Draxiss

It'd be kind of neat if, instead of saving the ships such that each blocks size is recorded as-is, the parts were all scaled as if the smallest component was a certain unit length, and then appropriate scaling is applied to the ship. This is hard to explain in a way that doesn't look awful.

+1 That is all

+1 I appreciate that you mentioned computer cores. The bonus they provide towards gaining another slot should also be distinct, like all the other bonuses given by components on your ship. Does it really just artificially inflate your volume, and that's it? That's what the Wiki says, and I've not found anything to contradict it. I think modders would appreciate having the ability to control system upgrade slots.

An angled ANYTHING block would be nice. However, that'd require the Devs to change the way they index block types. As it stands, each (angle, function) permutation is registered individually, based on what I've seen of the wiki and documentation. That should REALLY be fixed before blocks are opened up to modders.

Was . . . was there supposed to be more to this statement?

Bumping because max speed is weird. Max speed should REALLY be determined by how quickly you can slow down, and you shouldn't need a module to eliminate it. Until you reach relativistic speeds, you shouldn't 'leak' energy to go faster. I feel like I'm flying through soup, not the vacuum of space. If we ARE going to go down the route of swimming through soup in space, I agree that more mass shouldn't increase max speed, so simply scaling a vessel up shouldn't allow it to go faster.

I did think the absurdly close range was unrealistic. Being able to zoom in would be HUGE. I don't think it should be a block, though; it should be available by default.

After taking a look at the API, it's clear that the function of a block(whether it's an engine, thruster, battery, computer, etc.) are not distinct from the shape of a block(whether it's a corner, slope, edge, etc.), the way the 'material' property of a block is already distinct from this. You have to list out whether it's an edge armor, slope armor, corner armor, or cubical armor block individually, and your list is already getting quite extensive, and will only get longer the more blocks you add. By separating the 'shape' property from the 'function' property, you'll increase the polymorphism of your design. If there's a block that you wish to limit the shape on, add some sort of 'blacklist' property to the 'function' aspect, so that, for example, computer blocks cannot be edge blocks. (You could also do a whitelist sy)stem, or some combo thereof.) It will SERIOUSLY help you out later on, especially since a lot of players want things like edge engines or some-such. If you really want to be kind to your player base, implement a conversion tool to read old versions of ships and convert them to the updated system, silently in the background. I'm actually surprised you haven't done this yet. It seems like something that will REALLY help you AND modders out in the long-term. Of course, I'm not writing your code and there's a real possibility that you've already done this and I'm just looking at the wrong thing in the API. ALSO of course, I'm not writing your code so there could be a very good reason for why you're doing things the way you're doing them. But just in case, I reeeeaaallllllyyy want to make sure you guys see this and are at least considering it. Poiymorphism 'nd all that. Unless I'm thinking of modularity. Heck. I get those mixed up all the time. P.S.: Speaking of shapes, I'd love to see Round Things ®© implemented in the future. Having Round Things ®© has the potential to greatly improve performance because players don't have to use so many blocks to emulate Round Things ®© using lots of other blocks.

I'm not sure whether the engine could support rotating blocks, but if it can that this would be a pretty cool addition. I like most of your suggestions, in fact. Don't have a particularly strong opinion about the Transporter Room idea. Someone recently suggested curved blocks as well, so I'd suggest +1-ing that post as well. I think that the function of the block (engine, armor, hull, etc.) and the shape of the block (slope, edge, curve, etc.) should be stored as two distinct values, and the UI should reflect that. Then, for rotating a piece, two sets of rings reflecting the functional rotation and a menu reflecting the shape-based rotation show up, one inside the other. Also, engines should be able to face directions besides to the aft. I do like the propellant-based engine idea, and the variety you suggest sounds pretty cool. I don't think forcing the player to deal with a UI for every engine block they place down is such a good idea, though. Maybe just have each kind of drive be it's own block? The Impulse Drive Manifold sounds like a reactionless drive, which would work great as a replacement for the current Inertial MoistenerDampener.

It'd be nice if the UI reflected that, but thank goodness!

Ahhh okay. Getting a warning when health is low WOULD be pretty nice. It's easy to ignore that health bar. It sort of . . . fades into the background. Maybe if it lit up whenever you were hit? Avorion's UI in general seems to have this problem where aspects of your environment are hard to distinguish.

Adapted from this Reddit post: https://www.reddit.com/r/avorion/comments/6s4306/suggestion_inertial_dampeners_make_no_sense/ Let's get some things out of the way: In layman's terms, an object's inertia is that object's resistance to change in velocity. If you could somehow magically increase your inertia while flying through a vacuum, your velocity would not change. However, you'd have a harder time accelerating. The opposite is true of your acceleration if you magically decreased your inertia, and your velocity would still not change! 'Acceleration' refers to any change in velocity or direction, unless specified otherwise. Instead of saying 'decelerating', all you're really doing is accelerating backwards. Moving left simply is accelerating backwards and left such that your forward speed is canceled out and accelerating left at the same time. Note that this doesn't have to do with rotation (relative to outside objects, that is), since you can spin around without changing velocity. Nothing about Inertial Dampeners makes sense. Avorion's Inertial Dampeners do not exert any change over your vessel's inertia, outside of the additional mass they add. They no not cancel out any deleterious effect caused by your vessel's inertia. Inertial Dampeners could negate the internal deleterious effects of changes in Inertia, such as by reducing collision damage, allowing sharper turns, or allowing for faster acceleration. Instead of being crushed by an impact, your vessel simply bounces off. Integrity Field Generators negate the negative effects of inertia more than Inertial Dampeners. Inertial Dampeners could also negate effects relative to external forces, by simply increasing your vessel's inertia such that collisions don't affect you as much. Instead of being crushed by an impact, the thing you impact is crushed. Avorion's Inertial Dampeners do not moisten your vessel's inertia. In fact, I'm pretty sure fluid physics aren't even in the game. It is distinctly more likely that the name you're looking for is Inertia Damper. Avorion's Inertial Dampeners are not what they claim to be. They are reactionless drives that can only impart acceleration in arbitrary directions. They acceleration your vessel towards a speed of zero. Not zero relative to anything, mind you. Just zero. The lore states that they work by generating "subspace friction," and while I'm willing to believe that the 'subspace' the game refers to is simply another way of looking at the properties of spacetime, it seems just a liiitle bit silly that whatever makes up subspace just happens to slow you down to match the surrounding matter. All that being said, here're my suggestions: * Rename 'Inertial Dampeners' to 'Reactionless Drives,' 'Cavitation Thrusters,' or some-such. Use your imagination. Remove the arbitrary limitation that causes them to ONLY brake your vessel. If needed for balancing purposes, make them directional. Make them more expensive/less energy efficient than normal engines/thrusters. In fact, make versions of said reactionless drives that correspond to engines, 2-way thrusters, and 6-way thrusters. * If you want your new Reactionless Drives to feel special, require thrusters and engines to be exposed in order to function. Two- or six-way thrusters have boosted output to sides that are not covered, so it isn't awful to use them. Allow players the option to convert covered thrusters and engines they've already built into reactionless drives of the same kinds, to minimize broken builds. At the end of the day, Reactionless Drives should cost more in terms of money and energy for similar outputs, but allow greater freedom in controlling their craft's design. * Re-add Inertial Dampeners Inertia Dampers. Instead of providing acceleration, actually have them affect inertia! When added to a vessel, that vessel has an easier time accelerating under it's own control, is more impact resistance, and is less susceptible to external forces affecting it's momentum. Allow the vessel a faster turning speed, and potentially even increase the vessel's rotation speed limit beyond 4 Rad/sec. Reduce the effects of kickback. Basically, have Inertia Dampers cause the vessel to act as if it's more or less massive then it really is, depending on which is more advantageous. Having atmospheric physics is space is NOT intuitive. A significant chunk of Avorion's audience is familiar with games like KSP and Space Engineers. Avorion is a game that takes place in space. Implementing atmospheric rules is not intuitive when I am trying to play a space game! When I am playing a space game, I expect space rules. There's a very physics-y feel to the game; you're supposed to learn spacial awareness, understand momentum, and that building RC Thrusters (AKA just 'Thrusters') away from the center of mass allows you to turn more quickly. Inertial Dampeners are jarring because they conflict with the at least somewhat realistic aesthetic of the rest of the game. Side Note: The empty vacuum of space slows you down far too quickly. Am I flying through space or soup? TL;DR: Inertia Dampers don't make sense, add Reactionless Drives while minimizing build breakage, and make Inertia Dampers actually do stuff to inertia. Also, call them Inertia Dampers.

When you've detected an enemy, they are highlighted by a dark red targeting symbol. This is very hard to see against a black sky. I'd appreciate if it were a bit brighter or otherwise made more visible.

I don't quite understand what you mean. Do you mean a warning when you've built your ship's health too low or a notification when you've reached low health?

Several suggestions for fighters and other 'microships': First, I can't help but notice that fighters look kind of like crap up-close. The texture size doesn't scale with the model, and while that works on some ships, it doesn't work super well on small vessels like fighters. It'd be really nice if, when your vessel gets below a certain threshold, the vessel's texture scaled with the size of the vessel. While seeing the texture size change when scaling a ship can be a handy tool for determining how large or small it is, maybe instead use an actual measuring system, such as providing a sample distance? You could even just list the ship's dimensions in the corner. On really big vessels, I'm still okay with the size of the texture remaining constant to give a sense of enoromity. As discussed in the the roadmap for Avorion([url}https://avorion.gamepedia.com/Roadmap#Planned_Content[/url]), fighters are getting a dodge mechanic. Will this apply to players as well? It'd actually be pretty neat if players leveled up their ability to function as pilots (and other roles) as a compnent of the Alliance update. What about for vessels that are not fighters, but are particularly small, fast, and/or maneuverable? I'd love to see a player-built vessel, not meant to be mass-produced like fighters, with these kinds of capabilities (I really like playing microvessels). It'd be kind of cool to build a microship with dodging capabilities, provided it's got a pilot OR player controlling it. Also mentioned in the roadmap was the possibility of AI Crew. I hope this means that a ship has the ability to spawn in remote-controlled fighters for AI Modules that include pilots. It'd certainly feel more space-y to have remote, unmanned drones in addition to regular pilots.