• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

98 Excellent

About Meltdown

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I don't think that just allowing that is a good idea. Ethanol can be available much earlier than petroleum, so simply replacing the latter in another field without any downsides reduces motivation to explore oil biome. Perhaps ethanol may burn at higher rate, making ethanol-fueled rocket less fuel-efficient? That way, using petroleum rockets without petroleum is possible, but you would still have motivation to migrate on it.
  2. But dupes are humans. Yes, cloned, modified, undergone procedures to accelerate juvenility, and ultimately instantly printed into existence instead of being born or grown. However, they are based on humans, and their transition is not that radical to make them incomarably different. I would say they are a variation of post-humans. In that case, maybe communism is just reserved for advanced, post-human societies? Sure, we still are not dupes, but who knows if that would be true for future generations?
  3. That is correct, but the reason is not the heat itself. Reactor doesn't care about it's temperature. It does care about two things: the coolant and ability to vent steam. If steam pressure is higher than 150kg, reactor would get "Gas Vent Overpressure" warning and would eventually explode if pressure isn't lowered.
  4. And this doesn't even include a separate module for cargo/rower/trailblaizer. 4-module limit works fine for short 1-tile trips to the closest planetoid, so there is no benefit from extreme range of new engine. Sure, in that niche it can work as an alternative for small petroleum engine, but that is kind of dissapointing, given the emphasis made on the long range component. I hope we will see some balancing in engine's module capacity in future.
  5. I think it would be interesting to have "inderect" power requirement in form of having to produce radbolts. More efficient radbolt production means less total power required.
  6. I feel like we have 3 possibilities on how would we get renewable ore back: Regular meteor showers are back - RIP free solar power, welcome back good old ore from the sky. Personally, I'd rather go without ore than with this one, but it is the easiest solution to introduce into the game. Dedicated moonlet with meteor showers/some late game planetoids get meteor showers - more interesting variation. We still keep some planetoids where solar panel arrays work, and have more complicated ones where we get all meteor-related problems back, in addition to all space logistics we currently have to deal with. But those complicated planetoids get renewable ore as an additional reward. The issue with this one is reliable separation between worlds. Devs have to make sure that regolith, debris flying from impact and hot CO2 from meteor trails can't pass planetoid border and get to other ones. Nuclear transformation. Transforming elements with nuclear fusion/splitting atoms has happened IRL, so "Transmutation Reactor" could be a cool feature for nuclear-themed DLC. However, I don't remember anybody mentioned something like that in data mining threads (I don't check those often, so I easily can be missing this info), so if this option is the case, it can be deeply in WIP state. Also, it would tie ore production to other element production, likely regular volcanoes (bombarding rocks with particles until they turn into unrefined metals sounds fitting). In that case, it could be viewed as getting ores from volcanoes with extra steps. As it was mentioned, it sounds a bit bland. I feel like mines and quarries would be good as standalone content pack/expansion, both for DLC and base game. Edit: On the side note, those solutions could also include some other non-renewable things, like diamond, lead or newly added graphite.
  7. I agree on that one. I understand that. I'm usually skeptical about other bug threads on general discussion forums. However, with this issue I felt like I have to go against my own standards and try to bring some attention to the situation, for the reasons I described in my initial post.
  8. You state that negative impact from this bug is a weird corner case, and tie one of the conditions for this case to a progression route. It looks like either you indirectly state that this route is uncommon enough and not to be expected in normal playthrough, or for some reasons highlight condition that can be reasonably expected to be met. The latter is confusing, because it doesn't help to prove that it is really corner case, so I assumed the former. There are shades of gray between "deconstructing right and left" and "happens so rarely that overall benefits are pretty minimal", not to mention that even single deconstruction raises your steel stockpiles by notable amount. Yes, the significance drops over time, but I still don't see how it could be considered "minimal". Well, I never claimed this is a gamebreaking bug. In terms of my own poll, I'm in "It is very annoying, but I still use rockets and try my best to avoid it" category. So, yes, I could ignore those materials, track down how much steel and diamond is "forbidden" to use, or enable sandbox and get rid of them, but all that is annoying things to deal with and feels wrong. I'm aware that other people might not be even slightly annoyed with this issue, and it is part of the reason I created the poll.
  9. Well, I don't go for steel as soon as I can. Getting steel is an important milestone, but I in my DLC playthroughs I usually do other things first, like producing glass for solar panels and getting reed fiber from space. That way, I usually start to use rockets before I start even working to consistently produce tonnes of steel. There is no valid way to play the game, so not rushing steel production isn't something that you shouldn't expect from other players. Rocket deconstruction isn't that common event, but it is realistic to expect deconstruction of some modules, including spacefarer modules, during your playthrough. You meet this bug when: You don't need the rocket and want to remove it entirely; You want to replace one spacefarer module with another; You want to rebuild spacefarer module interior from stracth, so you deconstruct it, because it is quicker and easier to do than to deconstruct everything inside. I don't think that any of those cases is that much uncommon and shouldn't be considered as something that you may encounter in your game. Finally, the amount of steel gained through this bug is 2,4t for small spacefarer module and 3,4t for big one. It is enough resources for any building in the game except monument foundation/mid section. So, you get a few free steel buildings every time you deconstruct those modules - thats not something I would call "minimal".
  10. In the base game it was renewable with rockets. Asteroids automatically replenished their resources over time, so you did have "magically" renewable diamond. Technically, you can enable sandbox and delete extra steel/diamond. However, it disables achievements. And you basically use cheat mode in order to avoid using an exploit. Personally, I feel uncomfortable doing it, but it can be a valid solution. IMO "I don't use rockets" statement doesn't really show your opinion about this issue. You aren't interested in rockets? Then you either don't care about this bug, or you are actively against focusing on it because doing so slows down development of new stuff - this already splits the group into two different categories, both of which are reflected in the poll. Well, there is difference between making a proper setup, getting resources and enjoying the results of your work vs getting something out of thin air. No matter how easy it is to make this setup and produce the ingredients. It doesn't matter if eventually I would be able to produce tonnes of steel later, I don't want to get it for free now, when I can't do so.
  11. As many other players, I'm exited about release of new update and new game system. However, one thing that concerns me is an old spacefarer module deconstrution bug: According to fresh post on bug tracker, as well as my own quick sandbox testing, this bug is still present in the game. Patch notes also doesn't seem indicate any changes that aimed to fix it. Personally, it feels disappointing that devs moved to the next game system without fixing this bug. Currently, it forces me to reuse old spacefarer modules and be really mindful about what rockets I build with an artificial reason that doesn't follow logic of the game. I'm concerned about it's lingering presence. I'm aware that forum complaints might not be at the top of the list of priority-defining factors in dev's decision making, but I feel the need to make this point. Especially when development moved on to new content and old problems would be inevitably pushed further down in backlog. In order to not be leaved as a lone voice, as well as not to be a guy who tries to speak for the whole forum, I created a poll that would allow other people to represent thier opinions with a quick vote. Please participate and let me, other people, and devs know your opinion on significance of this issue. I hope that DLC would continue to steadily evolve and deliver great expirience to me and other players. Have a great weekend, everybody!
  12. Space-efficientcy factor adds challenge value by itself. Theoretically, you could utilize building ports between platforms. Currently, if two platforms are "connected" by seqence of ports, any port ajdacent to any of those platforms may be used to send cargo to both of rocketes on those platforms (AFAIK the input would go to first rocket built/landed, and, if it can't take more cargo, it would go to second rocket). However, currently there is not enoght tools to reliably choose rockets or prevent cargo from going into wrong rocket in this setup.
  13. After some experiments in sandbox, I can certainly name 3 issues with current rocketry: 1. Battery module shouldn't be required to provide power for command module while rocket is on ground. Currently, if you want to power machines inside the rocket, you have to either build generator inside, or build battery module and connect it to power line. This forces to expend either valuable space inside or valuable module slot, just in order to get something working on the ground, while in space electricity consumption could be 100% covered by the engine. I think that battery module should be completely optional, and there should be an option to power grounded rocket without it. Preferably, there should be a platform power port building that transfers power to rocket on the platform. 2. We shouldn't require cargo modules to use their corresponding output fittings inside the rocker. Currently, if you want to output gas into command module, you need both powered output fitting and corresponding cargo module. Which again, forces us to expend module slot in order to do something it isn't actually required. Being able to buffer contents with cargo module may be useful, but sometimes you don't have to use cargo module at all. For example, you might want to buffer oxygen for command capsule into the gas cargo module, but you don't need solid cargo module to simply supply fridge/carbon pit inside rocket with few kilograms of food. I believe that deciding to build or not to build cargo modules while using input/output fittings should be player's responsibility. 3. Rocket fueling could be done with platform ports, too. This is much less important issue than previous two, but still worth mentioning. It would be great if we could designate platform ports to work with rocket fuel/oxidizer tanks instead of cargo modules/output fittings. This would simplify rocket platform setups, and allow to make them universal for any rocket configuration.
  14. IMO it looks fine. Small, cute rocket. Aesthetically satisfying. The steam + solo spacefarer, however...
  15. First of all, could you please post some screenshots of your setup? Screenshots are the most reliable way to tell about the situation without missing any details. From the description, the initial setup seemed to be valid - although it isn't clear what kind of transformers did you use. If you connect small transformer to metal refinery, you would get the exact behavior you described, because small transformer produces 1kW of power, while refinery requires 1.2kW. You need to use large transformer, or connect refinery directly to heavi-watt cable.