![[DOOK] Droogie](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/124/124078.jpg?1553527149){kind=avatar}
So nothing. Citation of where they plan to make every ship different off of the assemble line through RNG, then. At least a mention of it. This Python will function different from that Python the moment you buy it.
Those who dislike the concept of RNG Engineering, what would you propose as a replacement?
- Thread starter Kicks
- Start date
So nothing. Citation of where they plan to make every ship different off of the assemble line through RNG, then. At least a mention of it. This Python will function different from that Python the moment you buy it.
Isn't there already a thread where you guys can throw dung at each other from behind chest-high walls on the 'realism' of RNG crafting?
Not a bad analogy as I doubt they are handcrafting each module either. It will be mass produced, sent for quality inspection. did it work within spec? YES! Good then we will ship it to Outfitters R Us
Last edited:
Having a good rep with the engineer might actually already be taken into account when the results are calculated...who knows?
It wouldn't make sense that we should be able to choose what we will get though within the chosen modification level. (We already CAN chose modification type and level.) In this scenario the materials you provided will give a certain result. The engineer liking you wouldn't change the attributes of the materials you are providing. So you wanting lower heat output when the materials aren't suitable for that doesn't help. The positive effects (whatever they are) could potentially be a little better and the side effects (whatever they are) less major since the engineer will put his/hers heart and soul into it.
Last edited:
I never said that's what they intended, but thank you for implying it and reminding me to write a thread in the suggestions forum asking about their intent to add shipyards which allow us to buy used ships that they talked about during the beta which had flaws.
Last edited:
Is that a cannon modification. Covers canopy so the pilot can't see?
Okay: if you want realism, request FD removed all cmdrs from the ships and replaces them with AI. Request jumps are removed, you'll always stay in the same system, and going from one planet to the other will takes a long time. Having your canopy destroyed bombards your body with radiation. Staying in space too long will weaken your muscles to the point your heart instantly fails when you get close to a high-g body. You'll need to spend months in fitness centers recovering after each extended flight. Seeing a laser instantly blinds you forever. At random moments you can die because your poop->food machine broke down and you got some nasty illness. Module failure can be catastropic, instantly destroying. Explosions destroy the escape pod and wipe your save. Etc.
But no, you dont care about realism, as none of us do, because realism is boring as heck. But you drag that tired old 'its not realistic' argument from its grave whenever you want a random gameplay change, yet ignore it whenever it suits you. Its dishonest and way too transparant.
You dont like RNG because you want to get the exact stuff you planned ASAP? Fine, its a valid opinion. Dont diminish it by dressing it up in ugly semi-arguments you know are .
Last edited:
I thought these were engineers on the outskirts of space that do work for you when you request it, only after you bring them materials. How is this mass produced, again?
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
No, you have been arguing realism this whole time, which is why I find it amusing that you now dismiss it. Looking for realistic ways to justify the RNG.
I still don't understand why we don't have a paintball cannon. Not a single one of our ships has windscreen wipers. It'd be perfectly lethal.
Edit: A note for Droogie. Every last one of the ships was theoretically designed by an engineer but has a fundamental flaw that would render it helpless against a child.
That's reality.
Last edited:
thats not how it works, a 3% error on a 1% fall over 200 metres would be at worst a 2.6 metres for a design fall of of 2 metres, now here is the thing with errors over those distances, they get corrected as part of the process, so over the whole distance you might end up with a total fall of 2.01 meters instead of 2.6 metres.
The designed error margin for a component is essentially the acceptable tolerance. and a deviation on the tolerance or another words the error can be represented as a percentage of the designed tolerance
In that regard, 3% error is not 3% of the total size but 3% of the acceptable tolerance.
Engineering design allow for context based tolerances, so what is considered an acceptable tolerance on one scale, is usually still an acceptable tolerance on another scale, for the same type of engineering problem.
For mechanical engineering, there are design fits and tolerances that vary depending on the acual implementation and not so much on the scale of the design.
For example a bolt embedded in concrete that a structure bolts into, usually has a starting tolerance of +/- 3mm for the bolts position and maybe a +/- 1mm tolerance for the bolts height, and often a +/- 2 thou tolerance for the bolts thread and diameter, it makes no difference if the bolt is 10mm in diameter or 100mm in diameter, those tolerances remain the same (usually)
Wrong engineers I'm talking about the module manufacturing engineers, not the tinkerer.
Yaffle
Volunteer Moderator
To restate - we don't know how this will work yet, so this is very much an exercise in futility.
Saying that an engineer will give exactly the same result every time, because they do right now, is both irrelevant and demonstrably false. See my Formula 1 engine example. Right now Lewis Hamilton is BEGGING for a result identical to the testing engine he had.
This is, as others have said, is about gameplay. Until we have played the game (in beta or otherwise) there is little point to extrapolating guesswork and getting very worked up about it.
Saying that an engineer will give exactly the same result every time, because they do right now, is both irrelevant and demonstrably false. See my Formula 1 engine example. Right now Lewis Hamilton is BEGGING for a result identical to the testing engine he had.
This is, as others have said, is about gameplay. Until we have played the game (in beta or otherwise) there is little point to extrapolating guesswork and getting very worked up about it.
Last edited:
I think he was talking about the basic modules.
Which are mass produced, always available, and 100% identical.
Blackcompany
Banned
Mick is a Weapons Tinkerer (Engineer).
"Hey, Mick."
Mick: "Howdy, Commander. What can I do ya for?"
Me: "I need to shave power use, Mick. Boat's starvin for it."
Mick: "Well, you got that Courier. Speedy little knife fighter. Gets in close real fast.
"How bout we cut the range of your Warrant Scanner and them pulse lasers a bit. I can get you 10% power reduction for every 100m in range reduction. Good till you lose about 300m and 30% or so power draw. You go lower than that, systems get all confused, start to under perform mightily."
Me: "A 30% reduction overall. For each module? That's perfect; go ahead and shave the range; I fight inside anyway.
" Now how can we go bout tweaking those size 3 thrusters for better acceleration?"
Right there. That's how this stuff should work. None of this gamey, crafting and RNG crap.
"Hey, Mick."
Mick: "Howdy, Commander. What can I do ya for?"
Me: "I need to shave power use, Mick. Boat's starvin for it."
Mick: "Well, you got that Courier. Speedy little knife fighter. Gets in close real fast.
"How bout we cut the range of your Warrant Scanner and them pulse lasers a bit. I can get you 10% power reduction for every 100m in range reduction. Good till you lose about 300m and 30% or so power draw. You go lower than that, systems get all confused, start to under perform mightily."
Me: "A 30% reduction overall. For each module? That's perfect; go ahead and shave the range; I fight inside anyway.
" Now how can we go bout tweaking those size 3 thrusters for better acceleration?"
Right there. That's how this stuff should work. None of this gamey, crafting and RNG crap.
J'adore you guys! [haha]
You know all the talk of coffee on the first page was going to attract me here at some point heh!
Promise no coffee stories, or car tales this time.
For once have a sensible.. well, semi-sensible contribution to a thread.
Whilst I really dislike dice in a game about 'blazing your own trail'.. I have had certain thoughts of possibly being able to 'influence' the items.
So in the real world, you seldom find an engineer to actually do everything perfectly.. What if... each modification was indeed a separate modification? So any engineer can do any job badly (or well by fluke), but each engineer specializes in a specific field of study. So, perhaps one engineer is a master of optics, so he can help make your laser a certain colour. Maybe another engineers field of expertise is thermodynamics.. perhaps another is energy displacement (for thrust power etc). What I'm getting at is, if you want a great item, each engineer can help you in specific areas, so if you're happy to travel about, work for the engineer's trust, he can help you tweak certain areas.. and ofc you can still have this RNG (arrrgh) stuff, but the margin for error substantially reduces when you enlist the help of a specialist in what you're trying to alter.
Maybe I'm still tanked with vanilla latte, but it sort of makes sense in my head.
I prefer a system of: i get what i paid for.
If i want a certain upgrade for a module or weapon, then i need to work for it, be it getting better reputation with the engineer, gathering materials, credits, whatever. And when i get those things then i get the upgrade, not a chance in getting the upgrade.
If i want a certain upgrade for a module or weapon, then i need to work for it, be it getting better reputation with the engineer, gathering materials, credits, whatever. And when i get those things then i get the upgrade, not a chance in getting the upgrade.
And the argument that the fact they're identical is somehow analogous to a justification of your argument of how RNG is disingenuous with reality is a strawman with nothing behind it. ED is a video game and has heretofore been coded within the rules, expectations and limits of a video game. It was not put into the hands of the players on Day 1 as a finished product nor was it claimed to be a direct and purely accurate simulation of everything that we would find in the alternate reality of the world of Elite: Dangerous should we find ourselves bodily placed in it.
Just stop. There's not much further you can dig this hole before I run out of rope to give you.
Because they are limited to the same specifications, just like CPUs. You'll need to re-read his comments if you want to get the point.
PS
Anyway I'll help you out:
You are saying that every base ship/module is the same when they shouldn't because of mass production:
He is saying that maybe base ships/modules aren't the same, they are just limited to stay with-in failsafe specifications. Engineers modify those specs just like people overclock CPUs and get different results
You:
He talking about base modules again:
Last edited: