Search results

A very rough rule of thumb that I start with (haven't run the numbers for optimisation, so don't quote me as saying this is the way to go) is to place the reactor first (sized on the number of salvage blocks you plan to use), then place stabilisers at about 30% efficiency distance and see if...

"If"? Surely you don't seriously think that's undecided at this point. Schine has been working on it for the last 6 months (inaccurate number?), that's a lot of time (money), too much for something that may or may not happen. Yes, I agree, experienced players will probably pick it up faster...

Not correct. And I would say that opinion on systems 2.0 isn't directly divided along (silly, damaging) player classifications. The people who don't like it are the ones who knew the old system best (which corresponds pretty well to people who are experienced PvP players, hence the illusion)...

Thanks for the info! Might try to get an update out this week...

But this isn't correct: it isn't x or y or z it's all three combined, as I showed with images earlier. I think there is miscommunication happening here, but I'm not sure why or in which direction...

That isn't correct on its own - for example consider the case where the distance between reactor and sphereical shell is "optimal" (100% stabiliser efficiency) In any case, although I can't speak for anyone else, I can definitively say that my post was not in the context of defending the...

So you won't be demonstrating any non-spaghetti ships with worse block face rendering issues than spaghetti ships then. As I expected.

A huge claim. How to you plan to show that it's true?

No, it is correct, in that it would avoid spaghetti, which are close to the worst possible cases of block face rendering performance issues.

No it's not, it's entirely accurate. No one has said or implied it's a complete solution to all client performance issues.

I didn't increase the depth, 2m was the existing depth. It doesn't push for long thin rods. It's lighter to lower efficiency and have a shorter stick, unless the ship is systems only with no hull. The goals are for systems 2.0, not just power 2.0. We haven't yet seen it all and we don't know...

All three component vectors of the ship matter and can be used together (x y z). I didn't quote the full chain but I was replying to a post that said only one component mattered. EDIT: this one

To further clarify, here are examples: Although both ships have the same reactor, same single stabiliser, and same length (i.e. reactor to stabiliser z distance is equal in both cases) we can see that the ship on the left achieves an efficiency almost double the one on the right, because its x...

Make systems need space and not depend only on block numbers? That's exactly what power 2.0 does.... When we were discussing your MF design I showed you a design with a central reactor and over double the power output of your design: ships don't have to be a stick built with reactor at one end...

Sorry GnomeKing I missed your post somehow. Not entirely sure I understand you, but stabiliser distance does use x and y and z all together. Or any mix of the two between those extremes... The ship I posted earlier has average stabiliser efficiency of 35%, and isn't full of stabilisers.

I didn't do any work on it, I just took a vagyr despoiler and spawned it into 200.171 (172?) and the result is what you see. The shield blocks happen to be in multiple groups which didn't matter before but does now...

I have literally no idea what your meme is supposed to mean. I assume you have no answer for my question. And if you want to claim that someone, who does acknowledge how insanely overpowered spaghetti is and who wants to see it gone, is someone who doesn't acknowledge that, well....I can't...

Implementing shields 2.0 in their current form would be one solution. Shield range bubbles are large and docked hull would need to be outside them, meaning docked hull would be absurdly large and heavy.

What reproducible experiment has been documented that shows spaghetti has been made worse by power 2.0 than it was under power 1.0? What a ridiculous inference. You couldn't be more wrong about me (others I can't speak for). If you'd ever bothered to pay any attention to any post I've written...

Worse how? Tested in what reproducible experiment? Documented where? They were meta before, and they're meta now. You can't get any worse than meta.