Cantr II Discussion Forum

From the discussion of fuel implementation.

If we allow engines to be disassembled, we may as well allow all objects and machines to be disassembled. Does everyone agree? Let's discuss specifics that will need to be addressed.

-components should have the same deterioration state as the original.

-built objects should have the deterioration state of the most worn component

-You need the same tools to disassemble as you do to build

-not buildings or vehicles (at this time)

More?

Doug, this is a completely different suggestion. Disassembling engines and all machines, which are constructed from only one object is different then disassembling all machines and objects.

Imagine following problems:
- some objects are constructed from many objects and resources
- some objects are constructed from different objects (like telescope, which needs lens).
- many objects consist of subproducts, which need not to be repeaired (all of the weapons). It could be a free method to store as many wepons as possible, without repeairing them)

Ok. However, can you implement the dissasembly of engines in a manner that would allow us to easily adapt it to other objects in the future?

The biggest problem I see is that we can't have projects with multiple outputs at the moment. If that would be possible we could probably extend the code to machines quite easily, but I was under the impression double outputs were a highly difficult task.

Piscator wrote:but I was under the impression double outputs were a highly difficult task.

I have no idea why this would be.

Well, me neither, but that's what I heard (or remember to have heard). I guess we better wait for someone with actual knowledge of the code though.

I'm actually not especially bothered by disassembling everything, but presumably we could use the engine removal code to make it possible to really customise vehicles?

What I mean is, removing the engine gives you back engine parts and allows you to build another engine. Could we not use a similar system with, say, wheels? Allow cars to have just one engine/set of wheels/seats (for resting?)/clutch and so on. I think this would also allow a much more realistic deterioration of vehicles when we get around to that, as replacing the gearbox is alot more of a common repair then general repairs to the whole vehicle...

I also think what we should do is alter the engine building project to include some raw iron/steel. Then, when you remove the engine you only get the parts and lose the iron/steel. That would provide a material cost for changing engines without actually altering current code at all.

Interesting idea.

Any news on the potential disassembly of engines?

As this is partially implemented, moved to implemented.

Can we get a warning message, like when locks are broken?

[quote="Doug R."]Can we get a warning message, like when locks are broken?[/quote]

Seconded. This is a good idea.

A "You see ZW starting disassembling XY." and a "You start disassembling XY." message are ready for translation. If they are not shown yet there might be a bug somewhere.

I was thinking of there maybe being the possibility of building disassembly now?
But perhaps make it available to Machinless, roomless, itemless, lockless, and personless only buildings and extensions...

It's in the cards. However, buildings being completely different, the mechanism pretty much has to be written from scratch.

I know that I am but one player, but this new disassembly stuff now has me paranoid with a few characters. These characters live in towns where there is a building, or buildings, of public access that allow for public use of machinery. The thought that some newspawn or random traveller could just pop into one of these buildings and start taking everything apart really worries me.

But here's where I stand: If you allow for the dissasembling of machinery, why not allow for the cancellation of projects that are halfway finished? In RL, if someone was to meddle with a machine, and I caught them, I would simply repair the machine as is. I wouldn't have to fully dissemble it before re-assembling it. In my opinion, this dissembling process should only be allowed if the project can be cancelled in the middle of being finished.