I've had similar issues in the past. Creating working turrets sometimes just requires re-doing them until they work.What I can't figure out is why my turrets aren't working.
The AI won't seem to activate and they won't move manually either. They aren't blocked. I triple checked.
Ideas? Comments? Suggestions?
Tab -> radial menu -> ship-> reactorHmm... Downloaded dev and am unable to find the chamber GUI. Tried the whole keyboard on both reactor and chamber blocks, no reaction. Conduit connections do not cause anything to appear, c-v connections do not work on reactors or chambers... Can anybody explain how the thing is supposed to work?
please move away from dimensional req's already ;_;
You say you want ships to have more design freedom, yet are stubbornly holding onto essentially the same design constrictions that affected power reactors.
There will be just one new ship shape a long stick...Agreed. I feel that ship designs shouldn't be forced into shapes, and that a player should beable to make a hull, then outfit the ship without needing to rip holes all across it just so the reactor works :/
Overall I don't see much of a need for stabilizors. I would much rather they simply provided a small bonus + reduce the chance of reactor blocks exploding when hit (like how auxiliary blocks worked). The devs have said that they will be considering and testing the idea as well :3
Lots of power relative to what?
- I can get lots of power into my 300 meter heavy corvette without making a stick ship
I highly disagree with your first point. I think reactor count should be drastically higher than stabilizer count. Otherwise its multiple large space investments scattered throughout your ship instead of a single large one that can be placed wherever. 1 large system is also easier to relocate later on when there is less space,since the distance factor is less important (you wont have to tear into nearby ship systems as badly with smaller stabilizers.) I very much agree with your chamber point though.- Reactor block count should be smaller than that of stabilizers. Probably much smaller.
-Chambers should be smaller in relation to reactor. Not half the block count per chamber.
- Weapons with long recharge times must have higher cost of recharge/maintenance than weapons that have high rate of fire. The higher the reload times the higher the cost.
- Reactor block count should be smaller than that of stabilizers. Probably much smaller.
-Chambers should be smaller in relation to reactor. Not half the block count per chamber.
- Weapons with long recharge times must have higher cost of recharge/maintenance than weapons that have high rate of fire. The higher the reload times the higher the cost.
I think having high damage alpha weapons be easy to make was a intended feature. I think its kind of a good idea.i mostley agree. Though i dont like the idea of needing that much bigger stabilizers. I agree on the chambers though, they tend to ear up a lot of space especially for those effects with complicated trees (its ok for chambers you can upgrade). And i strongly agree that high alpha weapons need some sort of serious balance. Also, shields in general seem to be pretty useless atm. They cost quite some energy to maintain and drop instantly to the new weapons (especially the high alpha weapons).
Im sorry ive lost progress before too because of broken release updates. And if they released a tutorial for this it would be their actual first ever tutorial!I was so happy when I saw JW608s video about the release of the new power upgrade in DEV mode.
So I updated the new files and went right into it.
First Mistake I made, was I used my current universe, I had been working hard on for 2 Projects, a 50x50x50 small station, and a mega Manufacturing Plant that can create every possible block every tick.
So of course , I had to be able to produce the new blocks myself. So I added several basic, and standard factories to do just that, I made about 200 of each. enough to start playing with it.
I started my first ship with the new blocks, major mistakes all the time, no videos to teach how to use yet. The problem I had was using a Radar Jammer, It just wont work with the new power blocks.
THEN MY STATION VANISHED, I logged out and back in a few times and still no station, THEN ALL MY SHIPS VANISHED. Now I'm getting upset and worried, I tried repairing starmade and still nothing.
IF YOU WANT TO TRY OUT THE NEW POWER BLOCKS, MAKE A NEW UNIVERSE FIRST.
So now I,m still upset over this, there were no warnings of this will ever happen. I think you should have waited another 6 months before releasing it to Dev Build, with more tutorials, paperwork on how to use, and what TO WATCH OUT FOR.
I ENDED UP HAVING TO DELETE EVERYTHING AND LOADING STARMADE FRESH. nOW IM SEEING NPC SHIPS DISSAPEARING RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME, IM USING RELEASE BUILD THIS TIME.
fix this please. I'm going to have to wait a little longer before I try that again. I learned another lesson to, save a copy of everything every 30 minutes while building any ship or station.
This is intentional and a good feature IMO. They need to scale up the stats of functional systems and and scale down the range of numbers that stats can fall within to 50'000, and it all should fit together.The most serious problem I see with the new power system is that it's purely based on GENERATION of power, aside from the scant little power storage innate to the core, the system has no visible power STORAGE. Unless you hybridize your power systems (add power caps alongside the new reactors), you don't get more storage than the 50k innate to any ship core (which is part of the old power system, so it's not affected at all by the new power system).
With the old system, you could calculate how much power the ships needs to be fully functional and then tailor the power system to match those calculations.
With the new system, you can still do the calculations, but as you have no storage capacity beyond the core, you can only match generation and not have any stored power to fall upon if your generation is affected.
Absolutely!! This would make the combat so much more fun about would be a very much needed "new feature". Right now its just a game of point and click, like a spot the difference game.They really need to add a FCS (Firing control system) chamber, or just built into every shipcore. This would mean we can simply lock on to targets just like an AI would, but with our main weapons. Then improve it even further by allowing multiple targets to be locked on in your view, depending on how many groups of weapons you have.
Say you made a big expensive ship and then you fight 100 small "efficient" but cheap ships.
This would stop quantity over quality when alpha weapons are staring down a swarm of mosquitoes and can only hit 1 at a time, as I can easily see this happening with the new power update. Spreading out a swarm would take time, but your ship could be fast enough to catch 2 or more at a time.
Then we won't have to perform math on a PHD level (and MLG FPS accuracy) to hit something, and our weapons would actually be worth using no matter what they are.
Otherwise i'll just have a ship with no main weapon and turrets to hit stuff. How does this relate to power? Well missed shots = wasted power = less efficient ship = etc.
Relative to a similar size ship of the same role under the old power system.Lots of power relative to what?
Point is you can do better with one, there's no reason 300 meters couldnt be a "light corvette" with the exact same throughput in this case. Not because of "good engineering", but because its simply long. h'okay
There was never a universal standard in the old system either, so we just have to wait and see. We might even get one in the new system though since it looks like they are removing power capacity so there wont be ridiculously huge numbers to guesstimate betweenLots of power relative to what?
Point is you can do better with one, there's no reason 300 meters couldnt be a "light corvette" with the exact same throughput in this case. Not because of "good engineering", but because its simply long. h'okay
In that case it probably would be better to just remove stabilizers completely. Because if your stabilizers take damage during a fight reactor will lose some effectiveness, but if your reactor takes damage during the fight your power will shut down completely. With reactor being smaller than stabilizers you could reasonably have multiple redundant reactors only one of which works, but with reactor being much bigger than stabilizers making a redundant reactor is not only problematic by block count but also because it will be hard to place it in such a way that it won't take damage before you need it thus making the reason for a redundant reactor obsolete.I highly disagree with your first point. I think reactor count should be drastically higher than stabilizer count. Otherwise its multiple large space investments scattered throughout your ship instead of a single large one that can be placed wherever.
I don't think it is possible to remove demands for certain shapes from ships in a game that relies on creation of them in 3D world from voxels. Unless of course you want to transform ships into blobs of systems+HP with no ability to destroy individual blocks.This kind of design is explicitly rewarded at all scales on current systems even when considering turn rate (one extreme dimension still allows and even compliments 1 extreme turning dimension, aka vertical or 'wide winged' ships), it makes demands of the builder aesthetics wise to create a strong ship that can compete with other piloted/well designed ships. This is something Schine have stated they want to change, as one of the primary reasons for systems 2.0's design, but havn't yet addressed the underlying issue.