Jump to content
  • 0

Can we get the ship volume number in plain english?


Excypher

Suggestion

As the title says really, It's useful to know the actual figure to find out how far off you are from a next module unlock, except past a certain point the ships info just gives a 3.0006e+ scientific number and, Honestly, I don't know how to work that out into plain english.

 

That's honestly the biggest annoyance I can find on the game right now, as given it's early access status, and the price paid, it's honestly some of the best gaming I've been playing for years, Truly the next step in creative ship building and it's consuming my every free gaming hour at the moment, amazing job, keep it up!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 answers to this suggestion

Recommended Posts

  • 0

That e+00whatever is actually pretty simple, taken the right way. Basically, move the decimal point to the right, however many the number after the e+ is.

 

Example: 3.9e+006 = 3900000 or three million nine hundred thousand.  Works for this game, at least.

 

Provided I didn't derp on the math.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Scientific notation, for me, isn't the problem and is as easy as it gets in English lest I have to match 50 zeroes. I'd just like there to be a stat because only the mass being listed doesn't really give anyone a good understanding of how many more blocks you need.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

That e+00whatever is actually pretty simple, taken the right way. Basically, move the decimal point to the right, however many the number after the e+ is.

 

Example: 3.9e+006 = 3900000 or three million nine hundred thousand.  Works for this game, at least.

 

Provided I didn't derp on the math.

 

Thanks for the explanation, this actually helps a lot, I knew it was something simple like that, But I've been too busy playing Avorion to look it up :)

 

Still, I feel it would be well within the capabilities of the dev to just reformat this box so it doesn't give us this figure, it has no issue calculating energy generation and abbreviating this to GW and TW so, I see no reason this cannot be the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...