Search results

That could work well for conduits between chambers. I'm not sure what would happen for conduit between (solid) reactors and (non-solid) chambers though. Of course there's lots of possibilities if the developers are willing. The "most awesome" possibility would be conduit to decorative console/s...

Imagine if chamber blocks were "non-solid" and only visible in build mode (like empty cargo storage blocks, pickup and shootout rails, area triggers, etc). It'd be a relatively trivial tweak of the textures/block config. Almost no work for developers at all! But why? I'll tell you why: it...

A short history of Power 2.0. a) Developers (possibly encouraged by a few people who want to role play in a unrealistic universe where engineering, physics and economics count for nothing) decide that forcing ship builders to have pointless empty space is the same as encouraging ship builders...

For reactors; most of the problem can be solved by severely reducing the distance between reactors and stabilisers - something like "distance = min( pow( (reactor_blocks - 1000), 0.3333) + 10, 1)". For RC; I think it should be more like "number of RC points = 99 + reactor level" (where chambers...

I hate wasted space - it looks unprofessional (like the ship builder was lazy and didn't bother finishing the ship), and I've designed my ship to be as large as my video card can handle (empty spaces make rendering slower which means I'd have to reduce the size of the ship to compensate). For...

The ship's shape and volume remained the same, and the reactors were always at the back and the stabilisers were always at the front (as far apart as possible). I started by adjusting the size of the reactor so that the stabilisers where at 100% and there wasn't anywhere near enough power to...

Because it's virtually impossible to fill the gap between reactors and stabilisers with anything solid (unless you fill it with a huge quantity of hull, but who really wants > 50% of their ship to be filled with hulls?). It "approximately doubles" (or worse) the cost of rendering a ship's...

Why do you think halving frame rates (due to the overhead of rendering interior gaps that weren't filled) will make the game better?

It doesn't effect stabilizer distance (or number of blocks per chamber or anything else); it just gives you a whole new set of "chamber bonuses" to choose from. Note that I'm looking at this from a very different perspective than most people. I have a hull with a certain shape and volume, and...

I'm still struggling to find a way to make it work. My current attempt is a pair of 10 million e/sec reactors at the back of the ship with stabilisers at the "15% efficiency" distance at the front of the ship, because I got sick of having a huge gaping cavity that can't be filled (and ended up...

It's worse than that. Let's assume you want to build a specialised "extremely awesome for fast travel and completely useless for everything else" ship. The first things you're going to want is "jump distance 3" (40% of RC) and "multi charge 1" (40% of RC) and "jump autocharge (5% of RC). You...

My stabilisers were at the "50% efficiency" distance. Maybe I could fill all the empty space with stabilisers if I put them at the "0% efficiency" distance.

I was full of hope and optimism. I tried to make it work. It doesn't. It's shit. The problem isn't "how big is big". The problem is that for any ship that isn't a tiny beginner ship you're forced to have a massive amount of unused space that you can't be used for anything at all. I put massive...

You don 't want to encourage "literally empty" space because that's exactly what you'll get - PVP ships with 2 disconnected blobs separated by literally empty space. This is what the current system encourages and this is the problem with the current system. The only way to encourage players to...

Sometimes I'll select a star system, and then (one by one) every planet and (AI) station in the system will just disappear until the entire system contains nothing but a star (and any asteroids that respawn) about 10 days later. :)

It's a little complicated... This is the current exterior: Those squares you see on the top and sides (and bottom) are for 29 dock-able "defence plates", where the idea is to provide several different types of these "defence plates" - one with a single huge turret mount, one with some...

You need the same amount of stabilisers regardless of how many reactors share them. For an idea of what I'm doing, here's a screenshot of my current "under development" ship's reactor setup (I decided to add the "recon mode" I was thinking about earlier, so it's 4 reactors now): For this...

No, it's a small amount of extra mass (like I said). From what I'm seeing, the distance between reactor and stabilisers, and the distance between different separate shield generators, and the power consumption of everything (thrusters, shields, weapons, etc) means that you're forced to have lots...

I've been waiting/lurking for ages; and with the new pre-release decided it was time to try Starmade again, and started messing around with reactors. I think I've stumbled across something that some people might not realise yet... YOUR NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE ONE REACTOR (at least not for larger...

Yes. Also don't forget that there are a lot of people like me - people that aren't currently playing StarMade (and won't appear in any statistics), but who check the website regularly and will jump right back into StarMade as soon as they find out a new update has arrived. For an extremely...