think I'll leave it be.
-
I did mean to mention that while I didn't do any fighting until I made a ~10k titanium ship, that ship did have nose breaking thrusters that were constantly getting shot off! Learned quickly to move them elsewhere (I didn't know you could just cover them up at that point).
-
...but dont they suffer from shooten out braking thruster?
You actually fought pirates in a 1000 titanium ship!?! You crazy!!
-
I don't believe it's true that thrusters are different. Everything I've seen suggests thrust scales in proportion to volume and the mass of the ship is inconsequential. I've only tested this with braking thrust, but it holds true in that case. Multiply braking deceleration (game calls it braking thrust) by the mass of the ship to get the actual force of the thrusters. You can add or subtract mass from the ship, but that number should always stay the same.
I totally agree with you on the changing mass aspect. The other half of the equation though...the force from the thrusters doesn't scale directly with mass since its related to surface area (at least on full release, haven't played beta DTU yet). That means that small ships have a higher surface area-to-mass ratio and feel a little bit more maneuverable. I'm assuming that was the reason for initially going with surface area-based thrust, at least until people started stacking thin thruster plates and broke the system.
-
As far as engines go, it works as Guswut already mentioned (double the mass, and the engines, and the forward thrust stays constant). Thrusters work a bit differently and I do think its designed to make big ships feel more cumbersome.
-
but I just wanted.to point out that the first one wast the wrong one to use
The equation you suggested is not actually a replacement for the equation I listed, it only outputs a relativistic mass at a given speed (the increased relativistic mass is negligible at the range of speeds we're talking about).
m=m0/sqrt(1-v*v/c*c)m0 = Rest Mass
v = Velocity
c = speed of light (under normal circumstances are constant at 299792458 m/s but there are exceptions)
Have you actually used the equation you listed? Relative mass is only significant at speeds approaching the speed of light. Try plugging in some numbers to that equation:
m0 = 10000 (use whatever you want)
v = 300,000 m/s (much faster than anything you'll be travelling at in normal Avorion play)
c = 299792458 (this is the speed of light in a vacuum, i.e. space; light travelling through other media will move marginally slower)
The "increased mass" of the object is 10,000.005 *negligible*
However you are wrong in you assumption that: "Avorion, this is untrue; if mass is doubled and applied force is doubled (thrusters), acceleration should be the same and the game models this correctly"No this is correct. As shown above, the difference is negligible at .00005%. It will be even less at lower speeds (reminder: I used 300km/s)
Firstly we have the friction in space as we spoke of earlier.All this mention of friction....do you have any idea how little matter there is in space?? Let's quote Louis Barbier as you have previously.
"The density of matter in our Galaxy is about 1 particle/cm3 (in the disk, with the halo being less dense). The density of matter in intergalactic space (between galaxies) is about 2 x 10-31 gm/cm3, mainly hydrogen. At these densities, I don't think one has to worry about friction."
-Dr. Louis Barbier
Dr. Louis Barbier doesn't think we need to worry about friction in space, but let's take a look anyway.
Let's take a second and calculate the number of atoms in a cubic kilometer of space:
1 atom per cubic centimer * 100^3 (cubic centimeters in a cubic meter) * 1000^3 (cubic meters in a cubic kilometer) = 1 x 10^15 atoms!!!! A lot right!....No. Do you know how many atoms are in a single cubic centimeter of air on earth? ~1 x 10^19 (that means there are as many atoms in a cubic centimeter on earth as there are in 10,000 cubic kilometers of space)
Assuming you decide you still want to consider this effect, friction does not change the equation of F = M x a. Every force applies its own acceleration on an object...friction is it's own force and will apply its own acceleration on the object (albeit very small in this case) that is completely separate from the acceleration applied by the thrusters.
Secondly, and even worse we have gravity: When you are saying that "if mass is doubled and applied force is doubled acceleration should be the same" you are referring to Newton in his First Law of Motion. Problem with that is it states: " ..an object not subject to any net external force..". If a object are under the force of gravity then you cant use the First Law of Motion. In Avorion you are mostly inside solar system where you are constantly under the effect of both the suns and planets gravitational force. If you then are using a ship that have more mass then some of the moons in our system you are bound to have some extra gravitational affecting you ship.Not remotely true. Every force on an object applies its own acceleration as mentioned above. A perfect example of this is space flight in real life. A spacecraft in orbit, for example, is constantly under radial acceleration (causing it to orbit the Earth) due to gravity applied by the Earth. However, if you fire a thruster on that SOB it's still going to apply an acceleration in line with the F = M x a equation.
TL/DR: If you double the mass of a ship and double the force applied (thrusters) the acceleration should stay constant.
-
News:
Sheel's Steel Fabrication Inc. Takeover!
Ship Preview: Venture Xa-09 Freighter
(Details in OP)
-
I think you are unnecessarily complicating the scenario with regards to in-game conditions. We aren't approaching the speed of light here, we're talking relatively low speeds in which the physics is relatively simple. I think the game does a good job of modelling them with a fair degree of accuracy.
In the interest of avoiding a theoretical physics debate let me restate what I was trying to communicate: I have seen some re-occurring comments about how a doubling of mass will require more than double the applied force (thrusters) to achieve the same acceleration. At the speeds/conditions we're operating at in Avorion, this is untrue; if mass is doubled and applied force is doubled (thrusters), acceleration should be the same and the game models this correctly.
-
So this is actually a very basic physics equation: F= M x a (force = mass x acceleration). This is a linear equation.
The number reported in game under "thrust" is actually your ships acceleration. Now solving for acceleration, the equation becomes a = F / M. If you double the force and keep the mass constant, the acceleration will double. If you double the mass and keep force constant, the acceleration will be half. If you double both the force and the mass, the acceleration will remain the same.
This is a linear relationship.
P.S. there is no friction (I.e. Air drag) in space
-
Very cool ship! Also, good job sir you won the braking thrust competition by a large margin!
-
Great, thanks for the reply! I'm assuming that a repaired AI wreck then also gives 100% resource return as once it has been repaired it becomes player-owned.
-
I can't believe I've gotten as far along in Avorion as I have without knowing the % of resources returned when deleting ships/blocks. I can definitely test it later when I can play, but I figured someone (or everyone) would already know this.
Also, does that same % hold true when recycling "repaired" AI wrecks? So far I've been repairing any wrecks I can and then immediately disassembling them for resources.
Thanks in advance!
-
Very cool ships! I especially like the gust.
Help sorting out save data
in General Discussion
Posted
I've had a co-op game going with a friend for awhile now. A couple days ago, my hard drive started to go (windows started having some issues starting up and bunch of the files on the drive became corrupt). When I noticed this I immediately copied over some important files (Avorion save included!) to a different drive. This was fortunate because the next time I restarted, the drive finished it's death process.
I'm now trying to get our game back up and running on a new install and having some issues. Unfortunately some of the avorion files were already corrupt when I copied everything over (I.e. All the sector data). When I load up our game, most of the important stuff is there (I.e. Materials, turrets, and systems). Sectors are entirely different (to be expected since all the sector data was lost), but the map is still showing the explored area from our previous gameplay. What this means is that any area we haven't been to seems to be working properly, but any area we have been to shows misinformation.
I've realized there's no way to completely restore our old game, but I would like to keep all our materials, turrets, and modules. Is there an easy way to either delete the existing "map" discovery data or to move all things we want to keep into a new galaxy? Would this be a matter of modifying the player.dat file?
Thanks in advance!