|
I needed to set up an oscillator factory and decided I didn't want to belt the iron plates and cable and poo poo to where I found quartz because it's up on this big cliff. So I head to the quartz and do the resource ping and wow, there's a node super close but I bet's it's like a poor node or somethi... loving THREE pure iron nodes AND a pure copper node nearby! gently caress yes!!
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 07:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 09:47 |
|
|
Roundboy posted:My plan is for side by side (how close can track run next to each other?). 8m (1 foundation width) center to center of the rails is always ok. So the very simple method of running a 2-wide foundation path with rails running along the center of each foundation is good. They can be closer than that and not have collisions. As long as the rails are running straight, the train collision box is about the same width as the little pipe things on the sides of the rail. So these two trains can drive past each other and won't collide:  But curves can have collisions in those tighter setups, because when going around a curve the train collision box sticks out more. So that picture would fail as soon as there's any curve. Distances between that minimum and the always-safe foundation width need experimentation to see what happens. (The signalling system also does account for the collision box overlap, and merges rails that are too close into a single block -- even if they don't intersect. Which may be confusing if it happens by accident.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 16:41
|
|
|
8one6 posted:I needed to set up an oscillator factory and decided I didn't want to belt the iron plates and cable and poo poo to where I found quartz because it's up on this big cliff. So I head to the quartz and do the resource ping and wow, there's a node super close but I bet's it's like a poor node or somethi... loving THREE pure iron nodes AND a pure copper node nearby! gently caress yes!! I immediately thought of the place where I did the same thing, on the side of that canyon in the north of the map. If it is the same place, there's also a coal node there, as well as some oil on the opposite side of the canyon. There's even some caterium not too far southeast. That place has everything!
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 17:56
|
|
|
A Moose posted:I immediately thought of the place where I did the same thing, on the side of that canyon in the north of the map. If it is the same place, there's also a coal node there, as well as some oil on the opposite side of the canyon. There's even some caterium not too far southeast. That place has everything! Oh loving sweet!
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 18:33
|
|
|
Embrace the vertical and build the traffic interchanges of your dreams! Also whenever I take a run at this game everything seems to grind to a halt when I get to building trains.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 18:52
|
|
|
My rail system has the bases three foundations wide and the tracks are centered on the mid-line of the outer foundations. --edit: ^^^ What's with the trillion signals? Anticipating a train conga line?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 19:01
|
|
|
Breaking the straights into blocks like that keeps trains from reserving the whole segment, which keeps things moving behind them. Not terrifically impactful at a normal satisfactory train scale, it's imperative in more train-dense setups, like in factorio.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 19:31
|
|
|
Naylenas posted:Breaking the straights into blocks like that keeps trains from reserving the whole segment, which keeps things moving behind them. Not terrifically impactful at a normal satisfactory train scale, it's imperative in more train-dense setups, like in factorio. A signal on every single rail segment is pretty excessive even if you're super gung-ho on trains. For a long stretch with no junctions multiple blocks are good, but you don't need more blocks than trains. On a very different note, is anyone else ITT using left-hand drive rails? During the process of converting my rails from pre-U5 single track to collision-safe double track, I randomly ended up standardizing on left-hand drive. I am not British.  But I wasn't really thinking about it, I was just making the conversions however I could. Somehow trains driving on the left was the way I picked each time.And of course after I have 4 different track sections that are all left-hand, I'm not gonna break from that and make new construction have right-hand drive. So now my world is  .
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 20:17
|
|
|
How do you folks typically deal with later game production lines? Do you make excess of individual components in dedicated factories and feed into a central depot to draw from? Or do you make optimized factories with self contained production of sub components? I can see virtues to both, but it seems like making a series of storage drops and vertical component factories (to allow for scaling without increasing the ground footprint) may be the most easy to organize?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 20:26
|
|
|
Klyith posted:On a very different note, is anyone else ITT using left-hand drive rails? During the process of converting my rails from pre-U5 single track to collision-safe double track, I randomly ended up standardizing on left-hand drive. I am not British.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 20:30
|
|
|
Velius posted:How do you folks typically deal with later game production lines? Do you make excess of individual components in dedicated factories and feed into a central depot to draw from? Or do you make optimized factories with self contained production of sub components? I can see virtues to both, but it seems like making a series of storage drops and vertical component factories (to allow for scaling without increasing the ground footprint) may be the most easy to organize? "Do what works for you" isn't a hippy-dippy expression of freedom for this game. It's an instruction: some methods will work for you and some won't. High-end production is complex enough that one of the important things to optimize is what works in your head. There are a bunch of possible schemes and I think they all have their own pros and cons. I do spread out factories with self-contained component production, which themselves might have smaller satellite factories or smelter/foundry complexes. Everything is pretty decentralized, which makes logistics a big deal. This is very much about breaking things into modules, and having some design patterns that are repeatable across the modules. I think there are some major advantages to this scheme: modules and design patterns are how engineers do things for a reason. But I think like an engineer, so of course I'd think that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 22:49
|
|
|
Klyith posted:A signal on every single rail segment is pretty excessive even if you're super gung-ho on trains. For a long stretch with no junctions multiple blocks are good, but you don't need more blocks than trains. I did mine in a previous save left hand drive too which was kind of annoying because it makes the signals a bit harder to work with I found. Not even sure how that happened, it was a single track with double ended train at first.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 23:31
|
|
|
I tend to think what's my end product, then deconstruct it down in production chains until I'm at base resources. If the resources required for my intended goal exceed my ability to gather them locally, I consider transportation logistics. Regardless I think about how I'm going to get that product out, because unless we're talking final assembly parts something is always used for another thing. Actual construction of the facility is secondary. In many cases I will have notepad open along with the calculator map. I am a project manager.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 00:05
|
|
|
My first few rail lines wound up left hand drive. However, as I got more and more serious about trains, I made sure all future lines are right hand drive. So there's just a couple old spots that are the wrong way around as a sad testament to my lack of foresight early on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 00:14
|
|
|
I restarted my 100 hour northern forest start with like 70 hard drives collected. I started in the grass plains this time and I really feel like it is a better place to start. There is plenty of flat space to build on, so you don't have to build giant floating bases or try to contend with expanding vertically early.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 18:09
|
|
|
I can't tell if path signals are buggy or if I don't understand them. I've got one that gives a red signal like it's working (instead of being dark or having a blinking error) but it never turns green. I also don't understand how intersections decide which lane gets to go next. I've had trains sit at intersections where one lane gets to send multiple trains after another before another lane gets to send one. In some cases it seems like a train with some speed coming up to the intersection gets favored over the train already at the intersection but stopped.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2021 22:59
|
|
|
RVT posted:I can't tell if path signals are buggy or if I don't understand them. I've got one that gives a red signal like it's working (instead of being dark or having a blinking error) but it never turns green. Path signals are always red, except for a hot second they flick green while a train has active permission to proceed through them. RVT posted:I also don't understand how intersections decide which lane gets to go next. I've had trains sit at intersections where one lane gets to send multiple trains after another before another lane gets to send one. In some cases it seems like a train with some speed coming up to the intersection gets favored over the train already at the intersection but stopped. Which lane goes next, I bet is something like moving trains try to reserve the next block as soon as they enter while stopped trains ask later, or the system processes trains in order of their speed, or something like that. It even makes sense to prioritize the moving train: sending the train that's already moving through an intersection before a stopped one is faster overall. The stopped train needs time to accelerate, so it will "hold up" other traffic for longer. I think the end result is that if you have enough traffic that this is an issue, you need to de-conflict the trains somehow. 1. with a more complex junction: a stacked interchange, turbine, or whatever other advanced simcity roadworks you fancy 2. with less traffic: bigger trains that carry more stuff, or use the new timetable options to have trains wait in a station until they're full / unloaded 3. with more rail: if all your trains are jamming up at one central intersection, you probably need to run more rails to avoid that
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2021 01:46
|
|
|
Klyith posted:Path signals are always red, except for a hot second they flick green while a train has active permission to proceed through them. That's a good point. Appreciate the help. When my buddy put the game back up this evening, I rebuilt the path and preceding block signal again and now they work. Stuff like this is why I never know if I'm loving up, or if the game just doesn't work. https://imgur.com/a/jIXmH2m The signal at the bottom middle of the screen was the problem one. There is a block signal preceding it not pictured. Obviously, the interchange is not fully utilized yet, the branch going to the left doesn't go anywhere yet. But it is now working and traffic looks decent flowing through it. Klyith posted:Which lane goes next, I bet is something like moving trains try to reserve the next block as soon as they enter while stopped trains ask later, or the system processes trains in order of their speed, or something like that. This is how it feels like it works. Like you say, it makes sense from a sorta almost real world efficiency standpoint, but is deeply dis-satisfying when I'm in a train, checking a route, that is getting absolutely stonewalled by this. Related to this, it feels like the path signals don't start checking whether a train can pass through or not until the train passes the preceding block signal. So if the block signal is right before the path signal, the train will slow down almost to a stop every time, even if there is no other traffic. Have you noticed anything like that? Is there maybe an ideal distance between a path signal and a preceding block signal? It seems like the further back it is, the more speed might be maintained through the intersection (provided there isnt other traffic). Klyith posted:
I've always been the train guy for games like these. I got get the materials, and move them to where they need to be and my buddy builds most of the actual production facilities, he doesn't mess with trains at all. So, don't take any of the below the wrong way, it's just I don't get to actually talk trains very often. The train network is certainly busy, but outside of an occasional error or particularly unlucky lining up of timing of different routes, it generally doesn't jam up too bad like this. 1 - what is a stacked interchange? what is a turbine? In Factorio, I used 2 lane each way with periodic cross overs so if one lane got jammed, the train could switch to the other lane (in the same direction) and pass by. My understanding is that in Satisfactory, trains will only ever use the shortest physical distance track(s). Unlike Factorio, they have no ability to see ahead and tell that taking a slightly longer (physically) route will result in them arriving at their destination much sooner. For this reason, I'm using 1 lane in each direction here (as pictured above). 2 - I have some 1-5 trains, but after reading that this isn't an ideal ratio, all new trains are 2-8. So, my trains are already pretty big. I don't need my trains to be real world lengths, but small ones just look a bit goofy to me. Even 1-4 is a touch on the too small side. 2-8s do make building stations a huge pain in the rear end though, so I don't want to go any bigger. Additionally, each train carries 4 different materials, so setting stations to wait until they fully unloaded would cause some materials to run dry at the factory. 3 - I generally have one main track going to each big facility we've built. I guess, maybe just build more tracks that connect other parts together to try to get more trains on different tracks? https://imgur.com/a/QGklmBw This is the train system right now. Everything kinda runs through the section in the middle that runs NE-SE and was built off that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2021 05:28
|
|
|
Hrm, I'm stuck on how to continue with logistics. I've been meaning to get a battery factory up for vehicle propulsion (and eventually supercomputers). Looking at the map, I'm sort of annoyed how some ores are spread. Now I'm considering on starting to finally leverage my island wide rail ring to collect and spread resources across the map. That is, mining an ore/resource, turn it into its most compact form (possible for the circumstances at the site) and then just have resource trains haul the poo poo around, topping off storages at sites. And consequently go full decentral. I'm posting about it to be told how terrible that idea might be.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2021 16:16
|
|
|
RVT posted:This is how it feels like it works. Like you say, it makes sense from a sorta almost real world efficiency standpoint, but is deeply dis-satisfying when I'm in a train, checking a route, that is getting absolutely stonewalled by this. That is absolutely how paths works. It can't reserve the path until it enters the block preceding the path, but it can look ahead to see the red signal so it starts slowing down. A longer block in front of the path signal will allow the train to keep more speed. How long your block needs to be to avoid that depends a lot -- the stopping distance of a fully loaded, max-speed train with the usual 1:4 engine to cars ratio is over 15 foundations. But it's more like 12 if empty, and fully loaded trains need long straightaways to reach max speed. In practice I think somewhere between 12-15 is adequate. Depends how much you care about a mild tap of the breaks vs just preventing major slowdown. (A single max length rail segment is 100m / 12.5 foundations, for reference.) RVT posted:The train network is certainly busy, but outside of an occasional error or particularly unlucky lining up of timing of different routes, it generally doesn't jam up too bad like this. Stacked interchanges are what you see on highway roads, they're any junction where you use multiple levels (stacks) of road to keep traffic moving with bridges, overpasses, etc. Not a thing you see much for trains! A turbine is just a particularly fancy one that is very popular with people who play Cities Skylines (because they're way more compact than a cloverleaf). It's possible to do in satisfactory. RVT posted:In Factorio, I used 2 lane each way with periodic cross overs so if one lane got jammed, the train could switch to the other lane (in the same direction) and pass by. My understanding is that in Satisfactory, trains will only ever use the shortest physical distance track(s). Unlike Factorio, they have no ability to see ahead and tell that taking a slightly longer (physically) route will result in them arriving at their destination much sooner. For this reason, I'm using 1 lane in each direction here (as pictured above). Yes, although there are apparently some quasi-exceptions with path signals, but they have limitations. A train can use a longer segment of track to bypass another train, but only within path sections. I'm not 100% positive on all of the exact mechanics -- this was just stuff I saw on reddit and haven't experimented with myself. You can still do 1-way bypasses of course. RVT posted:3 - I generally have one main track going to each big facility we've built. I guess, maybe just build more tracks that connect other parts together to try to get more trains on different tracks? Hmmm, alternate track might be tricky, it looks like your tracks are pretty dense already. Is the giant block of stations maybe the thing to focus on? If that is your main depot or place where supplies get routed through, it's gonna be the source of congestion. My idea might be to make the mega-station into the center of the rail network, if it's the center of the train traffic. As it is the center of your network is the two 4-way intersections -- most traffic has to go through that before getting into / out of the mega-station.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2021 16:52
|
|
|
Ugh, my aluminium plant went offline, because a truck got bugged out on load with that stupid least fuel poo poo they introduced.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2021 18:48
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:Hrm, I'm stuck on how to continue with logistics. I've been meaning to get a battery factory up for vehicle propulsion (and eventually supercomputers). Looking at the map, I'm sort of annoyed how some ores are spread. Now I'm considering on starting to finally leverage my island wide rail ring to collect and spread resources across the map. That is, mining an ore/resource, turn it into its most compact form (possible for the circumstances at the site) and then just have resource trains haul the poo poo around, topping off storages at sites. And consequently go full decentral. Do you like the idea of solving one problem by giving yourself another equally difficult problem?  I mean I joke, but also not really. However, one thing I find valuable is that dealing with trains & logistics is a very different puzzle. It's a change of pace from normal factory building. The approach where your trains deliver products like ingots or basic items has upsides and downsides. It will be a lot of material, and your idea of trains that travel your world loop to top off stations means a long trip. So that will either need to be big trains, or have multiples covering the same routes. But it's also universal, everything needs those basic items. You just need to keep notes about production and consumption in the various places. Combat Pretzel posted:Ugh, my aluminium plant went offline, because a truck got bugged out on load with that stupid least fuel poo poo they introduced. The minimum fuel thing got changed a few weeks ago, trucks should now load all available fuel while docked. Check the fuel supply at the station, and also the pause node at the station the truck gets fuel from. Sometimes the pause node is super short and the vehicle doesn't have enough time to load fuel.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2021 00:38
|
|
|
Klyith posted:Do you like the idea of solving one problem by giving yourself another equally difficult problem? Production sites would use storages that'd get filled by train. If the storage is half full, the train can't unload everything and would do so at the next site. If there's another mining site en route, the train would top its freight cars off, to maximize unload volume at the next site. At least that's the stupid logic behind this. --edit: I'd at least want to attempt for materials like sulfur and aluminium, because the way they're placed, blargh. And maybe trains to haul plastic and rubber around. My split rail ring goes around the whole island, with an interconnect going across the middle. Lots of places easily reachable. Klyith posted:The minimum fuel thing got changed a few weeks ago, trucks should now load all available fuel while docked. --edit: Also, turbofuel is practically useless, right? At least so long the jetpack can't use it? (I wonder when they finally fix that.) Combat Pretzel fucked around with this message at 16:48 on Dec 18, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2021 16:42
|
|
|
Turbofuel is Real Good for petro-power plants, hard  on wanting the jet pack to take turbofuel and basically let you pack more burn time into the same 2-unit gauge though, it doesn’t feel nearly as good to get it all up and running if you’re not skimming some off to propel you around the map.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2021 17:00
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:Eh, it seems like going around collecting things and bringing them to central places would make some things easier. Sure, you gotta run out and place mining sites, but you'd have to, anyway. It's essentially conveyor belts on a larger scale. Yeah that wasn't trying to dissuade you, just saying it's not quite as easy as that. But it totally makes sense especially for those rare materials. Oil products are easier to produce en masse where the oil is, so hauling rubber & plastic by train is also what I do. Just be sure to keep notes, because the one weakness to your plan is that it makes tracking down shortfalls slow. If you need more copper ingot production, it's not hard to find copper and add a pick-up station to the copper train. But if you only know that you need more copper production is because 2 factories have shut down it's a bother. Combat Pretzel posted:--edit: Carrying it around in your pocket? Yeah pretty much. You can use it in vehicles, so I used to bring a stack of turbofuel for an explorer when I was exploring & driving more often. I'm hoping update 6 will be the equipment update, where we get things like being able to use gas masks in cars and turbofuel in the jetpack. LonsomeSon posted:Turbofuel is Real Good for petro-power plants Yes, but also ehhhh. The bump to regular fuel power in U4, the fact that sulfur is now a fairly important and limited resource, and how oil is not a constraining resource anymore, makes for some arguments against turbofuel. A diluted fuel plant also produces a good amount of power. Stepping up to turbofuel with the new turbo blend recipe is only a modest 33% bump to power. Or you could use classic turbofuel and get 120% more power... at the cost of building a megaproject and consuming a whole lot of sulfur. There's also only 1 place on the map where turbofuel is easy to do without a train. Basically, if you know you're gonna do a large nuke plant at some future date the turbofuel might be more trouble than it's worth. Diluted fuel is much easier to build and gets the job done until you can do nukes. OTOH turbofuel can do enough power to make nukes not required.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2021 21:11
|
|
|
Yeah, for 720 compacted coal/min and two 240/m of oil inputs, I was able to make a good 30 GW turbo fuel plant. I don't recommend that if you want to gently caress with nukes though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2021 21:21
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:Also, turbofuel is practically useless, right? At least so long the jetpack can't use it? (I wonder when they finally fix that.) The big drawback is that you have to use sulfur which is relatively rare and doesn't give much of a boost over just making a diluted fuel plant using nothing but oil and water. A diluted fuel plant will convert a pure node of 600 oil into 1600 fuel/min, requiring 134 generators to burn for a steady 20GW.  A turbofuel plant based on the same 600 oil from the pure node will also need 640 coal/sulfur (there are only 3 pure sulfur nodes on the map capable of doing this) to produce 640 turbofuel/min, requiring 143 generators to burn for a steady 21300MW.  So yeah, it kind of sucks. You're basically trading water which is effectively infinite for coal/sulfur to gain a trivial amount of power, turbofuel could certainly use a balancing pass as it stands and I would never bother with it currently. Sulfur is better saved for nuclear refinement since you need it for both the uranium production and plutonium recycling phases, but even if you're not going nuclear I would still just make a bunch of diluted fuel plants instead.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2021 21:23
|
|
|
NoEyedSquareGuy posted:A turbofuel plant based on the same 600 oil from the pure node will also need 640 coal/sulfur (there are only 3 pure sulfur nodes on the map capable of doing this) to produce 640 turbofuel/min, requiring 143 generators to burn for a steady 21300MW. Turbo heavy is by far the worst turbofuel recipe though, the only advantage it has is compactness if you want the smallest number of refineries. With the same 600 oil, turbo blend needs only 400 sulfur to produce 800 turbofuel (26.6 GW) Trubofuel classic makes 1333 turbofuel (44 GW) if you want the most power, at the cost of over 1k sulfur. And a monster production plant with 90 refineries, 40 assemblers, and 16 blenders. Which is a ton of sulfur, but if you're aiming for sub-50GW total consumption you can spare it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2021 21:58
|
|
|
Klyith posted:Turbo heavy is by far the worst turbofuel recipe though, the only advantage it has is compactness if you want the smallest number of refineries. Not sure this is right unless there's something wrong with the planner site. Turning off turbo heavy fuel gives this as the chart.  Blended fuel gives slightly less for the same 600 oil and can only utilize 300 sulfur. You're right though that turbo heavy fuel is a terrible recipe, if you're actually going to go for turbofuel as power generation you want to be thinking about sulfur as your limiting resource rather than oil. quote:Trubofuel classic makes 1333 turbofuel (44 GW) if you want the most power, at the cost of over 1k sulfur. And a monster production plant with 90 refineries, 40 assemblers, and 16 blenders. Which is a ton of sulfur, but if you're aiming for sub-50GW total consumption you can spare it. With sulfur as the limiting factor instead of oil you can get 1560 turbofuel out of 780 sulfur/1560 oil which isn't too bad. Still, the northern oil coast currently existing as a mass of oil nodes surrounded by limitless water is too convenient to pass up at the moment. You can bring some power lines over and set it up without having to bring in resources from anywhere else in the world and then forget about it forever. I'm expecting that to change when they rework the northern part of the map in the upcoming terrain update, once that happens turbofuel might be more appealing as a step between an early 20GW diluted fuel plant and full nuclear production. NoEyedSquareGuy fucked around with this message at 22:45 on Dec 18, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2021 22:43
|
|
|
NoEyedSquareGuy posted:Not sure this is right unless there's something wrong with the planner site. Turning off turbo heavy fuel gives this as the chart. You really must use the diluted fuel recipe, that is what is missing. You should be getting 800 turbofuel for 600 crude. It is also what makes turbofuel not worth it though, as making 1600 regular fuel with 600 crude gives 75% the power but with no sulfur cost.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2021 00:06
|
|
|
Smiling Demon posted:You really must use the diluted fuel recipe, that is what is missing. You should be getting 800 turbofuel for 600 crude. It is also what makes turbofuel not worth it though, as making 1600 regular fuel with 600 crude gives 75% the power but with no sulfur cost. I'm dumb and had water input unchecked, was wondering why it wasn't using it when I had all the recipes selected. But yeah, the final question is if you want to use just water for 75% power or add sulfur for 100%. Sending over sulfur from the pure node at the top of the desert to the northern oil coast wouldn't be too much hassle and using up 1560 oil is a large enough project that the added 25% would be significant. Kind of past that point in my current save but might be a fun thing to do whenever update 6 hits.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2021 01:50
|
|
|
Seems to be an annoying new bug. I'm trying to place a train station and it only rotates into three of the four orientations trying to place it on foundations. This is pretty obnoxious.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2021 22:36
|
|
|
You know for a game where exploration is a big part of the play loop the exploration tools kinda suck. The vehicles don't let you use the scanner, the scanner's range is pretty limited and keeps picking up opened crash sites, the hostile mobs are a pain in the rear end, the weapons to deal with the mobs all suck, and with only one body slot you have to keep swapping between the "move at a decent speed" boots and "deal with the frankly absurd amount of poison gas on the map" mask.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2021 09:54
|
|
|
yeah, multiple/easily switchable body slots would be a huge boon. It bugs me on a slightly more meta level that a: i'm wearing a full enclosure helmet but gas is a problem somehow? and b: wearing a gas mask stops me wearing my jumpy boots and jet pack despite these all occupying different body locations.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 15:07
|
|
|
There's a mod for more slots but really it shouldn't be required, yeah. Like, even just a MAM research for more body slots - loredump it like requiring more power or whatever - would make sense but whoknows.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 18:11
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:yeah, multiple/easily switchable body slots would be a huge boon. It bugs me on a slightly more meta level that a: i'm wearing a full enclosure helmet but gas is a problem somehow? and b: wearing a gas mask stops me wearing my jumpy boots and jet pack despite these all occupying different body locations. The gas makes even less sense when what little lore exists seems to indicate that you're some kind of robotic drone controlled by the company. People have been complaining about the item slots for a long time and the devs have acknowledged it, they're not changing it because the intention is to completely rework the equipment system instead of just adding more body slots. Like a lot of quality of life things, it's best to just mod them in yourself for now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 18:14
|
|
|
NoEyedSquareGuy posted:The gas makes even less sense when what little lore exists seems to indicate that you're some kind of robotic drone controlled by the company. People have been complaining about the item slots for a long time and the devs have acknowledged it, they're not changing it because the intention is to completely rework the equipment system instead of just adding more body slots. Like a lot of quality of life things, it's best to just mod them in yourself for now. Why does a robot drone eat berries, sip coffee and have a big ol butt tho??
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 18:24
|
|
|
I think it makes more sense as having some sort of implants or augmentations, they're definitely not robots if the scribbles on the bathroom wall are to be believed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 18:47
|
|
|
You're a drone all right. Just not a robotic one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 18:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 09:47 |
|
|
Pretty sure Ficsit sends humans because actual robotic drones would be too expensive to risk them not surviving planetfall.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2021 18:57
|
|
