Lurkily

Tags are already generic across multiple interfaces; they're standard. There's nothing right now that brings up new options based on which sensor target you select. If it's an easy fix, that'd be great, but I'm aware that it may not be. UI work can be notoriously finicky.

Kylo Hen.

If would require a customization of the UI when position trackers are selected, which the devs have historically been hesitant to implement; the UI is as generic per-part as possible given the features presented, and that probably makes their job a lot easier on the coding side of things. Each part has their own UI settings, but no part setting like sensor targets has a unique setting like this, which makes me suspect there's no UI support for it presently. Not that that support can't be created, of course; I just can't see a way to jimmy it into the UI without requiring it to do more than it can do now.

I'm racking my head for a way to fit this into the current UI cleanly, and I'm having trouble. I thought of assigning colors that would be added to sensor target lists (Track blue position tracker, green position tracker, etc) or names, but that would result in a VERY crowded list or targets. In short, I'd like to be able to track a SPECIFIC tracker, rather than just . . . trackers.

I'd like to see position trackers project a tracing location offset from themselves. Like distance sensors, give them a range. Adjusting that range would extend the triangular 'point' that is tracked forward from the block. This would let you do things like put a formation flyer off your wing without tracking multiple trackers (currently impossible). It would let you use tracers as a laser-targeter for weapons, and a dozen other things I can't imagine right now.

Words turning bright colors is a new one on me. You might try the audiobooks, though.

Hell, have you seen a normal moose? They're ridiculous. I had always thought a moose was maybe a bit bigger than a big draft horse. They're as tall as a bus, without exaggerating. They don't need a horn to be a mythical beast.

Is that some kind of dyslexia?

I love what they did with the opening; it's fantastically sung, and the technique of providing a recap as a variant verse in the opening song makes me not hate recaps.

Try checking out one of these: I'll merge this into one of them (and possibly merge some of those when I get a chance to investigate whether it makes sense) later on, when I have more time. It will help the devs, and your idea, more to upvote ideas with support already collected, so that the devs can gauge the popularity of one idea, rather than try to tally votes that may be split between topics, or duplicated in two topics. It will also help to make discrete suggestions - such as large and powerful weapons to reduce lag - rather than nebulous things like 'we need more stuff.' This forum here is used as a tracking system, so a topic without a concrete thing to implement and check off a list isn't really suited to it - the discussion and feedback forum is more of a traditional message board, suited to general feedback and brainstorming.

No, it's cool, nitpicking is what pulls complex ideas into clear implementations. I'm just a grumpy little shit right now.

I figure that seeing the arrow rotate as you move the slider would provide the visual cue, but you could always put CW and CCW on either end of the slider if it's confusing.

Really, mean, it's like writing a book. If you don't have a reason, invent one. The matter conversion matrices have to be configured to match the regions quantum resonance signature before it can alter the resonance of cosmic strings to change vacuum into matter. There you go. Honestly, though, as long as there is still progress to be made with resources, parts and upgrades to buy, I wouldn't use a factory; a choice between progress and factory use isn't really a choice for me.

What I mean to say is, they would make a good candidate for this weapon. Prevent damage from impacts in their cardinal direction, and scale physics damage to velocity and impact direction. Eliminate regular damage altogether.

I would have it list a degree setting, not lock it to 90 degrees. To illustrate, I would rotate the arrow relative to the thrust nozzle. Arrow points to the target, but the thrust nozzle maintains its orientation relative to it.

The design I posted above, seeking the rabbit, did just fine; but they strung out in a line, since they didn't have a 'center'. If a rabbit-seeking drone was their target it might be more problematic. What I really wanna see in this thread is @Entity's 25-second racer.

That's just stupid. The Earth is a doughnut.

It's entirely possible they are wigging out a little on you - in my first run with vector thrusters, I also found some oddities, such as smushing me against a track edge and ignoring the rabbit.

Next you're gonna tell me we're all riding a wildly spinning ball doing a disco-shimmy around a massive fusion bomb that'll keep on exploding for billions of years.

That show rolled out like gangbusters and wrapped up like a nun's acid trip.

Wow. The vector thrust makes things almost TOO easy. This is a basic swarm drone. A vector thruster on a bottom-heavy drone, so the thruster leads it. Reverse it to avoid crowding in the front, strafe thrust on the side responsive to their sensors. This is babytown frolics. A nine-part swarm drone; kinda weirdly easy. I'm not used to easy.

Hum. I wonder about swarms on racetracks. Just . . . because.

I can reproduce this on demand, pretty much. I get that stresses break it, but then they point the wrong way, as if they broke the rabbit. Drone file attached. Snake racer.drn

I noticed that you can't offset a vector thruster by rotating it. For instance, suppose I wanted its trust to put it alongside an object. If you set it to thrust 90 degrees to the right of your drone core, it would circle your core until it was to the left of the thruster. You could visualize this by rotating the arrow on the vector thruster to point toward the offset, which would default to 0 degrees. (Straight toward the target.)