AstroOwl

I cannot support the idea of replicating existing turrets at turret factories enough. Ability to replicate drops from enemies would would mean that you can actually make your ship's tactics around a lucky drop, instead of just throwing it away. Currently one turret dropped from enemy, even if it is incredibly lucky to be better than OP turret factory stuff, cannot be actually used, because it is just one turret, and you cannot shape all your engagement range, etc, around just one weapon piece. As far as the place of commodities in the grand scheme of things, this is a more tricky question, but i do agree with DivineEvil that it makes sense to eventually make this uniform. That is, commodities are either: 1) used in the production of combat assets, but in this case -all assets: torpedoes, modules, fighters too, or 2) commodities are not used for combat assets, even for turrets - they are just a mean to make money. This suggestion: describes a very good solution, as for me. There is a question about the place of Research in all this. Here is the proposal to allow the Research stations to provide System Blueprints. The question is, should Research stay as it is now, even if we allow to replicate systems? Like, it would be possible to research one, say, legendary hyperspace upgrade, and then replicate if freely, albeit for a massive cost? This is something to be considered, because we probably don't want to make system drops feel not valuable too. Unlike turrets, system upgrades don't vary so wildly within one tier, which means that you won't be as thrilled for a good drop as you might be with Turrets, once you get just one . Maybe this means that some steps should be made to make system upgrades a little more random, so that you would anticipate a possibly better system drop. Overall, system proposed by DivineEvil seems reasonable and uniform. I hope devs would consider suggestions of this thread, because Turret Factories as of now ruin the whole thrill of random drops which is supposed to keep players interested in fighting.

This definitely seems too exploitable and nonsensical. But i think another type of fix would be better (although maybe harder to implement): If the cargoship spawned to deliver goods to the station is destroyed, no other transport spawns to do so in another X time, being afraid of encountering pirates. X might be around 1 hour, i think. Really, when you think about why this is nonsensical, it's not because lucrative goods exist or because npc carry them in large numbers, but because of how endless stream of traders carrying that good appear out of thin air. Where do they even get all this processors? If you limit this rate, you make this thing not so ridiculous, but still profitable, and it becomes more believable. And this also solves this exploit not only for Processors specifically, but for any other possibly too exploitable good, while leaving you with ability to get some amount of specific good by piracy if you want to.

No, it should not stay the same (if we are talking about how real physics work). What you say works only for linear acceleration (and it, indeed, stays the same in Avorion after scaling, as it should be IRL). Rotational acceleration is inversely proportional to moment of inertia, which, in turn, is proportional to V*a^2 = a^3*a^5 = a^5 (that is, volume*linear scale^2, or, since volume = scale^3, moment of inertia is proportional to linear scale to the power of 5). Rotational acceleration is directly proportional to thruster torque, which, in turn, is directly proportional both to thruster volume V and lever, which also scales lineary, so tourque is proportional to V*a = a^3*a^1 = a^4. Since a^4 grows slower than a^5, rotational acceleraton lowers as you upscale the same ship. Everything according to how actual physics work.

That number is already changeable. That is a changeable setting of the galaxy (server). It's saying "server" because 250-block limitation is defined by settings of your galaxy in server.ini file (even if you play singleplayer, it basically creates a "server" just for you). If that's your singleplayer game, go to ....\Users\...\AppData\Roaming\Avorion\galaxies\%galaxy_name%\server.ini and change the line "MaximumBlocksPerTurret=250" to the number of your desire. P.S. This is probably not a post for Suggestions, since.. since it's already implemented.

I would say: do cover your thrusters and other valuable blocks, but by relatively thin layer of armor. Make sure to protect your ship with integrity fields so that your armor won't be blown off. You will get slight decrease in maneuverability, but not because of that. (your center of mass won't move if you add armor symmetrically, anyway). That decrease is due to increased moment of inertia (aka rotational inertia) - measure of how hard your ship is to turn around certain axis. Moment of inertia is increased by adding heavy blocks to your ships, and said increase is proportional to how far from central aixs the blocks are placed. (I mean, 2 armor blocks close to the center of the ships don't hapmer its maneuverability as much as, say, 2 same blocks of armor, but placed on the ends of a long rods pointing away from CoM). So, how hard is it to turn your ship is defined not only by its mass, but also by distribution of said mass. Overall, i would say: have an outer shell of armor or hull, and directly beneath it - to maximise lever - you place your thrusters, keeping in mind their orientation to maximise their effect. Functional blocks like generators, shields, cargobay, dampeners, etc can fill the center.

Iron is basically worst for anything. Only reason to use for it is Inertial Dampeners, and/or lack of other materials. So move to Titanium asap, but still, even ship made out of Iron should be able to turn. Now, if you check Workshop, you can easily see that there is a lot of good-turning ships, so it IS possible, now let's see how they do it. First. Thrusters, especially directional thrusters are your friends, so you need to know how they work. (just in case: "thruster pancakes are no more, thrusters are now volume-based). Thrusters give you more torque (which is what you want to rotate fast) the more lever they have. Now, to gain more lever, you want to place your thruster so that it would be as far from center of your ship as possible. You can get good results even by just placing simple (non-directional) thrusters somewhere far from the center of mass of the ship. Bad rotational speeds can then be covered by gyroscopes (be sure to rotate them to achieve effect on the desired axis of rotation!) But to really control and imrove particular rotation speeds even on high-mass ships, you need to use directional thrusters. You get maximum result if you place directional thruster rotated to certain direction (axis) if you place it as far as possible from the line going through the center of mass in the same direction. I bet this is completely non-understandable, so some more practical examples: If you want to get more result from the thruster oriented along "up-down" axis, for example, you want to place it far to the side (left-right), in which case it will give you more roll, and/or to the back or front, in which case it will give you more pitch. Applying general principle to this example, you maximise lever by placing this vertically-oriented thruster as far as possible from the vertical line going through ship's CenterOfMass. Likewise, to get maximum yaw/roll form "left-right" oriented thruster, you place it further to top/bottom , and/or further to back/front. And, finally, to get maximum yaw/pitch form "backward-forward" oriented thruster, you place it further to left/right, and/or further to top/bottom. Hope this somewhat convoluted explanation helps a bit. Good luck!

The next update will be focused on economy, making factories and production chains more viable. You can know about that from Koonschi's twitter:

Yes. You can increase reputation even if you have a completely hostile relations with a faction. 1. Sell claimable asteroids to them: Fly to yellow-blip sectors (that are detectable with advanced sensor) until you find an un-minable large asteroid. Such asteroids are highlighted with Object Detector. You can claim them for yourself (even if there are hostiles in the system!) and then either start a mine there, or... sell them to a faction, for money and reputation. 2. Kill pirates and Xsotan in faction-owned sectors. Best done in some sector without faction patrols, but with couple of stations (you know, like that border systems with only a trade post and res. depot in them).

You don't need to place thrusters outside the ship. They are working even when covered. Place them inside. They would take considerable portion of ship's volume, it is absolutely normal. Place them further from COM for bigger momentum.

No, i was checking the center (Ogonite area), with large factories. Look at the screenshots i added, for example: They are not small, they are just empty. Most are not that bad, but still with very little stock. Of course, i checked just 2 factions's space, around 30 sectors - that might be just bad luck.

Okay, after some time and experimenting, i now agree with topicstarter. At first i was going to say something like "calm tf down, please", but now i share his anger. I ventured into some new sectors, to see how is the trading with new station stock generation. TLDR: production is dead. After fully exploring all the gate system for two factions, i haven't found a even single factory with more than 100 units in stock. Only ones who had decent stock were the mines, solar p. plants and gas collectors - in short, primary resources producers. (even they were mostly empty - i'm just pointing that at least some of them had any stock), and food production facilities. Anything more complex than steel: almost completely empty. Only place where there was decent volumes of goods are trading posts. But don't you think that players should be encouraged to trade with some thought, by supplying production chains, instead of just hoping for random lucky trading post? I could have started trading from the simplest products to slowly set production in motion, but that won't work in vanilla game ! If you play just vanilla, without OOsP factories like this: are useless chunks of metal. And there are lots of such. You can come into the system and see how almost all of stations have <5% of stock (even with "mining" sectors this is sometimes true, and that is just ridicolous). TLDR: In the current situation, with static universe, the only way to trade is to rely on good initial stock generation. Making most factories empty don't make trading any more thoughtful, it just makes most economical objects useless, removing even the illusion of living economics.

0.3 Cargo Hold! I guess all it can store is... a CAT ba dum tss Speaking a little more serious, i really like it. It's good to see a nice-designed ship for the early part of the game.

Yeah, dead sectors make economy not very enjoyable. You probably would enjoy "Out of Sector Production" mod. Trading is extremely profitable, however, due to the fact that many stations are so under-supplied with goods, and so, will pay you a lot for deliveries. some tips: Another reason trading is somewhat strange now, as for me, is that trading upgrade just tells you what to do (what to move and where), but don't give you the actual information it used - so it's hard (possible, though) to spot profitable routes on your own - player starts to just fly back and forth and wait until Trading Upgrade will catch a jackpot for him, instead of thinking on its own.

+ to that. That is an annoying problem. Probably means that game checks if all of the goods have spare cargo space and than runs the script which makes one run. Looking at scripts/lib/productions.lua now - is that the place to attempt fixing that? can't see how that can be done yet. Funny thing is i ran into that thing just today while trying to get absolutely the same: Neon from the Gas Collector =D Sometimes i feel like forum is some sort of collective mind which uses telepathy to know what i am thinking about. I mean, thanks for posting this, since i was too lazy to start a thread myself.

Don't really think this is going to happen, since that would be a problem for some sci-fi replicas, and overall, limit the freedom of how ship should look too much.

Just that, tell the player explicitly that thrusters are supposed to work even internally to not to spoil exterior looks. Minor thing. Looked around a bit on steam discussions, forum, Reddit and more than a few times i saw people complaining about "i need to cover my entire ship with ugly thrusters to turn!" Apart from some people perceiving ridiculously good maneuverability as "just decent", it seems that some people just don't get the fact that thrusters are not supposed to "cover" ship unless player decided so for aesthetic reasons. Of course, some people just don't want to think and learn whatsoever no matter what they are told, but... clarification is probably a good thing. Dunno, though, such an explicit statement might be immersion-braking, so i'm not entirely sure.

Except that the moment of inertia along two axis which are perpendicular to that would be increased. In other words, lever arm would be bigger, yes, but ship shape would make it harder to turn in that directions. And that effect would me more significant than increasing the lever arm. If you make a "cube" ship of size XbyXbyX (X*X*X=X^3 volume), moment of inertia is (m/12)*(X^2+X^2)=(m*X^2)/6 along each direction. If you make a ship of same total volume and mass, but with length of 4X and other sides of 0.5X (check: volume = 4X*0.5X*0.5X=X^3), its moment of inertia for Pitch and Yaw would be: I = (m/12)*((4X)^2+(0.5X)^2)=(m/6)*(8X^2+0.125X^2)=8.125*(m*X^2)/6. That is 8.125 times more than before. But the lever arm would be just 4 times bigger (thruster is just 4 times farther from COM). Since rot. speed ~ lever arm*thruster volume/moment of inertia, it becomes 2 times lower for pitch and yaw than before. list of moments of inertia, i used the cuboid one what is moment of inertia (tldr: it's like mass, but for rotational movement around axis)

What i am trying to come to is to make achieving at least decent rotation levels easier, but achieving too fast rotation harder, and also, to buff small ships rotation while nerfing the large ships rotation. What is the change, exactly? Rotational speed in game, if i understand correctly, is w~M/I, where M is applied momentum, and I is the moment of inertia along the corresponding axis. Proposal is to make momentum scale non-lineary, in a way like actual momentum = C*M^(P), where M is momentum actually generated by thrusters and gyros C,P = constants, C>1, P<1. C=1,P=1 corresponds to current linear situation. How this would look like at least for some chosen numbers? If coefficients are chosen properly, this would lead to following: a) it would become easier to achieve rotation for ships before certain size (than now), and harder - for ships past that size. b) achieving at least some rotation would become easier, but achieving very high rotation would become harder than now. I mean, when you just start adding gyros/thrusters to your ship, rotation increases faster than in linear case, but as you get past certain level, it becomes harder and harder. Below, i show the graphs for the case of C=10, P = 0.89. This is just one of the possible parameters, by making C and P closer to 1, this changes can be made less noticable (or more noticable if P is even lower and C is even higher), or made more noticable just for small/large ships. But here, we set dependency as M(actual)=10*M^(0.89). On this graph, i simulate (more details at the end of post) the scaling (changing size without altering any structure) of the same ship. So, portion of the ship dedicated to thrusters stays the same, but of course, inertia of the ship grows bigger as the size increases, and so do its thrusters. I used a ship which had 0.36 rad/s @ size of exactly 8 upgrades. Rotation scaling for C=10, P=0.89: grey line. Blue line: linear case (as now in the game). X - axis: upgrade slots Y - axis: rotation, rad/s Ship shape, density, and structure is constant. Here is how non-linear behavior affects ship of same size and inertia, but with varying amount of thrusters. Linear (blue) vs nonlinear (grey) behavior for the case of ship of size between 7 and 8 slots. X - axis: more/less thrusters on ship Y - axis: rotation speed, rad/s. Achieving ~0.32 is roughly as hard as in linear variant, achieving less rotation is easier than before, achieving more rotation is harder than before. For the case of large, say, 12-slot ship: Linear (blue) vs nonlinear (grey) behavior for the case of ship of 12-slot-size. X - axis: more/less thrusters on ship Y - axis: rotation speed, rad/s. Achieving 0.1 rad/s is ~30% harder Achieving 0.2 rad/s is ~42% harder (so, it becomes increasingly harder to achieve faster rotation, and in general, larger ships are nerfed) Now, let's look at the case of same parameters, but small (4-slot) ship: Linear (blue) vs nonlinear (grey) behavior for the case of ship of 4-slot-size. X - axis: more/less thrusters on ship Y - axis: rotation speed, rad/s. Achieving 1.5 rad/s requires ~35% less effort Achieving 0.5 rad/s requires ~43% less effort (so, it becomes increasingly easier to achieve at least some rotation, and in general, smaller ships are buffed) This all was the example for C=10, P = 0.89. But what if we want to play around a little and see what else can be done? I'll show examples for different parameters below the spoiler. Nothing special, actually, just a little more simple graphs. Proposed change is not very realistic, but personally.. this is not a sim. I would like to see an interesting game, even if it means unrealistic changes. Overall, what i want to say is it's really sad to see how some people are struggling to get their ship to at least some rotation, while others see how bad it is that maneuverability is not a limiting factor in creating humongous ships - it's too easy to make anything behave like a fighter, and therefore, certain mechanics, like independent targeting, or rotating turrets instead of ship, are not actually needed in combat. This removes some interest from the game, as for me - and that's why i propose non-linearity of rotation. Thanks.

Exactly my thought. Nonlinear rotation behavior might be the answer for satisfying both those who can't get good rotation and evading making achieving ridiculous rotation speed to easy. Going to try some non-linear variants and check dependency on size (and number of slots) in Excel and then write a post in Suggestions.

In Avorion, 1 block unit is 10 meters. If in Avorion you build a ship of the size as in this video from Expanse, achieving maneuverability is very easy. You don't need to "wrap" your ship in them, since they work while covered. In fact, ships of huge sizes (say ~1km long) can made very maneuverable in Avorion, while usually in sci-fi such a ship won't be very nimble. Perhaps dev shold add "length of the ship" indicator so that people would finally understand what sizes are depicted in game. And yes, 1g acceleration is just 9.81 m/s^2. Try making a ship with forward acceleration of 9.81 and check if you can achieve strafing acceleration to be higher than forward acceleration (spoiler: that can be done easily. Ships in Avorion can easily be made to accelerate at > 10g).

Upcoming update would include player groups: "Players will be able to invite other players into a group, so they can see each other in the sector and on the map in real time.", source. Factions will be included later, in Alliance update, it is planned to be released approximately 4 weeks after the update with simpler "groups".

This three threads are not the same. Here, the "why do we have to aim manually even with gunners" is just one of the topics. What author is likely saying, and i agree, is: The game currently fails to make large ships be as they usually are in sci-fi: a vessels acting differently from small ships, not rotating the whole ship to engage each target, using different groups of weaponry against different ships, having a seriously (and not slightly) reduced maneuverability a drawback of size etc. If the intent is to make large ships to appear in such a way (and if i understand koonschi posts correctly, it is) - then something need to be changed. However, i think it is important not to use artificial restrictions, like limit on number of directly controlled turrets, to make players behave in a certain way - instead, it's better to leave players with choice, but to make it so that for a large ships optimal behavior is not as it is now (making starfighter of ship of any size), so that player, driven by a free will, but not restrictions, would find another playstyle more natural and beneficial. For example: how it can be made that rotating your turrets, or using independent targeting, would be more convinient than rotating your ship every time you want to engage someone else? Probably, the rotation speed of turrets should be increased, so that is won't be always easier to rotate the whole ship, like it is now? Probably, the penalty in damage for indep. targeting should really be removed or reduced? Probably, improvements in how good turrets aim on their own can be made? Probably, thin-spaghetti enemies should be somehow dealt with (since ai turrets have troubles hitting them, which forces player to aim manually)?

If it is the latest beta - click on the wrench, and the menu with two options (repair and discard broken blocks) will appear.

okay, you're right. My statement was vague and in the end incorrect. "Past certain ship size, strategically placed thrusters are significantly more beneficial (per volume invested) than gyros" - that should be more or less it.

This. Not even talking in terms of money, but since the stats vary so widely, even for same rarity, and "higher rarity" don't guarantee better stats, it's very advantageous to roll often. Haven't noticed any difference, from what i see, if you happen to get a, say, exoic item, game just says "good, now i roll for a random stats for exotic item, with exotic stat averages". Way of getting that exotic item - via loot, or research, or how many of lower-tier was invested, seem to not influence the stat averages. basically, yes. If you can spare just one slot for that upgrade type, it's better certainly be one rarity higher.. although for some upgrades higher rarity do not guarantee better stats for you =) Can't say anything reliable on this particular matter, unfortunately. Maybe i should check researchstation.lua and see if i find more details there.