Block count is off

[GRHayes]

This post was only intended for the development team working on the bug report.
Since others can't figure that out for themselves from what I posted I removed the image and ships.

 

[Winterhome]

All seems well to me. Both of your blueprints that you sent are the same, at 959 blocks and 95.9 mass, for me.

 

[GRHayes]

I realize it change from one screen shot to other. It read 1129 the first time but I F6ed the dang thing so came back and F5ed it.

but the funny thing is that is still off it should be 961.
Now it is literally the opposite direction.

It is off after first creating it. Maybe it corrects when saving the blocks.
The method used building it was 10 blocks at a time. I notice a number of times it showed it put down 11 rather than 10. This game has so many screwy things going on. No consistency. Other than it isn't consistent.
[DOUBLEPOST=1444783905,1444783815][/DOUBLEPOST]Guess I will do it over tomorrow and make sure to screen capture it to tired to mess with it tonight.

 

[Crashmaster]

I've been noticing removing blocks can lead to 'ghosting' of themselves or blocks that they had obscured. The block is still visible but cannot be interacted with. Getting out and back in the ship and placing a block on the affected blocks seems to 'fix' it. Related? don't know, don't really care anymore, it's just a mad, mad, mad, universe these days. gl

 

[0ldSkull]

959 is correct. One block is shared by your three power lines, so when you just add the dimensions together you are counting one of the blocks three times. Instead of 320+321+320, to count blocks the correct calculation would be 319+321+319.

 

[GRHayes]

959 is correct. One block is shared by your three power lines, so when you just add the dimensions together you are counting one of the blocks three times. Instead of 320+321+320, to count blocks the correct calculation would be 319+321+319.

Your problem is you aren't seeing what the block count was prior to the screenshot! Which is why it was posted as for the development team not for every one else to comment on.

 

[0ldSkull]

I was referring to your statement:

it should be 961

Unless you changed the ship dimensions (in which case your statement has no context whatsoever), that calculation is incorrect. I did not make any comment about your originally stated problem, only about this expectation relative to Azereiah's observation.
(To clarify: 961 is not correct; 959 is. Your originally posted screenshot showed a block count which was not 959 or 961, and I have no explanation for that.)

 

[GRHayes]

I was referring to your statement:

Unless you changed the ship dimensions (in which case your statement has no context whatsoever), that calculation is incorrect. I did not make any comment about your originally stated problem, only about this expectation relative to Azereiah's observation.
(To clarify: 961 is not correct; 959 is. Your originally posted screenshot showed a block count which was not 959 or 961, and I have no explanation for that.)

My bad I've been irritated with the post. From the start. Been dealing with one bug after another this week and if it isn't bug issues it is changes that to me make no sense or in my opinion are excessive nerfing.
Here is a screen it actually captured the problem actually surprised it didn't change it. I'm running the Dev build currently where I was running the normal one the other day when I posted this.

 

[Ithirahad]

If he has F6'ed, then he could be missing a segment (chunk) or it could still be loading/refusing to load, which would easily account for the missing mass...?

 

[Keptick]

If he has F6'ed, then he could be missing a segment (chunk) or it could still be loading/refusing to load, which would easily account for the missing mass...?

F6 is just screenshot, not Tab-F6 :p

OP, try Tab-F6. It forces a reload of all the chunks.

 

[Ithirahad]

That's what I mean, Tab-F6. I dun derp'd, but you know what I mean :P

 

[GRHayes]

The issue is weird it isn't missing blocks or not loaded blocks. It simply thinks there are more than their really are. Tab F6 seems to work. There is another issue that goes on when build long runs with say 100 or more power blocks. you will find around block 72 or so that it sometimes refuses to allow you to build. It has to do with an initialization routine not finishing. Maybe the two bugs are related.

That build in the image is built 10 blocks at a time.

Both of these may tie into another bug I am trying to verify where long runs of weapons talking 600 long fail to provide full power along with power transfer beams.

I was trying to build a extremely efficient power module. 600 blocks long of reactors with 1006 power transfer beams above below along with enough power caps to equal out to the size of the reactor production of 755K.
The transfer beams should transfer 1,207,200 in the 2 seconds it is active but only transfers about 358K.

I tested it by firing at 104Million cap storage and checking how long it took to go up 50Million. Which is funny considering I did it faster with only 760 on each beam. With the 760 it took 2:11min with the 1006 it took 2:35.

If someone else does this I would expect varying results unless it doesn't bug out on them. It should take approx 83 seconds or 1:23 min if it works correctly. Obviously it isn't working correctly. Or they have some serious nerf feature in which just made PS modules pointless if over 350K or so.