Search results

And they are....shields 2.0 as it currently is makes docked hull too ridiculously large and heavy to be useful. (For anyone who doesn't understand why please refer to this post)

Not correct. Two "large" bubbles, say one fwd and one aft, will still be "large", docked hull will still be impractical, and they'll still provide completely separate shields for each end. Where they overlap one will be inactive. Parameter values are still changing. Just be patient before...

That's an entirely different issue from docked hull. I think localised shielding offers the possibility of far more interesting shield design than a single shield pool. It's too early to dismiss the entire system without seeing parameter values that are closer to final. One thing I personally...

Great. So unless shield 2.0 variables change significantly perhaps we can stop listening to speculative complaints about docked hull that aren't based on reality.

This is very simple: you're wrong to worry about docked hull with shields 2.0 as they are (even if we first accept that docked hull is bad in the first place). Creating a docked hull, even just "fwd quarter" docked hull, will be so impractical that it will happen rarely, if at all, because...

The principle applies regardless of whether you fully enclose the ship or not. Moving docked hull away from the ship means either reduced coverage or increased mass. Have you actually checked to see what sort of numbers you get? For example can a shield bubble from a shield of enough power...

Docked hull typically lays up against the hull. Moving it away will make it less effective (cover a smaller incoming angle of fire). And for a powerful shield you'll have to move it a LONG way away.

Could anyone still complaining about docked armour please go out and build some with shields 2.0, then post the ship here for critique. The docked hull will have to sit outside the parent shield range bubble. It's going to be huge, and very heavy. It won't be like shields 1.0 docked hull...

Bullies? A very emotional thread, this one. There's a noisy little group of players who ignore the fact that Schine/SM is first and foremost a business and a vision (of those two I don't know which comes first), not a toy designed specifically for them personally. Catering to the whims of...

Docked hull with the new shield system (assuming you mean a shielded parent with unshielded child hull) will be possible, but typically impractical. The reason is that the child hull will have to sit outside the shield range sphere. For a powerful shield that range sphere is very large, meaning...

I think it was this thread that I said already: you can make your power system any shape you like, even a spherical shell of stabilisers around a central reactor. The power system only becomes "linear" in shape if the designer thinks about ship hulls as a primarily "linear" shape...and in that...

You've made the same assumption many people are making with power 2.0, but actually you shouldn't place your stabilisers at 100% efficiency separation distance. The way to build is place your reactor, then place your stabilisers in the place you want them to be (within reason), then add more...

One member factions can't survive, they can't maintain a single invulnerable base. Possibly you may see that as a good thing, but it's exclusive of some potential customers/income. If one player can't maintain a single invulnerable base I'd guess that the smaller a faction is the more...

Possibly some problems - small factions will be wiped out (not just hurt - completely wiped out) by large factions, unless they don't log in. "Realistic", yes. "Fair", yes. But not good for a game that doesn't want its players to find something else to play.

Playing via steam. Full screen isn't saving, but keyboard settings save fine.

I had a play with my hull. It's larger than yours: 33m diameter (27m from the link I posted above, plus 6m allowance for having to build with 1m thick walls at ring corridor inner and outer walls, and external ships side, x2). Hull is 8m deep at centre, 4m deep at edges (roof + floor + 2m...

I use Linux too... Haven't seen this problem. EDIT: confirmed that there's no problem for me, 200.168, linux. It's a valid point, but you can also think about it like this: under the old system you could drop your ship's power to 1 e/s and still alpha fire the weapon. Under the new system...

??? I'm not in front of SM right now so can't check - is this a bug introduced in a very recent dev build? There certainly shouldn't be anything stopping you placing your stabilisers closer than 100%. I'm certain you can get plenty more than that. You didn't mention dimensions, so I'll post...

As Dire Venom said, don't place your stabilisers at 100% efficiency distance. Put them where you want them (within reason), then increase the number of stabilisers until you're getting 100% reactor output.

Nebulon-B_Frigate_FTW could you give us a few numbers for your falcon? What dimensions did you use, how much power do you need?