Garheardt the Black

Aye, my initial concern was how multiple cores might effect performance. Barring that, more carnage!

I could get behind those changes. Some kind of option to have a hinge "ratchet" before breaking would also make me very happy.

Fair enough!

It might be fun to have a variant of Sumo that includes three or more drones with low-ish part limits. It could become quite the spectacle.

I noticed a while back that combining some existing parts with a little creative design resulted in drones impervious to any projectile subject to physics. It took some work to do the first time, but after I got it , it wasn't cosmic. For this reason, I don't see anything game changing here. With enough resource and mechanical limitations, this is functionally the same thing. It's not my cup of tea, but mileage may vary.

(Can't tell if dancing or seizing)

I, too, created a puncher and actually managed to make it pretty reliable with the help of magnets. It wasn't terrible at killing bugs, but collision damage, even with spikes and at high speeds, isn't comparable with weapon damage. Nests, being treated as terrain with a mass of ∞ tend to break your drone before you broke them.

Rather than listing parts with active discussions in the parts tab, I'll toss a shoutout at a part that more accurately detects proximity. The current distance sensor is either in a zero state or a one. It either detects or it doesn't. I'd love to have a bunch of settings that allow me to send different signals from a distance sensor depending on the range of what it detects. While it's possible to create a similar effect by using a large number of sensors, having to cluster ten or more sensors seems more tedious than practical. A more sophisticated version would allow for more responsive drones. Also, a distance sensor that can be configured to act as a range finder would allow for the creation of radar capable of capturing enough real-time information to math-hammer a remote targeting device capable of accurately directing automated weapon fire, which is probably one of the cooler ways to end up on a government watch list.

To clarify, motorized hinges recently received the option to adjust the speed of their motion. Were you referring to an inability to adjust a motorized hinges movement speed during a mission? I would definitely like to see motorized hinges become more attractive. I use them for an elaborate hanger bay door in one setup, but it required a great deal of troubleshooting to get the motion to work without looking tacky or failing unexpectedly. activating the door with anything short of a carefully calibrated logic block was asking to blow the whole door off, trapping the drone inside. For other moving parts, I've found motor-less hinges actuated by thrusters are often more effective, which seems like a missed opportunity.

I don't know whether creating a part that allows it's children to query the hub without adding signals to it would be more or less intuitive in the long run. Would that limit drone capability versus your proposition, Lurkily?

That works!

I'd love to have the ability to toggle proximity sensors to have a mode where they are inactive and a mode where they are active, but invisible. I've been rotating them to create short range radar, but the spinning lights can get overwhelming. I'd love to keep the function without the visual clutter. Thanks!

Nor I. For the most part, all I was reliably able to make it do was negate the splitter, defeating the whole point of the thing 😆

Interesting. I tried something similar, but the moment I put a wireless part in, the turrets started to cross talk. I wonder what I did different?

Aye, good thoughts. I wanted autonomous turrets that I could still give commands to, like when to actively seek targets and later to cease and retract. I was able to get a prototype working, but had to program the individual parts one at a time. Because who wouldn't want a battleship with functional gun ports armed with retractable autonomous guns?

I figured that multiple signal interference is already a hazard we have to avoid, such as when one launches a new copy of a drone when a partially destroyed one is still sending signals. In that light, I'd suggest letting the directional sensor get confused since if it's getting multiple identical signals, it's going to be sending multiple identical signals . The trick would be "don't let that happen." (And or attach TNT to your beacon)

I just programmed ten automated turrets for a battleship and either of those parts would have saved me 90% of the work!

That could work too!

Hello again! I suggest a modification to the directional sensor that would: -Allow you to select "Signal" as the target. - Have a blank where a tag can be designated as the signal -Make any source emitting the tag (signal) a target of the directional sensor. With this one could: -Make a beacon out of anything that can emit a tag signal. -Drop a small battery with a "Beacon 1" tag and your sensor can fly you right to to it. -Give drones the ability to sense one another by "Squawking" identifier tags. -Did one of your autonomous drones detect a hostile? Now when your mother ship detects "Drone 1- Help!" it knows where the trouble is. Bonus: This might work for the altimeter too! Thanks again!

Hi! I suggest a logic splitter that: -only allows signals to flow in one direction. This would allow: -Bulk production and command of identical parts that can react to the environment without confusing one another. -Significantly reduced time spent programming individual parts. Thanks! Love the game!