3D Printing.

Any idea why the idea of printing a fighter was chosen?

I don't see why it wouldn't work like SRV's work. And if the tech exists to 3d print whole ships, why can't we print, Limpets, Torpedoes, SRV's replacement canopies? Am I missing something?:rolleyes:
 
Its a game, you can get some things on the fly if they think thats good for gameplay and you don't get some things on the fly because they think its bad for gameplay.
 
Yes it seems a bit odd, but they said during the livestream that they thought it would be too much of a disadvantage if your fighter(s) got destroyed early and you had none left despite having a hanger for it. I agree. They are glass canons, so I'm guessing they are going to get destroyed a lot. I've only had an SRV destroyed specifically doing base attacks that are way too hard for one person.
 
Last edited:
Its a game, you can get some things on the fly if they think thats good for gameplay and you don't get some things on the fly because they think its bad for gameplay.

I can;t see a game-play reason why printing of whole ships is OK , but printing SRV's or Limpets isn't. Hell, if I have a complicated 3D printer, can I get it to print me some modular terminals?
 
I can;t see a game-play reason why printing of whole ships is OK , but printing SRV's or Limpets isn't. Hell, if I have a complicated 3D printer, can I get it to print me some modular terminals?
you may not see a reason but the people making the game do ;)

And again "If I can print that why not that?" is meaningless, it has no bearing on decisions about gameplay balance.
 
I'm not even sure the official answer to the Fighters is that they are printed. You will need 'ammo'. Ship kits you buy and carry. Once they are exhausted you need to re-arm. I believe the printing issue is being over blown by the community. No surprise there, huh?
 
Rather Think of it like this

I'm not even sure the official answer to the Fighters is that they are printed. You will need 'ammo'. Ship kits you buy and carry. Once they are exhausted you need to re-arm. I believe the printing issue is being over blown by the community. No surprise there, huh?

If it's like that I am fine with it. If we get them via synthesis on the other hand... Nope, I'll join the upcoming crusade against 3D printers ;)
 
Any idea why the idea of printing a fighter was chosen?

I don't see why it wouldn't work like SRV's work. And if the tech exists to 3d print whole ships, why can't we print, Limpets, Torpedoes, SRV's replacement canopies? Am I missing something?:rolleyes:
Personally I think they mean more assembled then 'printed' though I guess it is similar.
 
You have to buy assembly kits where the fighter hanger will assemble new fighters (drones) for you to use. Once the assembly kits are all gone no more fighters and you have to restock. Think of them like a futuristic kit car that robots assemble in your garage over night.
 
Srlsy, tho, this is better but how do they assemble it in seconds. Why not just have a fighter bought like a SRV?

My understanding was that the delay was going to be rather more than seconds. Given it takes me several minutes to get my shields back online and up to power, it makes little sense I could build an entire fighter in less time.
 
My understanding was that the delay was going to be rather more than seconds. Given it takes me several minutes to get my shields back online and up to power, it makes little sense I could build an entire fighter in less time.

No they actually stated that making a new fighter will take seconds. From memory 10-20secs, although it didn't sound like they decided on a solid time yet.
 
Rather Think of it like this

Or like this: http://posy.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2007/07/01/dsc_0003.jpg

Srlsy, tho, this is better but how do they assemble it in seconds.

Because they are designed to be assembled in seconds by the robot arms and whathaveyou in the fighter bay?
We already have cars made by robots. The idea of using them 1000Y in the future to assemble a flat pack in a 5m cubed bay seems fairly reasonable.

Essentially, FD's mistake was to use the words '3D printed', instead of 'assembled like an Airfix kit' or similar.
 
Or like this: http://posy.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2007/07/01/dsc_0003.jpg



Because they are designed to be assembled in seconds by the robot arms and whathaveyou in the fighter bay?
We already have cars made by robots. The idea of using them 1000Y in the future to assemble a flat pack in a 5m cubed bay seems fairly reasonable.

Essentially, FD's mistake was to use the words '3D printed', instead of 'assembled like an Airfix kit' or similar.

Ok, but then why can't these devices "assemble" limpets or Modular Terminals?
 
Ok, but then why can't these devices "assemble" limpets or Modular Terminals?

Our limpets *might* also be flat packed for space-efficiency, and hence are already assembled. They're at least several metres long, aren't they? Can't imagine there being room for 500 of them in my hold! Who is to say that the controller doesn't put the kits together for us?
Remember that FD haven't told us we make the fighters from dirt or materials: We need 'ammo'. ie the flat pack kits.

As to modular terminals, there is a big difference between making a robot to assemble a flat-pack piece of furniture and it being able to make printed circuitry from raw materials. Assembling means that you have a kit to assemble from.
And that is putting aside ideas like copyright, DRM and intellectual property. 'Modular Terminals' are probably a proprietary part, and in societies which still cling on to property and IP laws, the patterns for them would not be available and the standard assembly machines would be firmaware locked in a manner that proprietary parts can't just be photocopied.
There's also the quality element: I want Modular Terminals for a crucial part of my spaceship. Why would I use a patterned part, knocked up in a high-tech photocopier? I'm happy for my decoy fighters to be made of cruddy plastic, but would you use a cheap knock-off Chinese gasket in the engine of a racing car, let alone a spaceship?

But The main reason we can't just make modular terminals from dirt is that Elite is not a post-scarcity setting. If you can have a machine in every home that can make modular terminals or whatever you want from dirt and have unlimited fusion energy, then it's a very different sci-fi setting. There is then no need for finished commodity markets, as only raw materials are needed, no reason for us to haul finished products around and no real reason to hang on to outdated ideas like 'money'. Star Trek's Federation and The Culture are both examples of sci-fi societies where 'replicators' exist, and hence, there is no need for money.

I knowledge that the whole concept takes some mental judo to justify lore-wise, and that such lore should have been laid out by FD instead of us having to backwards engineer head-canon, but the tech can be justified.
 
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...ip-construction-a-late-solution-to-some-grind


Autofabricators are in game. So here is my running theory.

You still need a space-dock of say Anaconda size to construct an Anaconda.
Imagine each Autofabricator is specialized to create from specific blue-prints.
You can't have one production line factory building multiple types of different size ships.
They are speciall tooled up for one set of construction.

This would explain why ships, and their modules aren't in the commodities section, but can be found in specialized Space stations with High-tech stations having the most variety of fabricated ship modules AND ships.
Because they got the fancier fabricators to do the job.

but you still need resources, and a fabricator which can handle the blue-print and build, right?

This could factor into module storage and ship transfer.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom