Pob
-
Posts
159 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Pob
-
-
Material does have an effect, but so does tech level, rarity and so do other modifiers (ie +30% hull damage can greatly increase a weapon's potential)
ie if two turrets are the same type, tech level and rarity but different materials then on average the one made out of the better material will do better dps
if you use the server commands mod to spawn in weapons of the same type, tech level and rarity, you'll find the Avorion ones are generally better than iron ones.
The thing is that material is only one factor, tech level, rarity and modifiers have a major impact too.
Another point, omicron isn't the best indicator of the actual adjusted dps of a weapon, get a mod to show the actual dps ;)
Must admit I've not looked at tech level when reasearching and what effect it has on what comes out.
-
looks like you beat me to it, took me a while to write that post, serves me right for getting fancy with tables.
computer core was something I didn't look at, yes that probably needs to be changed, thanks
Unfortunately while it looks pretty all the curving, smoothing and details make it hard to get into it.
That's also why I used Naonite hull block, I like the looks. ;)
-
Ok I think I see what's going on, it's multiple factors in construction method
I've just stripped off all the hull and armour blocks, where blocks are holding sections together I've put in some cheap iron scaffold or converted the block, as the mass and material cost is almost nothing here are the results.
to start with non-stripped, used the /crew fill command to give them both a basic minimum crew (crew skill effects the numbers, esp shield/engine/generator output
ship rhino Broadhead cost 2,485,351 1,580,348 iron 43,673 10,080 titanium 0 2,174 Naonite 0 5,885 Trinium 246,088 35,067 Xanion 0 75,931 Total 289,761 129,137 volume 6.66mil 5.52 mass 0.13m 0.13m So on the base stats the broadhead is roughly 60% of the credit cost, 40% of the total material cost, 80% of the volume and the same mass
Apart from slightly higher thrust, larger crew quarters and lower energy requirement the Rhino is better in every other stat.
I think I can see what's going on here, the first clue to the poor performance of the Broadhead is a smaller volume for the same mass, however it's also using a lot less material, so what I've used is a heavier and a lot cheaper (this is mainly why the hp is so much lower)
So let's strip off all the armour and hull and see what we get.
Rhino stripped
Broadhead stripped
ship rhino Broadhead cost 2,467,863 1,549,797 iron 43,546 10,080 titanium 0 2,150 Naonite 0 1 Trinium 235,931 31,600 Xanion 0 75,589 Total 279,477 119,420 volume 5.33mil 3.85 mass 86.84k 74.8k The Rhino lost 45k mass, 1.33m volume, 10,284 material (95% trinium)
The Broadhead lost 55k mass, 1.67m volume, 9,717 material (60% Naonite 30% Trinium)
And here we have the next clue as to the poor performance of the broadhead, while they've lost roughly the same material, the Broadhead has lost more mass and volume.
the Rhino is made up of about 30% Armour by mass, the broadhead is about 40% hull/armour mix (26% hull 14% armour)
Now we can see the internals lets look at those.
The Rhino manoeuvrability comes mainly from 3 large 9.6x4.8x4.8 blocks of directional thrusters at the back and a large 9.6x14.4x2.1 slab of iron inertial damper
All the other internal parts are made up of large blocks or slabs
The Broadhead manoeuvrability comes mainly from standard thrusters in a 4 of large-ish 4x4x8 blocks,6 2x4x2 block and a lot of smaller sticks and blocks to get the curves into the outer hull this is backed up by a 4x4x4 cube inertial damper.
There are some directional thrusters but most are front/back facing for breaking
All the are Xanium not Trinium unlike the Rhino.
Overall the Broadhead has a much smaller internal structure, I built the core out of 4x4x4 cubes starting by putting them into a stick then sticking more to the sides at each end, the cubes at the front end I had to cut up into smaller bits to get the shape.
Overall you've got a far better design in functionality and simplicity, my original design did try to keep material cost down, I wanted less than 100k total material.
The use of 3 large directional thruster blocks is very nice, one I will have to remember and implement.
-
Was the rhino made in the live 10.2.7448?
All my ships are made in the beta 10.5.7633, there's more changes to the flight mechanics.
I'll open the rhino up and have a look see if I can figure out why.
edit just saw your are too, time to strip them down and dig into the guts
-
It depends on what you want to get out of the research
If you have loads and you just want as many better rarity as possible or you don't need that upgrade right now, then yes 3 is better.
If however you are after specific types of turret/upgrade/material then you'll generally have far less of any one type so to guaranty a specific item of higher rarity you're better off using 5 of the same.
-
Very nice :) nice use of colour too.
Quick note of naming conventions, they are rather flexible
there's no exact definition as to what is what.
eg heavy cruisers and armoured cruisers would often have the same displacement or even more than a battlecruiser, a battlecruiser is a cruiser fitted with battleship guns.
The roll of a ship often has a lot to do with it's classification, however as weapons are not part of our designs in Avorion and upgrade slots are tied to volume
Oh and "ship of the line" are heavy cruiser, armoured cruiser, battlecrusiers and battleships, every thing below them were support or screening elements.
Of course carriers upset the apple cart and missiles where the final nail in the coffin of large ships of the line in navel warfare.
-
I'd like to add show a total crew and crew quarters capacity bar on the crew assignment windowPlease add a graphical way to represent the current crew. Something to look nice and give the sense of a growing warship as you progress through the game. -
you got it in one :D
-
Sneak peak at my new carrier build
I say build rather than design as it's not really original (bonus points if anyone can guess what this ship is or where it's from ;) )
At the same time I'm not faithfully following the original more heavily-heavily-influenced, I'd really need wedge shaped hangers to be faithful.
The main body is finished, just a heck of a lot of detail on the top to work out, the original is also very asymmetrical especially on all the fiddly details, I may well make it more blocky for both speed and my sanity. ;)
-
the problem with the overlapping seems to be the root block, that very first block you start a new ship with, that seems to be the snap point for the copied blocks, so if that root block in inside your ship not on the outside then you're stuffed.The thing with this method is very rarely can you ever get anything to snap. 90% of the time it's "overlapping too many blocks". I've spent the last 30 minutes manipulating things to try to paste mine, adjusting grid sizes, etc. Nothing works. They need a feature where you can "Apply plan" using different materials than the original build.
although there is supposed to be some way to change the snap point by holding the left alt
-
it'd be nice to have my suspicions proved or find out if I have bad luck, I've taken to selling repair and force turrets to stop them making more and trade modules after the 3rd exoticDoes anyone know the out come effects on mixing objects for upgrade? from my personal experience it seems like each type has an equal chance, so put in 4 chainguns and 1 cannon and you've got a 50% chance to get a chaingun and a 50% to get a cannon, not a 80% chance to get a chaingun and an 20% chance to get a cannon.
Can't say anything reliable on this particular matter, unfortunately.
Maybe i should check researchstation.lua and see if i find more details there.
here's something else I noticed, if you mix upgrades with turrets then if you get a turret it can be made of iron even if none of the turrets where.
So I think all upgrades count as iron material.
Material is another one of those factors which seem to be even chance, regardless of how many of which type are put in.
ie put in 4 trinium and 1 iron and you have a 50/50 chance of getting an iron or trinium out
again someone needs to dig around in the code to confirm this
This means you should never mix upgrades with high tier material turrets.
-
One thing to note about your ai controlled ships being slow, the main reason is that the AI does not use the boost at all
Another thing that I find slightly odd is the way they mine, AI under your control, mine by making attack runs, they don't park and mine.
What's odd is that AI faction mining ships do seem to park and mine.
-
I love your designs, heck I love the undetailed designs more, they just work, they remind me of all the great space games I played.
If only there was a way to make the AI's use player made ships
-
opps, ok yes I didn't realise that /teleport had actually been implimented my bad
-
Yes you can do that, I've basically done that on a ship on my creative mode game I use for ship designing.
This particular AI seems to be stuck in patrol sector and the area he wants to patrol is 40km away after the 3rd pirate attack he was too far away to intercept, I had to chase him down then strip out his engines to keep him from running off.
He does spin around a lot though.
my suggestion might be turrets, they are a staple of most cockpit space games, make the ships small and cheap use a lot of them.
crew quartes, shield, integrity field, generator, wrap it in a bit of armour, a pair of long range cannons one top one bottom scatter a load about all within range of each other, any enemy ship coming near will need to deal with multiple targets
-
I'm all for making this a mod with UI or even just command line, that way it's up to the individual/server if they want to use it.
one my creative mode game, which I mainly use to design new ships, I've been doing some testing to figure out fighters/hangers now I'm stuck in my test ship half way across the galaxy from the half finished design I want to work on and if I want to do more testing I've got to travel all the way back out again.
-
That's really nice :) nice to see people not forgetting about the under side esp for guns
-
edit your screen shots :Pwhy i can only upload here 128kb image ?
Nah but I'm serious, crop them to just the ship, we don't need to see the rest, plenty of free software out there you can do that on, heck you can even do it with paint.
this is doubly important if you want to post IMG tags as filling a post with giant screenshots is just bad.
an uncompressed 600x400 jpeg is around 130KB, 80% image quality, the default high quality rating for a compressed jpeg is around 40KB
shameless self plug as an example
high quality 600x400 35.66KB
max quality 600x400 130.71 KB
Side note I do love the EVE ship designs
-
nope I had pilots, 40 to be exact and the error message was "you don't have enough space in your hanger"
I think I might know what's going on, hidden rounding or hidden decimals.
I got rid of all the fighters, fly around till I found a higher material/rank station to look for bigger/different fighters.
in the Trinium area, these are the fighters it would let me buy before giving me the "you don't have enough space in your hanger" message
10 size 3 fighters = 30 total
4 size 6 fighters = 24 total
4 size 6 fighters +2 size 1 fighters = 26 total)
12 size 2 fighters = 24 total
21 size 1 fighters = 21 total
none of these equal 27, so what I think is happening is that the fighter size is being rounded up or down, to the nearest whole number on the information display, but it is using the true decimals values in the actual number of fighters you can hold.
edit: ie if the size 3 are actually size 2.7 x10 = 27
or the size 2 are actually 2.2 x12 = 26.4
Although I've still got no idea what the first number from hangers is as it's not limiting the maximum size of a fighter you can use.
even if it was rounding down on the hanger number and up on the fighters number there is no way I should be able to fit a size 6 fighter in a size 3-27 hanger.
hanger =3.99 rounded down and the fighters where 5.01 rounder up still no good.
and from the testing so far it look like fighters are rounded up or down to the nearest whole number for the info only, not the calculations, so a size 6 fighter is actually 5.50 to 6.49 (to two decimals, it might be more)
-
Another oddity but more of a bug.
if you delete a hanger after buying fighters they work as normal until you try to return them, then some will land and others will just hang about waiting for space to land.
You can also launch fighters then buy more while they are out of the hanger.
-
The only real "issue" it fixes is the looks.
Hangers seem to function with the same internal volume system used by cargo bays, the actual usable volume of a block is the volume of the block minus an internal thickness value of the walls of the block.
if you look at these numbers
total volume 64m3, size 4x4x4, fighter numbers 3-21
total volume 32m3, size 2x4x4, fighter numbers 1-9
total volume 64m3, size 2x2x16, fighters 2-18
total volume 64m3, size 2x4x8, fighters 2-20
note, these numbers are the same no matter which axis is size2
so halving the size of of the hanger means less than half the fighters, conversely doubling the size of the hanger more than doubles the number of fighters and cubes are far more space efficient than non-cubes
So you might want a 20x20x20 hanger for fighter numbers but for looks only a 2x4x0.5 on the outside for looks
edit ok this is odd, there's some non-intergers going on here, #I just added multiple 2x4x8 hangers and got this
1st hanger 2-20 fighters
2nd hanger + 3-19 fighters
3rd hanger + 3-20 fighters
lkooks like there's some hidden rounding going on.
-
All sufficiently exposed hangars can launch/recall fighters, so long as there is a hangar large-enough to store them somewhere on the ship.
Yep I understand this now, again though information on hangers and fighters is vague and lacking.
We need to do more testing to figure this stuff out.
I haven't touched avorion in the last couple of days, when I get the time I'm going to do more testing, esp on trying to figure out what those numbers actually mean and how multiple hangers effect them.
One thing I'll note is an interesting AI behaviour I've witnessed.
This happened when a sector was under attack by another faction, we are going to call them A and B
A Ships attack, B reinforcements are called in, fighters are launched by both A & B
While combat is going on fighters will be targeted, however once all of the attacking A ships are destroyed something interesting occurs.
defending B ships recall any remaining fighters, if any of the attacking A fighters survived, they keep attacking, but are now totally ignored by the ships of B.
I sat and watched a ship get slowly ground down by a wing of fighters while totally ignoring them and a 2nd ship also sat there ignoring the destruction and kept ignoring them as the fighters attacked it next.
This 2nd ship didn't succumb because a group of Xsotan jumped in, which caused the 2nd ship to wake up, fly off to intercept the Xsotan while casually butchering the fighters attacking it.
-
lovely designs, esp the starter and Cargo ships.
Question why do all your cargo ships have fighter hangers?
-
nice idea, nice parts too
Research on Research, or why putting 3 items instead of 5 is better long-term
in Gameplay Discussion
Posted
well digging around in the code is probably better ;)