Storage in engines.

[EchoMan]

At the moment you can store anything in an engine. And the fuel meter will say you have a full tank if you fill your engine with small bones. This has to change. I have two suggestions:

- Fuels are the only thing possible to store in engines.

or

- Only fuels count for the fuel meter, but you can store anything in the engine.

What do you think?

[Rusalka]

1st option make much more sense of course.

[Pilot]

The second one gives more roleplay opportunity and I like it better as it is now for that reason.

[Piscator]

I don't really see a reason to change something at all. It's common sense not to tank your car with water and we can expect Cantrians to do the same. Mixing up gas with propane is an easy mistake, but you might also accidentally tank your diesel car with gasoline and wonder why it won't move in RL.

If we have the option to restrict the types of raws we're able to put into containers some day, we can of course prohibit a tank from being filled with potatoes, but I would leave anything as it is until then.

[EchoMan]

If we have the option to restrict the types of raws we're able to put into containers some day...

That's exactly what this (#1) fix would implement.

[Piscator]

Well, that depends. It's something different to write a fix that prevents you from putting sand into a gastank and coming up with a consistent and generally applicable system to improve container plausability. If we do it in a too limited/ing manner we will have to heavily revise it later. That's why we shouldn't do something before the greater problem is solved.

Nevertheless, I find it entirely plausible that you can fill water into a tank and that the fuel meter shows this, too.

[EchoMan]

OT :
Not that this is the place or time to have this discussion, but I'm not here to implement stupid hacks. I don't think any of the ProgD members are.

If it had been an urgent fix for a bug that prevented normal game play, then - maybe - a hack like that would have been put in the game, but for making a change to implement a rather cosmetic suggestion, the resulting change should be a dynamic and consistent solution... and it's already pointed out in the Programming Request List in the RD forum.

OnT:
What should be discussed in this thread is how players would like to see it work, not how it will be implemented behind the scenes.

[Doug R.]

I'd like to see engine storage limited to liquids or gasses only.

[Rusalka]

Yeah, it sounds a bit diffcult to fill it up with large bones

[SekoETC]

But then it would be good if the rawtypes table contained a form field, or what ever you'd like to call it, that could have things like gas, liquid, semi-solid (things like stew, porridge, since you could put those in a gas tank although they might be more difficult to remove in real life), granular (sand, sugar, grains, I guess also flours, also things you could pour through a small hole even though they consist of solid particles), flexibles (yarn, cloth, sinew) and actual solids (wood, stone, other minerals, bones, metal). Then you could refer to the number of the state rather than having to list resources by id, and maybe the division could be taken advantage of in other places as well.

[Addicted]

At the moment you can store anything in an engine. And the fuel meter will say you have a full tank if you fill your engine with small bones.
What do you think?

Can you get them out again and put the right stuff in?

If yes, no problem.

If no, then please fix it.

[SumBum]

Can you get them out again and put the right stuff in?

Yes. This all started over confusion that the resource "gas" was the equivalent of fuel and it was suggested that only things that operate as fuel should be allowed to put in the tank.

I'm not really for or against this suggestion. We've already restricted who can put things into the tanks, so there's not as much problem of people attempting sabotage by filling the tank with potatoes etc. I'd rather programmers spend time on other things - I don't see this as a high priority.

[EchoMan]

I'd rather programmers spend time on other things - I don't see this as a high priority.

I've said this before, and I'll do it again.

It's not the suggestion forums job to set programming priorities, so that is not a valid argument in the discussion. In this case, we already have a prioritized task to implement that only certain things should be storable in certain containers, so the development of this fix will be implemented no matter what.

What should be discussed here is how the players would like things to work.