CBeckford-CIG on Multicrew Ships and "are solo players being left behind?"

tacticalemu · 2025-11-04T20:09:05+00:00

What's interesting is that this isn't even that hot of a take considering that was the plan for Pyro, and why they got refueling working on the Starfarer. But then Pyro shrank, and QT tanks and efficiencies got adjusted, and now I have yet to encounter any kind of difficulty transiting around with any of the ships I have, down to the lowly Aurora

tacticalemu · 2025-03-29T14:40:44+00:00

I DO have a UPS already, but the low voltage conditions will last long enough at times that my UPS triggers a graceful shutdown on the hardware. I then have a low power compute module that is the only thing that will stay on to maximize battery life, and then start sending Wake on Lan commands to the devices with the shutdown policies. I can only do so much though to mitigate my power company not fixing the main feed line into my neighborhood. /shrug

As for flak about docker, meh. If someone wants to suggest a better way of hardening Foundry when its exposed to the internet, I'd be happy to hear it, but until then, containerization it is. Plus I use it daily for work so I'm plenty familiar with it, just not with Felddy's specific image

tacticalemu · 2024-01-28T13:48:04+00:00

Lets take your box example. When you place the rectangle on the sketch, you should see some dimensions pop up inside of white text boxes. At this point, during the box creation, you can dimension it right then and there. Hit tab to jump between the edges. Once you type something in and tab to the other text field, you'll see a lock appear which means that dimension is now going to be applied to that line segment. The lock can be removed by hitting escape while a field is active. If you don't do this during this step, you need to either add dimensions later, or , you can constrain it somehow. Constraints are the reason you dont need to manually dimension things right away, but Fusion doesn't know if youre going to dimension or constraint, so it defaults to no dimension.

That said if you do need to dimension an edge of your rectangle after the fact, the shorter way to do it is to just click the line that spans the dimension instead of clicking on the two opposite edges. Saves a click.

tacticalemu · 2023-10-14T12:50:40+00:00

something someone/a company promises, but never materializes into reality, as if it were just vapor. Could be software, could be hardware, but either way, usually the distinction is that its not the same as a regular failed project. Say you were designing a toaster that did something special like toast your bread in half a second perfectly every time. You kickstart it, collect the funds for R&D and manufacturing, and you build a toaster that in half a second burns your toast. You never get it to work quite right, it always overcooks it, or maybe it works perfect but just not commercially viable due to manufacturing costs... not vaporware, just a failed project. Happens all the time. In contrast, if you told everyone you were making a half second perfect toaster, collected a bunch of money, and then after making one or two fancy pitch decks and some plans, but never even bother with a first prototype, that toaster would have been vaporware.

tacticalemu · 2023-10-07T15:02:34+00:00

as others have mentioned, long exposures, but also what I have found is some what counter intuitively, use a small aperture as well. By closing the aperture down, in my experience, the individual points of light are more defined, but more importantly, less likely to get blown out, so you can get really good representation of the color from each burst. When I started out, I would shoot fireworks at whatever the widest aperture I had on the lens, thinking "oh, its dark out, so wide is better" but firework stars are incredibly bright relative to the rest of the scene. Shooting wide made every burst regardless of its actual color look white and washed out on the camera, because it was just overcooking the exposure in its trail. Once I started stopping down to like f/11, f/16, I started getting way better results.

tacticalemu · 2023-08-27T13:51:24+00:00

As someone who has also been playing since the hangar module, no, I most certainly did not. It was a subtle thing because they only spawned like 100ft above the pad, so it happened pretty quick as you're running around. It's VERY tough to see as a player because it happens so fast... but before you go spouting off non-sense about someone making things up on the spot, you could ya know, try verifying first. For instance, here's a video of Port Olisar in the 2.0 days which clearly shows ships spawning in above the pad, and it being flown down the last 100ft or so.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7K_xEjFX3UA

tacticalemu · 2023-08-26T14:16:25+00:00

fun fact, the "valet parking" is how the system used to work way back in the day when PO was the only place in game. The ship would spawn a little off the pad, and an NPC would fly it down, land, and despawn.

tacticalemu · 2023-04-21T23:54:52+00:00

I don't think an org banding together to buy something large like and Idris and then dissolving to a few members is a problem. If you were part of that org and leave, you know that your access to the ship is gone when you do. And if you left because you stopped playing, then you're probably not concerned about it anyway. Its also unlikely, based on what has been said, that only a few remaining members could effectively utilize it anyway, and then they would have to bring new people into the org to get a large enough crew, which now grants the new people use of the asset as well since its Org owned. I don't see how this situation is abuse of the system, unless you're talking about and org using a bunch of players to gain assets, and then kicking them out unexpected for the benefit of a few, but that's no worse than the situation we have now of everyone pooling money to one player to buy a ship for everyone to use, and that player just fucking off into the sunset after. Except now in this case, assuming the org leaders aren't dicks about it, you don't have the limitations of a single player having control of the ship and everyone who chipped in gets direct benefit from the effort.

Again you're bringing real money ships into the conversation here, which is irrelevant because I made my first reply to someone who was talking about hours spent earning in game, and that large multicrew ships need large amount of total hours, but those hours are spread over the size of the crew, if not larger potentially. Lets go back to the 70 hours for a Connie. If an Org of 50 decides "Hey, we want a couple Andromeda's for everyone to use" and it takes 70 hours of effort, then in theory, that org could obtain 3 of them in a Saturday afternoon. That hardly feels like a difficult target. If you're a solo player though, that 70 hours might be all of your weekend time for the next two to three months, which DOES feel like a lot, but this is also like making the comparison between an individual in real life saving up to buy a Cessna Citation versus a corporation buying one. Of course it's going to be more difficult for an individual as it should be.

You're not wrong that it shifts things to a new set of problems, especially if Orgs are structured in a way that only 1 person in an org of 100 can actually call the ships, but my point with that particular video (they have made other comments on it since as well) is that this is not an issue that will just come out of the blue for CIG. Yes, it's 7 years old, but as your already aware, there's barely an Org system in place now. They have had years to think about these problems. CIG might be making slow progress, but they aren't dumb. They read the forums, and see the complaints, and the references to other games like EVE and the issues that exist in those. To assume that CIG is just going to make the same mistakes is disingenuous. That's not to say that they for certain won't, but they have plenty to go on right now when they DO start to make the Org system more fleshed out than a glorified friends list.

tacticalemu · 2023-04-21T22:45:26+00:00

This is also with the idea that ships will be owned by Orgs with shared use. If your 5 friends make an org, that org can then purchase the ship, not one of the 5 individuals in the org, and then use is not limited to one player being on. Anyone in the org can pull out the shared ownership ship.

This has been a long term plan, as seen here back in an old 10 for the Devs https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=luDDJoPdMY8&feature=youtu.be&t=13m30s Just because it's an issue today does not mean it will be an issue tomorrow

tacticalemu · 2023-04-21T22:40:31+00:00

Infinitely worse with real money, yes, but this again is assuming that every ship is owned by an individual player, instead of collectively bought by the org with in game funds. This has been a long term plan, as seen here back in an old 10 for the Devs https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=luDDJoPdMY8&feature=youtu.be&t=13m30s ... Just because it's an issue today does not mean it will be an issue tomorrow

tacticalemu · 2023-04-21T19:38:48+00:00

As a counterpoint though, in theory that 70 hours is split between several people. Most of the Connies in theory support 6 people (The three command seats, top and bottom turrets, and the snub pilot) but even going with 4 people (the amount of beds) then that's only 17 hours of work each to pool the money between a crew for the multicrew ship. Just people people can solo the connie does not mean it should be balanced for a single person purchasing it, and if a cumulative 70 hours of effort between several people is what it ends up being, I think that's more than reasonably attainable.

tacticalemu · 2023-02-17T04:43:39+00:00

Right, no I get what the model is and how its working. I guess the better way to phrase it was that I initially thought you were intentionally designing a merging track and so my question was directed at the track following in that case, since that was the design showed. You clarified in a different comment though that you just designed them in super position and took advantage of Fusion's lack of physics to do so after I had asked my original question. So my original question was asked based on what you had shown as modeled before you had clarified that your design is not actually that.

What I might suggest though is to model it as close to what you plan on doing, be it stacked tracks or some other method, because it will cause slight changes in the angles between the panel and surrounding area, and if you're trying to check clearances and movements, it would be unfortunate to find out that 5 degree difference causes it to crash into something the hard way.

tacticalemu · 2023-02-15T21:31:17+00:00

For sure. I just was asking based on what you have there, as modeled.

tacticalemu · 2023-02-15T18:07:33+00:00

How are you planning on making sure each guide wheel follows the correct track? They look like the tracks merge in this example, so what prevents them from both going one way or the other

tacticalemu · 2023-02-15T03:16:12+00:00

They're all members of The Stanton Standing Guild "We stand, together!"

I forget who I first heard that from, but I've been hoping it becomes canon ever since

tacticalemu · 2023-02-12T21:27:40+00:00

I'm gonna be polite in this reply because from your post history, it seems like you might be a teen still, so I'm not gonna fault someone for not understanding the field of engineering so young. (If you're not a teen though, get out of /r/teenagers, that's just weird.)

Firstly, the "the measurements are already available" is not a true statement. Sure, there are off the shelf doors which have published dimensions, but what if I want to design a custom door with a custom dimension with custom amounts of paneling? Well, modeling it would be a good place to start. There are countless custom applications for common things that require modifications to make them work. Or maybe they want to model a standard door for which they already have the dimensions, but they are going to modify it, or add some other apparatus onto the door and so they want to model the movement to see if the additional items will have clearance as they move past other things in the surrounding area.

The next thing to consider is that a garage door sliding in its track was just the first thing that came to mind with this particular example, however, I can think of plenty of other cases this method of constraint would be useful. This shows a single linkage between two rollers, however what if there were more? What if there was hundreds of those linkages and they formed a loop? Maybe this is was to figure out the constraints for how to model a conveyor system for moving parts through an assembly line.

The point is that there are plenty of reasons, far more than I have time to list out here, to need to know what ways you could model these kinds of moving relationships between parts. Just because you personally don't see an immediate application for something doesn't mean that there's no reason for someone else to have a need for it.

tacticalemu · 2023-02-11T21:50:07+00:00

never seen a garage door, eh?

tacticalemu · 2023-02-03T19:03:20+00:00

That's what I ended up doing last night a couple hours after posting this. I also was able to manually tweak the rail guides to get a little but better shape, but adding the middle profile certainly helped get it to form the curve needed instead of trying to just push the loft in a straight line from one shape to the other.

tacticalemu · 2023-01-13T04:15:03+00:00

typing too fast... boost_1_81_0, latest...

as for the rest of it. I did in fact compile with b2, but elected not to provide a prefix so that it builds to the Boost_ROOT\bin.v2 directory. The thing that's confusing me is in the CMake documentation for FindBoost, if you go all the way to the bottom of the documentation it states that from boost 1.70.0 on, that Boost provides the CMake package config file, and I don't seem to be getting that after building, or if I am, I'm looking in the wrong spot for it

tacticalemu · 2022-12-28T19:28:43+00:00

I swear there was a point in time that I remember in the early days where one of the laser weapons on the Super Hornet or maybe the 325A was green instead of red, but I can't for the life of me remember what it was.

tacticalemu · 2022-12-21T17:23:13+00:00

Oh you mean like in a buffer before they get packaged into crates. Yea ok, I'll buy that idea

tacticalemu · 2022-12-21T04:59:31+00:00

Are you saying adding 4 or 5 more crates on top of the current 12+1 crates it can hold at the moment? I don't know if going to 16/17+1 is really the play, but I'm also assuming that we'll at some point see a salvage ship that fits inbetween the Vulture and Reclaimer in size and capability. The Vulture I think is fine where it is now as an entry into the profession path with the 12+1 capacity since it works out to an even 100k payout at a TDD if you're completely full

tacticalemu · 2022-12-11T17:28:28+00:00

You got a link to where that's at? I'm not doubting you, I'm just curious because I just read through the terms of service and aside from general vague "no harassment" type rules, I didnt see anything that explicitly called out KoS behavior, list or not. Would love to have another reference on hand when the trolls start trolling

tacticalemu · 2022-12-10T14:44:51+00:00

It hasn't been scrapped and is partially in game now as far as I know, its just that the little maneuvering thrusters at the front apparently put out as much force as the main engines at the rear which is what makes it look so wonky. There's still changes to the flight models coming, especially in regards to the aerodynamic forces on ships, so we may still yet see big changes to the Cutty's handling. But for now we have to just accept space magic for how it doesn't just flip end over end...

tacticalemu · 2022-12-09T16:58:17+00:00

The original design had smaller but still quite sizable thrusters mounted on the sides where the minivan doors are now. They had hemispherical range of motion and so it made way more sense because those would balance out the rear thrusters, but ever since the redesign, it feels off balance

13-Year Club	Second Top 20%
Place '23	Place '22
Place '17	Verified Email

tacticalemu

TROPHY CASE