FuryoftheStars

Agreed. There is a mod out there that does something like this (Flight Sector Overview), but it'd be great if it were integrated in.

I don't know if you want to try rolling a version or two on the graphics drivers first, just in case it's something in the latest release(s) since you played last? Well, I guess it hasn't been that long, but maybe worth a check real quick just to see if there was an update during that week.

To be fair, I'm not looking for it to be "just like That game". I'm merely pulling references.

Nah, nothing useful there from recording the screen. Was just wondering cause I was seeing mentions of the main menu and even of a difficulty choice (Veteran). Yeah, not sure what to say otherwise. In my case, I think I had just done a full clean reinstall of my OS (for other reasons), including drivers, but a subsequent uninstall/reinstall of the drivers again fixed the issue.

Well, for starters, I'm noticing this in your latest log: So, first thought: make sure your graphics drivers are up to date and maybe even try a full uninstall reinstall of those (I actually had a corrupt driver install cause issues with this game once). As for what you see in the logs near the end, I think that's more a symptom of the game crashing due to the way it caches log information in memory and then writes in chunks to the log file. The game experiencing a large amount of lag, or crash, can jumble the output. When you say splash screen... you mean the Boxelware logo, right? I ask cause I see evidence in the last log that it may be trying to actually start a game (meaning you made it to the main menu or are using a command-line switch, maybe?).

Yeah, I'm aware of the upcoming changes. I also know that blocks aren't moddable, hence I was saying to ask for them to become moddable (I still don't fully understand why they didn't right from the start). And sorry if I came off a little short in my reply. I just came over from the Steam forums in a discussion regarding ship speed and maneuverability (making small ships faster and more maneuverable vs large) and one of the posters there (against it) was using the reasoning because it would hurt their stacking or that stacking could still get around it or something. Seemed like an absurd excuse to use to be against a gameplay/balance change request. 😕 I don't know if this would count as a "good solution" to stacking or not in your eyes, but there is also this other suggestion:

To the left of the thread title near the top, click the up arrow just over the number.

I kind of like this idea.

Stacking for the sake of design/looks is ok (even then, much of that is more overlapping then actual stacking), but I don't like the idea of stacking for stats. Don't like the stats you get with default? Ask for them to be changed/balanced or allow them to be modded. The idea of "stacking should stay because I don't like the stats I get otherwise" is absurd. And I'm not a PvP'er, by the way.

Please consider making smaller ships (generally) faster and more maneuverable than larger ships. I can't find the thread anymore (Found it. See below at #7, 2nd reply on that thread), but there once existed an old post here on these forums that suggested adjusting speed and maneuverability for ships by up to x2 for the smallest and x0.25 for the largest, scaling in between (I'm not sure if those numbers would work/are the best, but they're a start). These adjustments should be based on mass. Reasoning and effects on gameplay: First of all, there's the realism aspect. Yes, larger ships in reality do have the potential for higher max speeds. However, realistically speaking, they would not be able to maneuver (spin) as fast as smaller ships due to the inertial forces on the structure and crew of the craft. This does technically apply to acceleration/deceleration, too (larger is slower), but I believe this kind of already is a reality in this game, though it may still need further adjustments. Making larger ships slower and more cumbersome vs smaller ships would also give some level of utility and survivability to smaller craft. As current, larger is better in all regards except one: flying through/maneuvering around densely packed areas (ships, stations, and asteroid fields). Course, we have docking, now, so this is also largely mitigated by carrying a smaller ship with you. (Edit: Ok, I guess crew costs, too, but this is mitigated by the fact that your income should be able to support this by that stage of the game.) This would also give Independent Targeting turrets more utility/make them more useful. As current, they really only work well if you park your ship (or purposely design it to nerf its maneuverability), as turret tracking is not good enough to deal with the current high speed whipping around you often end up doing. Combat will more likely get focused in one central area vs spread out over hundreds of kms (think about going back and claiming that loot/wreckage...). It'll also look and feel more natural (vs seeing Mount Everest sized objects dancing around each other) and will be easier to keep track of. If done, top speeds for large ships would have to be nerfed despite realistically being able to achieve high speeds due to densely packed areas (ships, stations, asteroid fields). You could instead have this as a "zone" around objects/from center of sector, but in order for it to not be exploitable/cause grief, it'd have to be dynamic based on your speed, heading, and deceleration rate, which could add all sorts of overhead to game processing. As is, though, the only need for speed anymore would be getting from one side of a sector to another, and with the new docking mechanism, you could carry smaller ships with you to help mitigate this. Alternatively, even, you could lower the max speed of normal engine flight while not implementing these restrictions on boost flight. Boost would still need to have its acceleration decreased and then NPC ships would have to be smarter about its use or not use it all. (Edit) Also if done, weapon ranges may need to see some adjustments to account for larger ships being slower. IE, range scaling for weapon size may need to be increased, possibly even give everything a general increase. (Edit) An old thread with some good points and I feel much of it still applies: (Edit) Great point someone else below made: I'll add more as I think of it or other points are raised from others.

Yeah, it's not very well fleshed out atm. I think it's to add a bit of... "lively" feel to the universe? Plus a way to farm more faction rep with one (or the other) if you need it.

This still seems to be a kind of issue.

Gonna bump this, too. Now, I know the C43 Object Detector mentions flight recorders in its description for higher rarities. I don't know if this applies to player ships or not (and if it does, great), but it shouldn't be required for your own ships (your own ships should be transmitting a signal that you can already pick up).

And a bump. The new Captains idea for 2.0 is great. Now can we round that out with more? 🙂

Gonna bump this back up, too. 🙂

To give further reasoning behind this, when a hard crash occurs, at current there is a large chunk of log that is lost. If it wrote in real-time, there's at least a possibility of a few error lines getting in there before it goes down.

Support (and bump)

And a bump....

The spam is still an issue for ships set on the mine-refine or salvage-refine loop commands and there's nothing to mine or salvage.

And gonna bump this....

Gonna poke this back up as well....

Bumping this back up for visibility.

I agree with this idea.

Koonschi is answering old ones at the moment. Check the dates.

Yes, please yes. I don’t like having to put more vulnerable pieces to the exterior just to create a patterned paint job (like torpedo storage for it’s hazard cross hatch), or other random blocks (hologram, glow) to give it the feel of not being a solid wall of armor (you’d expect the outer wall of the crew quarters to be armored anyway). If possible, it’d be great to have a way to load custom textures in, as well, and not just depend on vanilla ones.