2018-04-04 Load Balance, Airports and Cities, Sticky Ground

Details about updates to Shores of Hazeron

Re: 2018-04-04 Load Balance, Airports and Cities, Sticky Gro

Postby Haxus » Wed Apr 04, 2018 4:13 pm

It struck me as a bug because the result is illogical. I fixed it by applying a sane limit.

If you find ways to overcome that restriction using hidden or tiny parts, go for it. The system is so open there are probably many ways to accomplish your goals.

At least I won't have somebody asking me why their 10x10x10 cube is 2462 cubic meters.
User avatar
Haxus
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2940
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 8:00 pm

Re: 2018-04-04 Load Balance, Airports and Cities, Sticky Gro

Postby Kajanov » Wed Apr 04, 2018 4:31 pm

So if I understand correctly, you can now push the hull volume with overlapping hulls to the volume of a cuboid with the dimensions of the outer-most limits of the hull. (not sure how to put this in english the right way)

i.e., create a 1x1x1 cube, copy and paste it to make another = 1 m3
move 2nd cube 1m in any direction = 2 m3
move the same cube 1 more meter > there is 1 meter of open space between them= 2 m3
duplicate one of the 2 cubes and leave it overlapping = 3 m3

This is what happens when testing in the offline designer (refresh obstructions, not finalize)
further:
move the 2nd cube 2 meters in the other 2 dimensions and duplicate until volume increases gives me 27 m3

m3 - cubic meters
<@Havear> Tymas: If it ain't broken, you're not trying hard enough.
Kajanov
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 8:32 am

Re: 2018-04-04 Load Balance, Airports and Cities, Sticky Gro

Postby Haxus » Wed Apr 04, 2018 4:36 pm

cuboid with the dimensions of the outer-most limits of the hull


That was excellent.

It provides a sane upper limit for a volume calculator that can be tricked by overlapping subvolumes.
User avatar
Haxus
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2940
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 8:00 pm

Re: 2018-04-04 Load Balance, Airports and Cities, Sticky Gro

Postby Kajanov » Wed Apr 04, 2018 5:30 pm

Makes one wonder, why not default to that volume with a slider if you need to decrease it to fit your QL or limit it to the max QL's max volume if it is lower than the new max volume
<@Havear> Tymas: If it ain't broken, you're not trying hard enough.
Kajanov
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 8:32 am

Re: 2018-04-04 Load Balance, Airports and Cities, Sticky Gro

Postby Minty » Wed Apr 04, 2018 10:13 pm

Personally, I prefer smaller ships. While I agree that overlapping hulls creating excess volume was a bug, I think it was used so heavily because the volume system itself might need to be reworked. As Vectorus said, ship strength being limited to their physical size is pretty unfortunate, and higher QL doesn't really enable you to make tiny, but still very powerful ships. I would suggest replacing the 'volume' idea with something that functions the same (lets you add stronger components at the cost of greater build time, ect), but isn't tied to volume.
Image
Minty
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2017 11:25 pm

Re: 2018-04-04 Load Balance, Airports and Cities, Sticky Gro

Postby Ikkir Isth » Thu Apr 05, 2018 1:08 pm

Really though, part of the problems we have here is thus:
1: Bigger is always better - assuming you can build it, a bigger ship still just takes one officer and performs better in every conceivable way, so, other than time and resource concerns, you always want to build the biggest ship possible.
2: Even a single QL upgrade = bigger ship. So when you up your QL, you go back to design a bigger ship (Have said this before as well). The trick in this one was that, with tardis-space, you could just use your old design you put a lot of work into and make it 'effectively' bigger all the way up.

More or less, I still advocate for size classes where theres a hybrid between volume and design (not to mention functionality, which I wont get into now) - dont have to redesign your scout ship over and over because you have higher ql/tl as it still fits in the 'scout' range: you can design your scout ship and design your corvette and design your destroyer and they all can simply quality/tech up on their own, and you can focus on making each design 'better' rather than bigger (plus, you can pre-design hangars to fit certain size class ships more easily with standards. Standards mean every computer has a USB port these days, after all)
Making things with OpenGL: Image
Working on- an exploration game.
@Ikkir_Isth
User avatar
Ikkir Isth
 
Posts: 2404
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 9:22 pm

Re: 2018-04-04 Load Balance, Airports and Cities, Sticky Gro

Postby AnrDaemon » Thu Apr 05, 2018 1:10 pm

Did I said that replacement of TL with quality only mde things worse?
Yak. Yak never changes.
AnrDaemon
 
Posts: 7560
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 5:37 pm

Re: 2018-04-04 Load Balance, Airports and Cities, Sticky Gro

Postby Vectorus » Thu Apr 05, 2018 2:04 pm

Thanks for taking the time to explain. I understand better where you are coming from. You're just eliminating a logical impossibility; something that's self-evidently a bug because it violates the laws of physics.

Absolutely! No one could object to that. It's just that I, and perhaps many other people, have got into the habit of thinking of volume, not as a physical attribute under physical laws, but as a convenient shorthand for a vague and nebulous notion of "capability". Just as population is the shorthand we use for cities and processes are the shorthand we use for buildings. If I have a 1000m3 ship, of which 100m3 is sensors, and I overlap some hull to make 1100m3 ship with 200m3 sensors, in my mind all I have done is miniaturized that sensor technology by a factor of 2, with my more advanced tech requiring more time and raw materials to perfect. Or, if you like, my miniaturization capabilities have increased the effective hull volume I can dedicate to sensors by a factor of 2. The fact that I have to think of this capability change in the language of "volume" barely crosses my mind. True, that's my decision and you're not forcing me to think that way. But I'm guessing I'm not alone...

When volume can be seen as a fairly arbitrary metric, and one which doesn't have to obey the laws of physics, a lot of other oddities fall into place. Such as my blood-magic cargo hold which can take either a thousand Polaris-sized rockets or a thousand sheets of A5 paper but not both; or my weapons bay that launches a missile larger than my ship; or my flea-sized scout, which somehow holds enough cryo berths for a substantial metropolis while only being large enough for a few dozen people to physically stand up in.

Sure, TARDIS hull space is a bug and one that doesn't make much sense. But, like berth-a-porting, it serves an important function. We now have teleporting, which is a vastly happier solution to that other problem. We don't have a stand-in for overlapping hull. The replacement I would suggest is abolishing "volume" altogether and having a slider entitled "matériel commitment" or "industrial investment" which does exactly the same thing without the conceptual knottiness.

Finally, I can now achieve exactly the same result that I could have got before; only I have to use a slightly more complicated assembly of hull vertices, voids etc. in order to do so. When I make the next iteration of the Dulcinee, it will function just the same; it will just take up a few bytes more of your servers to describe that function, which may not be exactly what you are trying to achieve!

Anyway, I don't mean to sound ungrateful and if you're convinced that this is a simple bug fix, then fair enough, case closed. It does, however, seem like an opportune moment to give my view on hull volume more generally. As for everyone else's comments, I can't go into everything now, but a good number certainly made me think.

TL;DR Rename "volume" as "effective volume" and everything's fine :lol:
User avatar
Vectorus
 
Posts: 144
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 10:21 am

Re: 2018-04-04 Load Balance, Airports and Cities, Sticky Gro

Postby pizzasgood » Thu Apr 05, 2018 2:52 pm

If somebody is upset because they cannot build a small ship with as much raw power as a big ship, or because they cannot make functionally faithful reproductions of ships from whatever random other setting, or because they have a psychological disorder demanding that they continuously redesign their ships after every minor tech upgrade so that they can have the maximum performance possible at any given instant, then the problem lies with neither Haxus nor his game. PEBKAC.

That said, I do agree with having more tradeoffs between large and small ships besides the construction burden. Big ships could have lower turning rates, greater odds of being hit, and lower stealth. The size of a weapon itself could further reduce its accuracy vs. small targets. Loading and unloading goods could be tweaked to take longer for craft that aren't parked at an airport or docked with a station, so that small transfers would go faster with Millenium Falcon or Firefly sized shuttle-craft than with a Guild Highliner.

But the idea that you should be able to make little ships that behave like big ships? Silly nonsense.
Adapt or die.
User avatar
pizzasgood
 
Posts: 709
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2012 11:50 am
Location: Space

Re: 2018-04-04 Load Balance, Airports and Cities, Sticky Gro

Postby Deantwo » Fri Apr 06, 2018 12:03 am

Vectorus wrote:If I have a 1000m3 ship, of which 100m3 is sensors, and I overlap some hull to make 1100m3 ship with 200m3 sensors, in my mind all I have done is miniaturized that sensor technology by a factor of 2, with my more advanced tech requiring more time and raw materials to perfect. Or, if you like, my miniaturization capabilities have increased the effective hull volume I can dedicate to sensors by a factor of 2. The fact that I have to think of this capability change in the language of "volume" barely crosses my mind. True, that's my decision and you're not forcing me to think that way. But I'm guessing I'm not alone...

Right now we don't have any kind of "upgrades" like this, bigger ship is simply the only way forward. This was true for the old-style spacecraft and it is still true. The general idea is that you simply add a new external modul or a new wingy-bit when you are upgrading the design.

That said I do think that new ways of upgrading a spacecraft to a higher technical level would be nice, even more so if it can be done with existing spacecraft so we don't have to redesign all the time.

For example as you mentioned about doubling your sensor capability without making the spacecraft bigger. It could be an advanded sensor module that is twice as good as normal sensors, but in the calculations of "max spacecraft volume verses technical level" volume allocated to sensor would count double.
This wouldn't reqiure a redesign, it would simply reqiure a module upgrade and a refit of the spacecraft's volume distribution.
AnrDaemon is the solution to the [s]Fermi Paradox[/s] Hazeron suggestion flood problem, the great suggestion filter.
User avatar
Deantwo
 
Posts: 5137
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 4:38 am
Location: Rævehale

PreviousNext

Return to Updates

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest