Module rotation

[axlar2]

I have recently gotten into the whole station building part of X4. The station building is fun but fairly limited in terms of what you can construct and what you can't, where some modules are used waaaay more than others (looking at you 4-way connector). However when I started experimenting with construction plans I came to the realisation that it was indeed possible to build your station in a far cooler and more complex way. It is possible to edit the "constructionplans.xml" and add the pitch and roll axis to the different station modules thus enabling production modules and the likes to be placed almost anywhere on a station. Below is a construction plan that has some edited elements, I do not know how this affects pathing and long term gameplay but the engine seems to accept the edited construction plans. The in-game snapping mechanic dose not like it though

It would also be interested to hear the devs opinion on this, is this a future feature, something that's going to be patched out or just an undocumented feature (bug)?

When you resave the construction plans the game seems to translate the pitch, yaw and roll axis into quaternions.

Code: Select all

<plan id="player_1553717969" name="Test2">
<entry index="1" macro="struct_arg_cross_01_macro">
<offset>
<position x="-33.232" y="-359.76" z="53.803"/>
</offset>
</entry>
<entry index="2" macro="pier_arg_harbor_02_macro" connection="connectionsnap002">
<predecessor index="1" connection="connectionsnap006"/>
<offset>
<position x="-33.232" y="40.24" z="253.803"/>
<quaternion qx="0.5" qy="0.5" qz="0.5" qw="-0.5"/>
</offset>
</entry>
<entry index="3" macro="prod_gen_refinedmetals_macro">
<offset>
<position x="840.666" y="-965.065" z="257.927"/>
<quaternion qx="0.5" qy="0.5" qz="-0.5" qw="0.5"/>
</offset>
</entry>
<entry index="4" macro="prod_gen_refinedmetals_macro">
<offset>
<position x="-931.399" y="-959.762" z="-148.015"/>
<quaternion qx="-0.5" qy="0.5" qz="-0.5" qw="-0.5"/>
</offset>
</entry>
<entry index="5" macro="prod_gen_refinedmetals_macro">
<offset>
<position x="167.951" y="-959.771" z="-842.551"/>
<quaternion qy="0.707107" qz="-0.707107" qw="-3.09086e-08"/>
</offset>
</entry>
<entry index="6" macro="prod_gen_refinedmetals_macro">
<offset>
<position x="-201.874" y="-985.401" z="902.324"/>
<quaternion qx="0.707107" qw="0.707107"/>
</offset>
</entry>
</plan>

Would be cool to see what people could do it this was a feature in the game.

[axlar2]

Some images of the example above + a few more modules added with the in-game editor:

https://i.imgur.com/Z855Rjs.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/w770KlT.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/LMObfAl.jpg

The docking and space traffic generated by the station also seems to just work.


{Images posted directly to the forums should not be greater than 640x480 or 100kb, oversize image now linked - Terre}

[Buzz2005]

this has to make vannila!!!

[Imperial Good]

Almost certainly an oversight, possibly for ease of programming/convenience. Such plans should fail to load, or at least fail to pass a design rules check if loaded if the game had one to start with. You may find this is not just limited to setting rotation, but also for making stations far bigger than the plot size such as 100x100x100km station.

Station building really needs a design rules check before module changes can be confirmed. This should check that no modules collide with each other, no modules are out of bounds and that all docking volumes are clear.

[adeine]

Certainly would be cool if we could rotate modules more freely, but I have a feeling the current UI would need some work for it to be useful.

[Loneshade]

Don't do collision checks please.
Its a single player game - so if anyone wants to have stupid looking station sticking within themselves let them.... but there are (albeit rare) cases where it absolutely makes sense (and looks good) to have parts stick into one another, I'd not want to loose that ability nor would I like huge spacing between each module.

[Lone_Wolf_3115]

Certainly would be cool if we could rotate modules more freely, but I have a feeling the current UI would need some work for it to be useful.

Unless there have been changes since this post, I would think my question about being able to Easily Rotate the Modules is still NO??

[axlar2]

The game engine seems to handle everything correctly when you play around with rotated parts. It only seems to be the editor that freaks out when you try to snap rotated parts to other parts, sometimes it places the parts on the wrong side and sometimes they are placed correctly but snaps to the wrong connection point.

If egosoft ever where to update the station editor I believe that this feature could easily be implemented and would add a lot in terms of what you can do with your station designs.

[Horux]

Almost certainly an oversight, possibly for ease of programming/convenience. Such plans should fail to load, or at least fail to pass a design rules check if loaded if the game had one to start with. You may find this is not just limited to setting rotation, but also for making stations far bigger than the plot size such as 100x100x100km station.

Station building really needs a design rules check before module changes can be confirmed. This should check that no modules collide with each other, no modules are out of bounds and that all docking volumes are clear.

Why? What is the bad impact if there are less design rules?
The only thing I would agree is the docking module. I personally would like to have an information, if a module collide with another, because the preview is missing some external parts of modules sometimes. But only for information, for the players who do not want collisions. All other should have the freedom to build incredible stations.

[Imperial Good]

Don't do collision checks please.
Its a single player game - so if anyone wants to have stupid looking station sticking within themselves let them.... but there are (albeit rare) cases where it absolutely makes sense (and looks good) to have parts stick into one another, I'd not want to loose that ability nor would I like huge spacing between each module.

Nothing would stop such people from using a mod to disable it.

Some overlap should be allowed, eg 10% since it is kind of realistic that compromises could be made for a more compact design. However currently nothing stops one from having an infinite volume overlap since one can literally stack modules on top of each other repeatedly with 100% overlap. This makes plot sizes pointless since even the smallest plots could be made to fit as good as everything one needs in them.

Additionally nothing currently stops one from making a ~60x60x60 station since bounds are only checked for the dragged module and not any attached to it...

If egosoft ever where to update the station editor I believe that this feature could easily be implemented and would add a lot in terms of what you can do with your station designs.

They probably left it out intentionally? This fits the entire up and down orientation theme applied to the universe.

Why? What is the bad impact if there are less design rules?

Plot sizes are pointless. Can be used to make impossibly powerful defence stations. Looks extremely bad. Feels extremely unpolished. The list goes on and on.

If people want freedom they can always install mod. Similar to what people do already when they want tougher enemies, or old X3 style ships, or less derpy auto traders, etc. However I prefer good polished gameplay.

[pref]

Additionally nothing currently stops one from making a ~60x60x60 station since bounds are only checked for the dragged module and not any attached to it...

That's pretty neat imo, shouldn't ever be changed.
Especially since you cannot control what happens to wares between your factories, only by constant manual trading.

Way better then placing a handful of 20x20x20 stations next to each other.

Payment should be adjusted to actual plot size though.

[Imperial Good]

Additionally nothing currently stops one from making a ~60x60x60 station since bounds are only checked for the dragged module and not any attached to it...

That's pretty neat imo, shouldn't ever be changed.
Especially since you cannot control what happens to wares between your factories, only by constant manual trading.

Way better then placing a handful of 20x20x20 stations next to each other.

Payment should be adjusted to actual plot size though.

The problem is that the plot size is still just 20x20x20 at best and using the above XML modification technique one could possibly make 1,000x1,000x1,000 stations or worse. The game is almost certainly not designed for this. One can expect NPCs to build stations inside your station since as far as they are aware your station only exists in your plot.

Hence what really needs to happen is that bounds are checked for all modules during placement, not just the one being dragged. Not only does this make a lot more sense from a player perspective, but it also reduces potential bug/problem exposure since the developers do not have to consider or manage such station cases.

One really has no excuse to need a station larger than 20x20x20. Building up a single such station fully without overlapping modules will take several game months, if not even game years depending on the modules being built. It currently is only possible by extensive SETA AFK time. Even then that single station would literally have more production output than the sum of all NPC stations in the entire X4 universe. People have fully functional self sufficient shipyard/warfs that only take up a small fraction of a 20x20x20 plot.

[pref]

The problem is that the plot size is still just 20x20x20 at best and using the above XML modification technique one could possibly make 1,000x1,000x1,000 stations or worse. The game is almost certainly not designed for this. One can expect NPCs to build stations inside your station since as far as they are aware your station only exists in your plot.

One really has no excuse to need a station larger than 20x20x20. Building up a single such station fully without overlapping modules will take several game months, if not even game years depending on the modules being built. It currently is only possible by extensive SETA AFK time. Even then that single station would literally have more production output than the sum of all NPC stations in the entire X4 universe. People have fully functional self sufficient shipyard/warfs that only take up a small fraction of a 20x20x20 plot.

What does hacking XML do with anything? You can mess up game data and spoil your game in an infinite ways.
You don't have to do it.

The biggest problem with 20x20x20 is that you have to build a cube, which looks pretty bad imo. The volume is probably fine but i don't like cubes.

The build times you mention aren't valid, but that again is irrelevant just as much your problem with output - you can achieve that same 60*60*60 structure with factories placed next to each other but then you have the issue of station management.
And again nothing forces you to build bigger stations, and those who like that need no excuse for it just because you don't like it. Why should ES waste time on stuff that just limits design or produces more trade micro and has no additional value.

The only issue i see here is being able to cheat on plot payments. Though that isn't as bad as it sounds as you are better off buying the adjacent plots to cover your whole structure.

[Ezarkal]

The biggest problem with 20x20x20 is that you have to build a cube, which looks pretty bad imo. The volume is probably fine but i don't like cubes.

Gotta agree with that. There are more than one way to spread a volume of 8000 to 10000 km³.

Altough you have to admit a 20 x 20 pane still give you a nice degree of freedom to plan your builds.
Considering the so very rad stuff you've shown on these forums, you probably find this too small.
But you can't claim to be the average station builder either.

[linolafett]

There is a technical limit on the size of the plots. It has to do with the "octrees" used to generate information about where station parts are so that ships can navigate around and through stations.
The limit is not much above the exposed 20km side lenght.

[Ezarkal]

Well... It still makes for a pretty good Borg cube...

[pref]

Altough you have to admit a 20 x 20 pane still give you a nice degree of freedom to plan your builds.
Considering the so very rad stuff you've shown on these forums, you probably find this too small.
But you can't claim to be the average station builder either.

I'm not saying it's small, but wouldn't be happy if ES introduced mechanics that actually enforce the restriction.
And 'm sure there are lots of enormous stations, lots of people talk about their gigaplexes - just not all of them comes and tries to brag about them on the forums. Which is a pity, would love to see more station designs.

[pref]

There is a technical limit on the size of the plots. It has to do with the "octrees" used to generate information about where station parts are so that ships can navigate around and through stations.
The limit is not much above the exposed 20km side lenght.

I was watching my station which extends to about 1.5-2x the 20x20 area and navigation was near perfect. Docking and fighting seemed to work perfectly. I even built some tubes (outside the plot boundary) and ships navigated it really well.
3D pathing seems really good to me in this game, even though people like to complain about it.
Might be i just got lucky, but i really did everything to mess with the algorithms.

[Nort The Fragrent]

Having the opportunity to overlap modules gives rise to a more interesting looking station build. We can get away from the standard look.
As the game generates so much loot, I now buy the largest plot every time, Then the scope to build what you like is not restricted .

Most of my stations have no connectors at all, they are used for positioning modules only then removed from the final build.

This allows better ship movement, Put your storage down low in your plot, Put your production modules in the middle, and have Piers and docks at the top of your plot. Make sure your Plot focus (Icon) is at the top of your plot.

One thing I would like on a flat dock, is a better observation point when walking around. So I can see better whats around.

As for the snap function, it needs revision. Some of the time its pot luck if you get your module where you intend it to be!
Why it doesn't snap to where your cursor is eludes me!

On the whole the Station build is brilliant and is the best part of the game.

[Imperial Good]

What does hacking XML do with anything? You can mess up game data and spoil your game in an infinite ways.
You don't have to do it.

Because this probably does not even mark ones save as "modified". Unlike actual XML data mods.

The build times you mention aren't valid, but that again is irrelevant just as much your problem with output - you can achieve that same 60*60*60 structure with factories placed next to each other but then you have the issue of station management.

Being a limiting factor to actually using such large volumes, it clearly is a valid point...

And again nothing forces you to build bigger stations, and those who like that need no excuse for it just because you don't like it. Why should ES waste time on stuff that just limits design or produces more trade micro and has no additional value.

And as they officially stated, the reason there is a 20x20x20 limit is technical. Exceeding that limit enters the realm of undefined and buggy behaviour, the likes of which should not exist in well polished gameplay.

If people really want to build big broken stations they could always use a mod to do so. In the same line as you argue, nothing forces you to have to obey the rules and play unmodified.

I'm not saying it's small, but wouldn't be happy if ES introduced mechanics that actually enforce the restriction.

And I am sure plenty of other players would actually be happy if they did enforce the restriction. For example I want to build stations which make sense and at the moment it is very hard to. Like when I try to drag a module with many modules attached to it I can accidently end up placing some modules out of bounds. Or when I am trying to place modules on other modules it might snap to a nonsense position. I might not even notice that 2 modules are overlapping unless I spend ages checking for it.

Again, if people want to make nonsense stations they can always use mods to disable such limits.

Most of my stations have no connectors at all, they are used for positioning modules only then removed from the final build.

Which can be considered an exploit. Since you can build such stations with less resources than intended by cutting out on connectors.

This allows better ship movement, Put your storage down low in your plot, Put your production modules in the middle, and have Piers and docks at the top of your plot. Make sure your Plot focus (Icon) is at the top of your plot.

Currently why stop there? You can place all modules inside each other inside the storage and have all docks on all edges! This is why design rule checks are needed...