安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文(繁体中文)
日本語(日语)
한국어(韩语)
ไทย(泰语)
български(保加利亚语)
Čeština(捷克语)
Dansk(丹麦语)
Deutsch(德语)
English(英语)
Español-España(西班牙语 - 西班牙)
Español - Latinoamérica(西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲)
Ελληνικά(希腊语)
Français(法语)
Italiano(意大利语)
Bahasa Indonesia(印度尼西亚语)
Magyar(匈牙利语)
Nederlands(荷兰语)
Norsk(挪威语)
Polski(波兰语)
Português(葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙)
Português-Brasil(葡萄牙语 - 巴西)
Română(罗马尼亚语)
Русский(俄语)
Suomi(芬兰语)
Svenska(瑞典语)
Türkçe(土耳其语)
Tiếng Việt(越南语)
Українська(乌克兰语)
报告翻译问题








Instead of having a thousand thrusters on the back of a huge ship, you have a dozen or so with expansive modules stretching into the depths of the ship, incresing power of the few thrusters at the cost of increased power consumption and reduced efficiency, needing more power for the dozen thruster than for the thousand.
I can do an afterburner like upgrade, where you get massive boost to output but, severely increase the power req/fuel as well.
I don't know about variable speed benefits, like that push module. I don't know if it'd be worth it either. It'd probably just be best to use the afterburner module, since it'd be the same thing essentially. Get to speed quickly then turn it off.
I don't think I could do the capacitor either, maybe but, I think it's unlikely.
A simple afterburner and upgrade module (increased power as if adding another thruster essentially) are about what I was thinking. Maybe I'll look at designing stuff in the future for things revolving around a higher max speed. Just dealing with vanilla speed right now.
To lower the strain on the power grid.
Something else I was wondering about (not a request just curious): is it possible to program an engine that ONLY acts as an inertial dampener?
Not any more for only inertial dampeners, at least not easily. I could ask around and see if any of the programmers know if it'd be possible via scripts.
-less energy
-fewer reactors (also slightly less mass)
Cons:
-take up quite some space (kinda big)
-expensive to manufacture
approach 1:
pro: reduces energy consumption(a bit)
con: requires just space and slots
approach 2:
pro: reduces energy consumption by a lot
con: reduces thrust, increases spooling time, produces heat, ...
Maybe both for diversity?
Also at first I didnt like the heat mechanic that much, because it can be annoying when your thruster seemingly randomly gets destroyed and it would be almost impossible to monitor the heat level of each thruster. Instead of breaking, the thruster could just turn off and turn back on after it cooled down. Before the safety turn off there could be a message displayed, like "Thruster X is overheating", similar to meteor storm notifications. That would be a noticable downside without screwing you completely.
Also about the modules and nodes: I thought of all heaving the same size of just one cube, with the modules having just on face to connect to a node.
I'll ask Cheetah what he thinks of this idea.