Moving things

[evilgrin]

I wish we could move things we've built and placed, like let us pick them up with the multi tool and replace them somewhere else. Sometimes it's hard to get things aligned or spaced out right, and getting fractional materials back from destroying and having to rebuild stinks.

[Sleipnir]

Yeah, some sort of advanced building mode would be interesting. But I'm not sure if this might cause some balancing issues.

I mean, you could basically "pick up" your entire base and move it to a better location, maybe even block building spots with this "for free"? In PvP this would be super annoying.

[evilgrin]

Well, if you wanted to pick it up piece by piece and walk it somewhere new, why not? It'll be slow as hell and you'll be bothered by mobs and potentially other players the whole time. You wouldn't be able to use a weapon while using the multi tool.

I'm mainly looking for a mechanic to fix stupid small alignment problems that only become noticeable after plunking something down, like a row of liquid tanks where they're all just slightly not in line, for example.

Also, for tanks in particular, it would save the annoyance of having to empty it jar by jar first, which is a massive hassle due to how the liquid/gas mechanics are handled right now.

[Sleipnir]

How would you move a habitat? Would you just move the structure or also all the furniture inside it? Because the problem with this also is how the data is saved, since it is split up in different files. Moving a habitat around might cause issues here.

If we just move single objects, like utilities only (depo, forge, printer, tank, etc) that would be somewhat simpler to achieve imho, but I'm not sure how easy it would be to implement a mechanic like that.

Since I edit files a lot, moving around a full depo is really easy - but doing it in-game is something different because the object has to have a "pick up" property in the first place. For solar panels, beacons and path lights they had to introduce kits that can be picked up and placed somewhere else. I'm not sure if that was just one way to do it or if the enigine/code forced them to solve it this way.

But I think this is a very interesting suggestion and I'm eager to find out what the devs have to say about it.

As for alignment issues: I use floor panels for this now which solves some issues. The placement options per panel are limited but if you are playing singleplayer you can edit the files to get what you want.

[evilgrin]

As a programmer myself (finishing Master's in CS, doing my thesis on heuristic algorithms and applied math), it seems like it should be fairly easy to account for a habitat module with components inside of it.

You have the structure itself, represented by an object type, axis coordinates, orientation, and a collection of data objects describing how it has been customized:

ceiling type
fabricator or not
array of wall section types (null, normal, heavy, cloth, etc)
array of objects 'plugged into' each of the associated wall section (null, bed, computer, etc)
maybe a few miscellaneous flags for internal engine stuff I'm not privy to

With the multi tool in hand, select the habitat frame, hit the 'move' key, and it becomes a wire-frame, using the same rules as originally placing objects, red when bad, green when good. If the player hits escape before selecting a new spot, it's left where it was, nothing has changed.

However, when it's moved, only the coordinate axis values and orientation for the frame have changed, all other data values and object references remain the same, barring connections to things using coupler type wall sections, which would just become open couplers.

Honestly, I have a hard time fathoming that this is an overly difficult task, unless the code base is an unmanageable spaghetti bowl of a mess.

While I'm wishing for this, I might as well add: let us increase the granularity of angle theta used to turn objects when we're building them. Sometimes I want to align an item perfectly with something next to or behind it, but my only options are off by like 10 degrees.

[Sleipnir]

Ok, sounds not too complicated then. Maybe another stream will touch on this topic in the near future if we don't hear from the devs until then.


I also wish there were more rotation options. As stated above, an advanced building mode would be cool that gives more options to the player like rotating around all axis and also allow to rotate in smaller steps. Also, some sort of "ghost mode" would be cool where we can just place building blueprints as placeholders?

btw: they are using quaternions for rotation. Do you know how I could set up an Excel sheet that allows me to convert these values into a less confusing format e.g. degrees? Or is there a good way to visualize rotations in 3D along different axis?

[Bloodwolf]

Here's a thought, even if we COULD theoretically move bases, should we? I mean, yes, it has its advantages from a gameplay point of view, less annoying than destroying and rebuilding and you don't waste time/materials, but I mean from a realistic point of view, are we supposed to be able to move every single thing we build? or just the hab? I can see the benefits of having this option but at least for me it removes immersion a little bit.

This also reminds me of ths tv show called MegaMovers or something, where for them to build an entire house they have to uproot it from its foundation on a huge hydraulic platform and then pull it with an industrial-sized truck.

[evilgrin]

3d imaging isn't something I've ever been interested in, so I never read up on quaternions. They aren't a lot of fun haha.

I did, however, find some python code that will do what you want:

import math

def quaternion_to_euler_angle(w, x, y, z):
	ysqr = y * y
	
	t0 = +2.0 * (w * x + y * z)
	t1 = +1.0 - 2.0 * (x * x + ysqr)
	X = math.degrees(math.atan2(t0, t1))
	
	t2 = +2.0 * (w * y - z * x)
	t2 = +1.0 if t2 > +1.0 else t2
	t2 = -1.0 if t2 < -1.0 else t2
	Y = math.degrees(math.asin(t2))
	
	t3 = +2.0 * (w * z + x * y)
	t4 = +1.0 - 2.0 * (ysqr + z * z)
	Z = math.degrees(math.atan2(t3, t4))
	
	return X, Y, Z

On the topic of realism, is it "realistic" that a single human can build anything at all like in the game? I mean, it's a GAME, not a REALITY SIMULATOR.

Can YOU build a 3d printer out of raw aluminum, glass, steel, and rubber? Of course not. Frankly, there is absolutely no immersion whatsoever in the crafting system, it's totally abstracted from 'reality' in the sense that the only thing it cares about is access to materials, and completely disregards tools, time, and training.

You may argue that training is inherent in the skill-tree, but I argue that it is trivial to accumulate skill points, and all classes are equal in their ability to master all points of the tree, so it's a moot point.

I think it's totally reasonable to ask for concessions to reality if it improves quality of life and enjoyment of the game without compromising the point of the game...and the point of the game is sci-fi survival, not 'how good are you at placing objects correctly the first time you try'.

If the devs want the game to be more realistic, then players shouldn't be able to build almost anything, and there should be a quest line to find and repair technological devices that previous missions brought with them in order to bootstrap the crafting system beyond basic handmade stuff.

For example, Osiris Base 1 could have the only 3d printer on the planetoid, and the player needs to find some tools and components to fix it in order to print parts to make more advanced things, or to build another one.

In this case, I also think we should have to salvage or build a crane before being able to build structures of any kind (other than 'blow up domes').

On that track, the player's inventory system makes absolutely no sense. The dome kit is huge, and we shouldn't be able to carry almost anything else if we have one in our inventory.

etc
etc
etc

How far down the realism rabbit-hole do we want to go?

[Sleipnir]

Thx for the script, I'll check it out later today!

Originally posted by evilgrin:

How far down the realism rabbit-hole do we want to go?

This was directed at Bloodwolf, but imho we should go as far as possible down the rabbit-hole. Why? Because - at least for me - it sparks new ideas if we have constructive discussions.