@Jacara why didn't they put in a replacement BEFORE they took out the old way? Not sure you understood what I meant......
If you need a new power-line for your house do you strip the old one out all the way back to the substation then put the new one in? ofc not! you put the new one in, and don't connect the ends until immediately before or after you disconnect the old one!
If you wanted to change your comp screen would you take the old one out, then wait a month for the new one to arrive? ofc not! you get the new one, and make a quick changeover.
my point is...... why are we having this lengthy 'without service' period?
coding stuff into a game isn't as simple as just typing stuff in. You first have to create the item, then code what it does and then code all that into the game, then test it, test it until it breaks or breaks something, code some more and more testing, rinse and repeat until you get the outcome you want. This is the reason why we haven't gotten the new upgrades for the cyclops yet. Also they had to remove that bug with the solar cells it was never meant to happen.
@Requiemfang - I'm well aware that it's gonna take time to develop the replacement, my question is, why can't we keep the solar panels on cyclops until we've got the replacement ready to roll out?
Putting solar panels/generators on cyclops was always a bug. In fact it could sometimes mess up how the cyclops drives and/or not work at all. Personally i'm willing to wait, and I understand the necessity of taking care of it ahead of time to prepare to code the upgrade system faster.
@Jacara why didn't they put in a replacement BEFORE they took out the old way? Not sure you understood what I meant......
If you need a new power-line for your house do you strip the old one out all the way back to the substation then put the new one in? ofc not! you put the new one in, and don't connect the ends until immediately before or after you disconnect the old one!
If you wanted to change your comp screen would you take the old one out, then wait a month for the new one to arrive? ofc not! you get the new one, and make a quick changeover.
my point is...... why are we having this lengthy 'without service' period?
Likely because different people are working on them. One was a bug fix that was causing issues in the code, the other is a new model and coding.
why didn't they implement the solar cell upgrade for cyclops before disabling the building of solar panels?
If you go into creative mode on experimental there are "?" in place for a bunch of Cyclops base modules, including a charging station.
Where are you seeing these items in creative? I've been checking for them to see if I could keep up on their development and I've not seen a single one...
why didn't they implement the solar cell upgrade for cyclops before disabling the building of solar panels?
If you go into creative mode on experimental there are "?" in place for a bunch of Cyclops base modules, including a charging station.
Where are you seeing these items in creative? I've been checking for them to see if I could keep up on their development and I've not seen a single one...
They were under Blueprints in Experimental last week. I haven't been on since though.
If it was a bug, then why does a solar pane add 50 power to a base while it only add 25 power to a cyclop? Someone had to code/program this difference, which means some one thought about and put an effort into reducing power output of solar panels on a cyclop. Or is it a side effect of something else?
Even if it is a bug, there is a fine line between a bug and an undocumented feature . It became a feature used by many, including numerous references in tutorials, video playthroughs and forums. So I agree with rhys_elcins, it would've been nice to have an alternative power recharging solution introduced when solar panels installation was disabled. (I get the complexity of development and having multiple people working on different features and so on. still it's possible to manage introduction of one thing and removal of the other in one update)
Also what exactly is wrong with having solar panes on cyclop?
If it was a bug, then why does a solar pane add 50 power to a base while it only add 25 power to a cyclop? Someone had to code/program this difference, which means some one thought about and put an effort into reducing power output of solar panels on a cyclop. Or is it a side effect of something else?
Even if it is a bug, there is a fine line between a bug and an undocumented feature . It became a feature used by many, including numerous references in tutorials, video playthroughs and forums. So I agree with rhys_elcins, it would've been nice to have an alternative power recharging solution introduced when solar panels installation was disabled. (I get the complexity of development and having multiple people working on different features and so on. still it's possible to manage introduction of one thing and removal of the other in one update)
Also what exactly is wrong with having solar panes on cyclop?
Solar panels add 50 to a base only if they are installed on a base piece. If they are built on the ground next to the base, they add 25. The difference was already coded and the panels only added 25 to the sub since they technically weren't installed on a base.
Also, we are going to be getting a solar charging upgrade to the cyclops at some point in the near future, its just a matter of time before it gets put into the game.
As SpacedInvader wrote correctly: Solar panels add 50 to a base only if they are installed on a base piece. But in this case you may notice that crafting will consume 10 instead of 5 power units. This might be a little bug that only gets relevant if the player combines base- and ground-placed generators. In this case the fabricator takes double units regardless of the source. But I'm afraid this isn't the right subject.
I'm questioning what you guys are missing. The jack of all trades device, running for ever and ever like Seamoth right now?
As SpacedInvader wrote correctly: Solar panels add 50 to a base only if they are installed on a base piece. But in this case you may notice that crafting will consume 10 instead of 5 power units. This might be a little bug that only gets relevant if the player combines base- and ground-placed generators. In this case the fabricator takes double units regardless of the source. But I'm afraid this isn't the right subject.
I'm questioning what you guys are missing. The jack of all trades device, running for ever and ever like Seamoth right now?
You know, it never occurred to me that there was a causal relationship there... I had just assumed that some items took 10 power and some took 5 and never bothered to try identifying which was which.
As for your question, I'm perfectly ok with both the cyclops and the seamoth being jack of all trades vehicles, with different configurations available for different situations. After all, having the cyclops or seamoth configured with a solar charging upgrade, while a great boon in exploring many biomes, will be absolutely useless for exploring the depths of the lava and lost river zones. Just like having them configured for deep sea exploration will end up costing you in energy use.
That said, I'm starting to think it might be a better approach to require that the seamoth or cyclops can only have its configuration changed while docked (I'm assuming that we're getting cyclops docking here). This would make changing configuration much harder as you couldn't just swap around upgrades without going all the way back to base.
I have been thinking a lot about powering the Cyclops from when I began playing and it didn't stop.
Solar powering the thing sounds like a good idea. And I tested it by using the "bug" this thread is about, and boy did I enjoy it! The problem as I see it is not the existence of solar charging, but its recharging power. Interesting side note: We have solar powered bases and its no one is complaining. One problem I have with solar power is that its decline in efficiency is linear, not exponential. It goes from 100% at 0m over 50% at 125m to 0% at 250m. That means every 25m of depth reduce the efficiency by a fixed 10%. But it should be far darker in the depths. The intensity of the light should diminish exponentially like 1/2 at 25m, 1/4 at 50m, 1/8 at 100m. (and zero at 200m) With these numbers solar panels would be much more interesting and placing them would become even more important. And we would have to build more of them when we go deeper.
Vehicle solar panels could be much less overpowered when they use this formula, too. At the moment I can cruise with a solar powered Seamoth and never think about power. While nice, I think having at least a small power constraint is something good. When I drive my car, I need to go to the gas station now and then I can't simply go on forever. The next issue is that while I can imagine the area of about 2 standard solar panel to fit of the Cyclops, the Seamoth has a much smaller area fit for solar panels and so should recharge much slower, more like 1/2 solar panel or even 1/3.
Having it recharge slower would cause me to think about power, when I drive. Should I wait a while for the power cell to recharge completely or can I go on? Also I would have to be in very shallow waters to even be able to recharge. At a base I can simply add another 5 solar panels or more, in the Seamoth there are only 4 upgrade slots.
I am all for solar power and I would hate losing it, but at the moment even I find it a little too OP.
I like the idea of an exponential solar efficiency. But I guess that's part of a pending and final balancing which will happen once the Devs have created every single element. I can very well understand the current state. It wouldn't make much sense to balance back and forth and back again unless everything is implemented. Anyway, we may be curious ...
When I first built the Cyclops I figured it would have some kind of power generator on it, whether solar or nuclear.
Since you need to keep making power supplies for it it's essentially a white elephant..
Comments
coding stuff into a game isn't as simple as just typing stuff in. You first have to create the item, then code what it does and then code all that into the game, then test it, test it until it breaks or breaks something, code some more and more testing, rinse and repeat until you get the outcome you want. This is the reason why we haven't gotten the new upgrades for the cyclops yet. Also they had to remove that bug with the solar cells it was never meant to happen.
Likely because different people are working on them. One was a bug fix that was causing issues in the code, the other is a new model and coding.
Where are you seeing these items in creative? I've been checking for them to see if I could keep up on their development and I've not seen a single one...
They were under Blueprints in Experimental last week. I haven't been on since though.
Even if it is a bug, there is a fine line between a bug and an undocumented feature
Also what exactly is wrong with having solar panes on cyclop?
Solar panels add 50 to a base only if they are installed on a base piece. If they are built on the ground next to the base, they add 25. The difference was already coded and the panels only added 25 to the sub since they technically weren't installed on a base.
Also, we are going to be getting a solar charging upgrade to the cyclops at some point in the near future, its just a matter of time before it gets put into the game.
I'm questioning what you guys are missing. The jack of all trades device, running for ever and ever like Seamoth right now?
You know, it never occurred to me that there was a causal relationship there... I had just assumed that some items took 10 power and some took 5 and never bothered to try identifying which was which.
As for your question, I'm perfectly ok with both the cyclops and the seamoth being jack of all trades vehicles, with different configurations available for different situations. After all, having the cyclops or seamoth configured with a solar charging upgrade, while a great boon in exploring many biomes, will be absolutely useless for exploring the depths of the lava and lost river zones. Just like having them configured for deep sea exploration will end up costing you in energy use.
That said, I'm starting to think it might be a better approach to require that the seamoth or cyclops can only have its configuration changed while docked (I'm assuming that we're getting cyclops docking here). This would make changing configuration much harder as you couldn't just swap around upgrades without going all the way back to base.
Solar powering the thing sounds like a good idea. And I tested it by using the "bug" this thread is about, and boy did I enjoy it! The problem as I see it is not the existence of solar charging, but its recharging power. Interesting side note: We have solar powered bases and its no one is complaining. One problem I have with solar power is that its decline in efficiency is linear, not exponential. It goes from 100% at 0m over 50% at 125m to 0% at 250m. That means every 25m of depth reduce the efficiency by a fixed 10%. But it should be far darker in the depths. The intensity of the light should diminish exponentially like 1/2 at 25m, 1/4 at 50m, 1/8 at 100m. (and zero at 200m) With these numbers solar panels would be much more interesting and placing them would become even more important. And we would have to build more of them when we go deeper.
Vehicle solar panels could be much less overpowered when they use this formula, too. At the moment I can cruise with a solar powered Seamoth and never think about power. While nice, I think having at least a small power constraint is something good. When I drive my car, I need to go to the gas station now and then I can't simply go on forever. The next issue is that while I can imagine the area of about 2 standard solar panel to fit of the Cyclops, the Seamoth has a much smaller area fit for solar panels and so should recharge much slower, more like 1/2 solar panel or even 1/3.
Having it recharge slower would cause me to think about power, when I drive. Should I wait a while for the power cell to recharge completely or can I go on? Also I would have to be in very shallow waters to even be able to recharge. At a base I can simply add another 5 solar panels or more, in the Seamoth there are only 4 upgrade slots.
I am all for solar power and I would hate losing it, but at the moment even I find it a little too OP.
Since you need to keep making power supplies for it it's essentially a white elephant..