Forums » Suggestions

Reduce requirements for FCP

12»
Nov 01, 2011 mrGarvin link
Right now the total volume of the items required for 1 FCP (Fused Composite Plating) is 208 cu. This is very annoying. If it were reduced to under 200 cu it would make it a bit easier to make.

It would be better if it required 18 OHP (Outer Hull Plate) instead of 20. Then the total volume would be 196.

This shouldn't be very hard to fix right?
Nov 01, 2011 mulle barap link
+1 ..... And also fix the weight of FCP, as suggested elsewhere.
Nov 01, 2011 Kierky link
I suggested this a while back.. it's not the components, it's the damned weight of transporting it.

I would support the items cutback if the module size was reduced to 100cu.
Nov 01, 2011 abortretryfail link
They already did reduce the reqs and size of it once.

The mass of that thing is totally wrong though, it's more than double the mass of it's component parts... Here's the breakdown I posted on the bugs forum a while back:
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/2/25247
Nov 02, 2011 Kierky link
This is the same for the FFSSA.
10450 kgs is total mass of all component parts.
15000 kgs is mass of 1 FFSSA.

Now usually when you consider the Law of Conservation of Mass, the mass of the products = mass of reactants.
This means, sure mass can be lost during a manufacturing process, but it cannot be increased by such a large amount. It's a whole 50% increase in mass for the manufacturing process. Something is wrong.

+1 for mass all component parts >= mass of module of whatever is manufactured.
Nov 02, 2011 Pizzasgood link
The extra mass comes from the angst of the people trying to build it.
Nov 02, 2011 mrGarvin link
Yes they should fix that as well.

How about External Hull Assembly, Reinforced Bulkhead, Internal Bulkhead Assembly etc.? Is the mass to big for those too?
Nov 02, 2011 Kierky link
Lol rin.
I don't know, Garvin, it would be nice if they were too.
Nov 02, 2011 Keller link
Kierky, there's a Law of Conservation of Mass? Where'd you get YOUR Physics degrees? ;)

Nevertheless, I would agree here that for any and all the manufactured items, simple wastage from the machining of the parts would result in the final products having less mass than the sum of the components which make them.
Nov 03, 2011 Kierky link
Equivalent to the Conservation of energy, since energy and mass are rumoured interchangeable.
Nov 03, 2011 yodaofborg link
Plasteel, Vis-metal and silksteel all defy what we know as elements.

STFU about Physics. Until worm holes are real, and we are all in space ships shooting each other, Physics means shit.

Newbs.
Nov 03, 2011 Kierky link
Thats Chemistry yoda. :)
We have to start somewhere. This is set in the future, and it should have alloys to match. There are limitless possibilities why we have not found an element yet.

And as far as I have learned, the Laws of physics still apply, and have not been disproved in the backstory? Yah.
It's not like you have to know physics to play the game, it's simply just a background law to keep things in perspective.
If we can visually determine that there is physically something wrong with the mass of all components being less than that of the finished product, then there is something wrong with the obvious physics of it.
It's a simple solution, with a simple implementation...
Nov 03, 2011 Pizzasgood link
You just have to use a lot of solder and superglue to assemble them, and that adds mass.
Nov 03, 2011 Dr. Lecter link
Nov 03, 2011 PaKettle link
Lecter I see yer way off in left field again.....

On topic - some refining / manufacturing processes do in fact result in a net gain of materials
Nov 03, 2011 Dr. Lecter link
Professionally, I'm off the charts to be sure; educationally, it's right field, sweetie.
Nov 04, 2011 abortretryfail link
PaKettle: What real-world refining/manufacturing process leads to a net gain in materials?
Nov 04, 2011 Alloh link
@Lescter: Law is just a subset of applied sociology...
@Pak/ARF: Magic and Law only, probably...

That is a basic principle. If you add soldering and glue, those must come from somewhere, and should be requested by mission.

Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_conservation
Historically, the principle of mass conservation, discovered by Antoine Lavoisier in the late 18th century, was of crucial importance in changing alchemy into the modern natural science of chemistry.
Nov 04, 2011 Dr. Lecter link
That would assume we're enacting and interpreting laws based off some sort of sociological theory about how law should work in human societies. Trust me, aside from the damn dirty hippies at Berkeley and the other Critical Legal Studies airheads, we don't. Law is studied by sociologists, not vice versa. But as I implied above, my education prior to law school was on the far right side of the spectrum: math, formal logic, physics, and chemistry.

That said, it's sort of hard to disagree with the critique of FCP mass being 1+1=3.
Nov 09, 2011 Crusader8389 link
Newtonian physics has its laws. Most of them have been broken by Quantum physics. Almost nothing is a universal truth, even mass conservation. Yes, I've studied it and it makes sense, but when things start breaking the speed of light, anything seems possible...