Search results

While of course bugs could arise from an update like this, there's no inherent reason for this to affect AI aiming either way.

I wonder if perhaps we should embrace the... fractured nature of ship classifications? Since everyone and their mother has a system of their own, no community consensus is in sight, and the higher-ups explicitly refuse to impose anything, why don't we make it into a single meta-system? For...

Aww... oh well, thanks for pointing that out.

The ship core?! Is it just me, or does this mean programmable ships? I'm suddenly very happy. Also, it's Lua, not LUA.

I disagree. Maneuvering speed is not the same as travel speed. I would even argue that keeping it this way is one of the primary reasons for having jump drives in the game in the first place, buffing the drives of more maneuverable ships is just counter-productive.

Alright, I'll... assume you got my point, given your edit. ... Wait, USD-1? That one was thrown out ages ago in favor of the 2, with the dockers below the door rather than to the sides.

That is... not quite so. Having your docker the farthest out does of course work, but's it's a specific case of a more general principle- any ship that can dock to itself, can dock to any other ship that can dock to itself.Or, more formally- Defining a "Docking Arm" to be: Any straight...

Agreed, that is my main complaint as well. Hard-coded classification goes against the idea of a sandbox.

The whole purpose of the game is is not to build. Nor is to pilot, trade, roleplay, or fight. Admittedly, the building aspect of the game is currently the most fleshed-out, and perhaps the foremost shared interest among the current playerbase, but for the n'th time- this is alpha. Last I...

As with many issues, this one ties into a larger problem- lacking entity integration. A docked entity can draw power from its mothership and now also shields, and its AI module can be centrally turned on or off. Other than that, a docked ship is no different from one that just happens to hang...

Does this mean hulk missiles are viable again? I've always loved their near-instant kill damage, but the thought that a lucky shot from a pd turret might force another, full cooldown cycle has always seemed far too discouraging. Edit- wait, no, it's not actually set to anything, it's just there...

Planet cores and stars are both viable fuel sources, as far as gameplay goes. It's realesque enough, they're readily available, and unlike the gas giants/nebulae/whatever that's commonly suggested, they're already in the game. And really, diving through a star to refuel is cool. One thing in...

Oh dear, you're at it again. Having skimmed the discussion so far, I'll repeat my main stance on the issue- Fuel, as a concept, is an infrastructure mechanic. If implemented, it should serve to translate an amount of efficient, operating ships into a required amount of infrastructure. Thus...

Wonderful. I wonder if perhaps a Bus or a Zephyr would be a fitting complement. If anything, replicas of those would probably provide far more firepower per volume than only Quinnjets.

This is, perhaps, the core of what I wish to address. Basically, as far as I'm aware, there's no need for this to be at all true. Lua and Java won't be separate entities, the former will be a simulation by latter. Every instruction that's written in Lua will be individually considered and...

Here we go again.... This game is projecting complex shapes in a three-dimensional space, analyzing them for contact points and applying forces in accordance to simulate a physical interaction, dozens of times a second. The power set aside to run a few Lua scripts won't be significant. I should...

Firstly, those drones are not very well designed. The AI is quick enough to use one, powerful beam, re-aiming it the instant it's no longer pointing at a block. Secondly, there are plans for some form of scripting, but that would be in Lua. Python does have an advantage in popularity, but...

Given the current state of things, I think perhaps steamVR would be more practical than the oculus API. After all, the former has some support for the latter, while the latter... well, you've seen the news. DRM, DRM being hacked, more DRM, et cetera. I'm not sure it would be much of an issue...

I can't say I support this. As I find myself saying quite often these days, the entire point of a sandbox is giving the player a set of tools and letting them do what they want with them. Removing said tools and implementing a feature for one specific application, even if it is the most common...

As Sven_The_Slayer said, this is a technical limitation. If I might shamelessly insert a suggestion of my own, I think it would be much more practical (programming-wise) if we could instead define behaviors for the gravity modules. A while back, I wrote a more detailed suggestion to this...