Ok, I am on the opposite direction. I want to remove the multiple sectors and use SUPERhighways inside each single sector.
This seems the best layout, Rebirth's like.
The general idea of layout is this:
*SINGLE CLUSTER/sector level (they coincide, no more multi-) containing one planet + 1/2 reachable moons (others as scenic)
- No highways
- yes Superhighways, simple straight one going from planet to moon + one superhighway going from moon to "exit" zone, kind of Lagrange zone, where TRANSORBITAL ACC. are
** MULTIPLE CLUSTERS level
- each cluster is connected to the parental, all together they are a system (multiple planets). Around one sun.
- these are internally connected through ACCELERATORS not gates
*** SYSTEM to SYSTEM layout
- each group of cluster (system) is connected to other groups of clusters
- the connection is in one of the external cluster (like an external planet of a system)
- this connection has to be through GATES
This general idea is already in the game's design but was NOT developed except in some small examples, disconected, and not following the right hierarchy
the rest is....random..
This randomness spoils immersion a lot for me!
Having a gate that teleports you in the lower orbit of a planet is killing immersion!
The game looks back to a box to box space, what were X2 and X3. But this engine is capable of much more
Up to now I only managed to remake the layout of galaxy, that was easy. At least visually, clusters are regrouped in a better way, solarsystem-like
Next step removing multi-sectors and pointing SUPERHIGHWAYS to a position inside the same single sector...now the first issue.
This is the code in clusters.xml for Nopileous Fort. that describes the superhw
Code: Select all
<connection name="SuperHighway001_Cluster_04_connection" ref="sechighways">
<offset>
<position x="-50000" y="0" z="-80000000" />
</offset>
<macro ref="SuperHighway001_Cluster_04_macro" connection="cluster">
<connections>
<connection ref="exitpoint">
<macro ref="tzoneCluster_04_Sector001SHCon6_GateZone_macro" path="../../Cluster_04_Sector001_connection/tzoneCluster_04_Sector001SHCon6_GateZone_connection" connection="entrypoint1" />
</connection>
<connection ref="entrypoint">
<macro ref="tzoneCluster_04_Sector002SHCon5_GateZone_macro" path="../../Cluster_04_Sector002_connection/tzoneCluster_04_Sector002SHCon5_GateZone_connection" connection="exitpoint1" />
</connection>
</connections>
</macro>
</connection>
<connection name="SuperHighway002_Cluster_04_connection" ref="sechighways">
<offset>
<position x="-50000" y="0" z="-80000000" />
</offset>
<macro ref="SuperHighway002_Cluster_04_macro" connection="cluster">
<connections>
<connection ref="entrypoint">
<macro ref="tzoneCluster_04_Sector001SHCon10_GateZone_macro" path="../../Cluster_04_Sector001_connection/tzoneCluster_04_Sector001SHCon10_GateZone_connection" connection="exitpoint1" />
</connection>
<connection ref="exitpoint">
<macro ref="tzoneCluster_04_Sector002SHCon9_GateZone_macro" path="../../Cluster_04_Sector002_connection/tzoneCluster_04_Sector002SHCon9_GateZone_connection" connection="entrypoint1" />
</connection>
</connections>
</macro>
</connection>
I already changed the distances to 80.000km and it works flawlessly between 2 sectors.
Deleting the second sector (002) was also easy, but superhighways disappear even if I move the old zones from 002 to 001
the entry/exit points contain a connection, because they point to a different sector (despite inside the same cluster)? Or it has to be written like this always? (I have no example of single sector with superhighways to see)
May I delete this totally, since it points at the same sector? Or should I change the Sector002 reference to Sector001?
