Module rotation

[pref]

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.

So? Then some random guy messes up their save like that - has no consequences for you.

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.

It's a dev confirmed feature, stations are fully functional without connecting modules. Again why worry that some guy paid less for their build? It has zero influence on your games.

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...

There is no limiting factor, you can build any amount of modules in any volume your hardware can handle either way. We are talking about having to split a certain amount of modules to several plots or not.
And how limiting output/station volume of some other players could be a valid point anyway? You are free to design your own economy as you see fit.

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.

Why would it enter the realm of buggy behaviour? Be broken? ES did not make this impossible, if it could cause huge problems they would have surely done it, and i haven't noticed any issues either.
And you don't have to exceed it ever during gameplay.
I made a thread specifically to ask this before starting my first bigger build, and all the answers stated it works, which fits my experience as well.

A much better solution would be, if it needs any attention at all, to auto split the station to manageable parts, or allow assigning adjacent plots to the same manager and have a single set of associated trade ships for the whole thing, as the drawback with your suggestion is having to set up several stations instead of one to keep the intended layout/design.

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

I can assure you all my stations make perfect sense, so don't worry about that
Anyway all checking bounds takes is to look at your station from a couple angles before clicking on finish, it isn't "very hard" at all. And i think yours is the first post wishing for designer limitations, but i have seen several in favour of things like possibility of overlaps, increasing size during design, or not needing connectors.

Generally speaking better feedback and expanding abilities works out better then spending time on limiting possibilities.

So perhaps adding a warning that you are outside bounds and costs will increase would perfectly satisfy your needs, there is no reason to not allow other players to extend the plot during design phase.
Still then i see much worse problems that would need some care.

- Like the snapping you mention, being able to connect by clicking the two connection points would be a great solution, i see that as a much higher priority improvement then your limit suggestions.

- Being able to set a "root" node for a set of connected stations by which it can be moved, rotated or connected.

- Highlighting overlaps could also be useful, but again no reason to forbid it.

- Being able to place a dock in a bad way is also an issue, which will hurt pathing in a mere 5x5x5 when the path from the anchor point to the docking ports intersects geometry. Maybe visual feedback for that and being able to move the anchor point in design phase could be useful.

- Also more freedom with rotation like OP suggests would be really nice in designer - i also often missed that as it allows for much better and more creative designs.
I had some ideas that i had to forget, maybe i'll revisit them and edit the build plan directly next. Wanted to make a spherical layout out of the microchip and silicon refinery modules at first, with this it might be possible.

TL;DR
Station designer is one of the best features, would be a really bad idea to limit it instead of expanding it.

[Nort The Fragrent]

Having freedom to build as you please gives a nice element of personalisation to the game.
Lets hope that ES, can include a similar ship build/design feature latter on, so we can make better looking ships as well.

[Imperial Good]

So? Then some random guy messes up their save like that - has no consequences for you.

Except they do not mess up their save doing this? Instead they can do impossible things in an unmodified game.

It's a dev confirmed feature, stations are fully functional without connecting modules. Again why worry that some guy paid less for their build? It has zero influence on your games.

Then what is the point of connectors at all?

There is no limiting factor, you can build any amount of modules in any volume your hardware can handle either way.

It is a limiting factor since filling such volume with modules might take a near impossible time due to how slow modules are built. A single module can take up to 30 minutes to complete, and assuming 20 modules by 20 modules with 10 layers that is a total completion time of 2,000 game hours or over 83 game days. Even if faster 15 minute modules were used that is still over 40 game days. Most players will not play a continuous playthrough for that amount of time unless using exclusively SETA.

And how limiting output/station volume of some other players could be a valid point anyway? You are free to design your own economy as you see fit.

Except one is not since there are no DRCs for a particular build style a player wants to use, instead with the system allowing them to do stuff they might not want.

Why would it enter the realm of buggy behaviour? Be broken? ES did not make this impossible, if it could cause huge problems they would have surely done it, and i haven't noticed any issues either.
And you don't have to exceed it ever during gameplay.

One of the developers already explained this in this very topic so I have no idea why you are asking me...

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.

Yes it might still work some of the time, but I am sure one can create cases where it will not work or work badly. Not working or badly working stuff is not a good sign of a well polished game.

A much better solution would be, if it needs any attention at all, to auto split the station to manageable parts, or allow assigning adjacent plots to the same manager and have a single set of associated trade ships for the whole thing, as the drawback with your suggestion is having to set up several stations instead of one to keep the intended layout/design.

You could always use mods to make impossible stations.

Anyway all checking bounds takes is to look at your station from a couple angles before clicking on finish, it isn't "very hard" at all. And i think yours is the first post wishing for designer limitations, but i have seen several in favour of things like possibility of overlaps, increasing size during design, or not needing connectors.

A visual look does not always work due to perspective, especially if one is pushing the limits of plot space. And this is not stating the obvious that it is extremely inconsistent game logic. Why can you not place modules out of bounds yet the same module attached to another one can be dragged out of bounds?

- Highlighting overlaps could also be useful, but again no reason to forbid it.

Game polish is the reason to forbid it since overlapping looks ugly and feels low quality. What is the point of such a powerful station builder when it is not needed and one could plonk everything inside each other?

It also makes sense from a X series perspective since overlapping stations were not allowed in X3. Well technically they were allowed, but would potentially destroy each other due to constant collision damage, a mechanic missing from X4 which acted as an implicit DRC.

- Also more freedom with rotation like OP suggests would be really nice in designer - i also often missed that as it allows for much better and more creative designs.

I am fairly sure rotation is restricted for a reason. This should be kind of obvious by how even the AI and AI designs obey rotation restrictions.

[Lone_Wolf_3115]

I am fairly sure rotation is restricted for a reason. This should be kind of obvious by how even the AI and AI designs obey rotation restrictions.

As I look at Pre-Built Stations, I do not see Large Ship Dock Units that appear to have section Imbedded into other Module Sections the way they look to be when I build them. Everything Facing West on the Build Screen seems to me that it would make more since to Change a West Facing Unit to face East now and then.
There should be a way to do that without Players needing to re-program Code in their Individual game....