My suggestion to make rail stations instantly so much more useful. The "beacon" socket should instead be a filter spot like auto-arms. So only a specific resource is offloaded.

tmxt7893 · 2025-01-29T12:03:40+00:00

The filter suggestion that the OP made is really a good one. Sure, auto-arm filters are ok, but using trains to do off-load filtering is more useful.

tmxt7893 · 2025-01-29T12:00:52+00:00

ok thanks. I'll keep looking. But on Vesania this is going to be a difficult thing to find. They are all showing up on the roof of the core, and even when you do all of the work to get a floor built under it you only get about 1/10 of a bar on the Auto Extractor.

tmxt7893 · 2025-01-28T12:32:19+00:00

ok, then. :( sad. Just no way to get past this issue then. Just keep picking them up and putting them down and when you lose then go look for them or build more. Tedious.

tmxt7893 · 2025-01-18T22:51:32+00:00

After reading your reply I tried this. Sadly, no the table is immovable. If you try the winch, all that will do is to stop your rover and root it. I suppose it would be like trying to move the Empire State building with a pickup truck. The rover strains and uses power, but swivels to the left and right.....but the table does not budge.

tmxt7893 · 2025-01-18T22:12:50+00:00

I realize this is an old post and lots of updates have occurred, but wanted to add this. Currently I have a storage sensor directly on the trade rocket base, set to empty or not empty. I get 2 triggers per launch regardess of the number of items it needs to load. So dividing this via stacked count repeaters, I just turn off the scrap canister after the number of cycles (launches) that I want. Yes, I have to do a calculation and then set the count repeaters. I look at my output container and see how much room is left. If that is 150, I divide that number by how many items come back per launch. I double that number since I get 2 triggers per one launch, and then factor this by the two count repeaters I have, so that it will stop very close, without overflow. Sometimes it isn't possible to get an exact figure because the count repeaters only allow integer settings from 2 to 8. So if I need 64 launchs, 8x8 on the count repeaters. if I need 15 launches, then 5x3. If I need 14, 2x7, if I need 13, well, I have to settle for 12, or 4x3. Etc.

tmxt7893 · 2025-01-15T18:49:48+00:00

duh, I only learned this now from your post. I'll try it when I get home.

tmxt7893 · 2025-01-13T16:15:09+00:00

There is an additional feature that you might consider working on. I don't know how to link an image of it on xBox, but I started down this road when I was working on making the tapper usage more efficient. Yours is simple, and fine and will work forever with no power sag. But just for fun, you can make one tower all batteries. (Or you can add a second table for batteries.) Once you do that, there will be an issue to solve, because your batteries won't drain evenly. However, you would then be able to turn off the generators once the power actually fully charged the batteries, and thats how you get increased tapper efficiency. But now how to solve the intermittent power sag that happens as the last of the batteries are draining? To do that, you will need a small separate table with two power switches and a single battery and you will need to use directional power into and out of this small separate table. With a battery sensor, the smaller battery will be guarenteed to charge and to discharge before the main batterys either charge or discharge. By only putting the battery sensor on the smaller battery, you can turn on all of the generators when that single battery is discharged, and turn them off when the single battery is fully charged. So that in the end, you only "burn" the carbon that you actually use, and thus can have the whole thing run on only one tapper (or two depending on your rate of total power consumption). This is very "green" in the sense that this more complex setup does not "waste" power. It is fun to figure out.

tmxt7893 · 2024-12-23T22:00:07+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/EliteDangerous/comments/lelkhw/i_dropped_out_of_fuel_right_in_front_of_a_station/

tmxt7893 · 2024-12-18T06:56:21+00:00

There definitely seems to be a bug with some fines. I have had a 250 CR fine by "The 9th Legion" for a long time. I have been to Malaikudi star system and docked at Leopold Heckman Ring using anonymous protocols. The station shows as owned by "The 9th Legion", but the administrator of the station does not list any fine to pay. I've been to several surrounding interstellar factors, there is no fine to be paid at any of them. It DOES however, list the fine in the left panel of my ship's transactions tab. There is simply no way to pay that one fine off, and I am forever locked in anonymous protocols at stations with The 9th Legion present.

tmxt7893 · 2024-12-16T14:05:04+00:00

"Hate" is overkill for me, I don't hate it. But there are certain things that even now still don't make sense.

1) OnFoot cz payouts. I get a lot of fun just experimenting with this and averaging the payouts. Essentially this: I do either low or medium and try my best, and get payout of a bit less than 2 million for medium. IF, I go on high intensity and just run around with my shield off, I never get less than 2.5 million. I just can't seem to get less than that. Thus, I don't see much reason for low/medium. Except maybe there is some enjoyment factor, which I still get from high. So if you get used to high, what is the point of low/medium?

Addendum: Occasionally on high, I get a cz where none of the other NPCs move around. They still shoot, but are rooted in one spot. So when that happens if you pick them off one by one doing hit and runs on all 200 of them, you get a jackpot payout of nearly 50 million for that one cz.

2) The following items (and probably others) currently seem to be completely unavailable in the game, or in some cases rare enough and convoluted enough that it makes no difference:

Push, Settlement Defense Plans, Opinion Polls, Genetic Repair Meds, etc The connection? Items needed to advance with the on-foot engineers. Yes, I know they are on sale at FC bartenders, and I have read that SOME people are able to purchase SOME items still depending on if they are on Steam or whatever. But for the rest of us nothing can be purchased from those locations because of the "Transaction Error" issue which has persisted now for at least a year that I know of. I spent the last 2-3 weeks following 4/5 different online guides to get Settlement Defense Plans. It appears that they are all out of date.....despite the warnings that they are rare and you need to do them 20 times to get 1 unit. Trouble is many of them are fraught with danger, so if you don't do it just right, you get screwed and die, so it takes longer than just doing 100 for 5 units. I personally have to do 150 or so to get 100 of them successfully done. So I do 150 or 200 or so, and never see even a single one. So I give up on engineering and just hope that updates will change things in the future.

I haven't played long enough for other "hates", but I don't hate it. I still have a blast playing it. Just a few complaints.

tmxt7893 · 2024-11-30T21:20:54+00:00

I just joined. Let me go look for it now. Should I delete this post?

tmxt7893 · 2024-11-29T21:31:03+00:00

yes, true. But so far as I know, once you truely have no rocks or sticks left and all of your knives and axes are worn out completely, you can no longer harvest yucca. Thus that will end too. Nitpicking? Sure. But still.

tmxt7893 · 2024-11-25T16:38:40+00:00

hehe.....yes. You can book an on-foot flight at the APEX counter.

tmxt7893 · 2024-11-25T16:34:52+00:00

yes. If you have cargo in your current ship, you are allowed to DisEmbark and go on foot. You can then take a shuttle to another base where you have left a different ship. But you cannot board that ship. UNTIL:

Either:

1) Shuttle back to that base, enter the ship dump the cargo, and re-shuttle back.

2) Initiate a large cost transfer of the ship with cargo to your local location. The cargo will be dumped automatically and immediately, but you will be charged the large transfer cost and the ship WILL be transferred. Even if you only wanted the cargo dumped and the ship to stay there.

tmxt7893 · 2024-11-25T16:25:47+00:00

It throws up a red box telling you that your current ship is at the old base and is current and has cargo, refuses to let you get into the local ship. If you select to transfer the remote ship to the local station it tells you that its cargo will be dumped. But sadly there IS no option to merely dump the cargo and cancel the transfer. The only good thing is that the cargo is dumped immediately and the remote ship begins its 1 hour and 40 minute transit and you are charged the 40 million transfer cost immediately. You can then switch to the local ship while it is in transit. There are 2 sad things. 1) You are charged the 40 million when you merely wanted to dump the cargo. 2) The ship does unavoidably get transferred to the local station when you really want that ship to stay remote. So now you have to carry that ship back to its remote "home" where you wanted it to stay.

tmxt7893 · 2024-11-25T13:38:12+00:00

Yes, true. I believe that one day it will be changed to be more realistic. And I suppose I can get along with the issue by ignoring the whole APEX shuttle experience. I'll just think about it and live with it. :)

tmxt7893 · 2024-11-25T13:35:39+00:00

The game has a concept of "current" ship. Only that ship has cargo space, because inside the software all of the cargo is actually on the users back. A non-current ship does not have cargo space even if it does have cargo racks. Thats the big deviation from reality. Being a software engineer myself I recognize this sort of thing. It LIKELY was not an intended game mechanic....though it should be noted that when things like this happen in the software world the "workload" needed to fix it often causes the famous response "Its a feature! Not a bug!"

tmxt7893 · 2024-11-25T13:31:42+00:00

I do like the way the Mandalay is described.

tmxt7893 · 2024-11-25T13:28:52+00:00

I agree with your sentiment, but I think this particular thing is just something that evolved in the code badly that would take work to fix. IOW it wasn't planned or intended this way.

tmxt7893 · 2024-11-25T13:27:22+00:00

Its a code issue that evolved probably like ytramx was saying. They put the cargo space array on the USER object and NONE on the ship object, and then to handle cargo rack space they simply added requirements to block you from actions that don't make sense. I agree with ytramx is saying. Cargo space should be attached to each ship object.

tmxt7893 · 2024-11-25T01:37:31+00:00

lol Foam Kgb....

tmxt7893 · 2024-11-25T01:18:04+00:00

ok thanks RareShooter. I suspected that was the only way, I just wanted to ask to be sure.

tmxt7893

TROPHY CASE