Yey c= and that doesn't sound like too bad of a way to use more of your PCU x3 having redundancies is always nice u wu

@@LucaTheGuide I was surprised by how much PCU I removed by taking out all the Doors previously used to pressurise the entire interior. Swapping them out for cockpits where possible and pressurising only one small crew section was a huge efficiency boost.

@@MediumRareOpinions Just never use the direct fire rocket launchers. 825 PCU... not sure what they were thinking there! I didn't even understand PCU when I first started playing and I put lights and panels on pretty much everything.

@@mikemarkwilka4135 Yeah, it's been a personal hobby of mine to do a PCU strip of designs I like, keeping their aesthetic while seeing how much PCU I can cut down or even increase their functionality within the same PCU budget. Unfinished LCDs and lights as greebling are one of my personal bugbears. I have saved up to 20% of a blueprint's PCU by deleting all the unfinished functional blocks, replacing them with unfinished windows, armor panels, or similar 1 PCU substitutes.

@@MediumRareOpinions Ha ha oh yeah, some ship designs go completely gaga for doors and airlocks. I totally get it from a "real life" compartmentalization and pressurization POV. But at 100 PCU a pop, SE does not reward you for putting in multiple full airlocks. With just 2 doors, an air vent, and a couple conveyors (connecting back to an O2 tank) and armor blocks in between, that's easily 220+ PCU. That can buy you a lot of other functionality within a PCU budget. I've cut 1000s of PCUs in doors alone from some ship designs that I otherwise liked on the Workshop. :D Restricting air pressurization to only the crew habitation and recreation section would make sense in real life and is more cost-effective in SE PCU. Same goes for multiple connectors, too many LCDs, lights, etc. nothing's wrong with 5, 10, or even 20 lights on a ship. But one light every 2 blocks in a single hallway is a bit much for me. I've seen some creators mix 1-2 actual light sources with more neon lights to use the cheap 1 PCU neon emissive blocks that don't actually give off light, combined with actual light from only a few key 25 PCU lights. Also, spotlights are more taxing on the game than nondirectional interior/corner lights despite the same PCU.

Yey x3 ♥ gratz Snow c=

That would be a sensible explanation c= if it isn't a combat ship the design makes more sense then x3 though modularity or decentralization can help on non-combat ships too by making them more resilient to attacks, it's a tradeoff I guess

I think it's possible to do something like that c= subgrids always bring the risk of clang though x3

Yeah c= I prefer having them more spread out though x3

@@LucaTheGuide I kind of do too, you and I agree there. I like every single component on the ship to be suit-accessible somehow so that I can physically go there and inspect it and repair it by hand if necessary, without ripping a bunch of stuff apart lol. It really does make the ships bloat in size though, you're right :P

They can certainly help yeah c= thought might not be as effective with Warfare 2 weapons being able to penetrate and destroy them in one shot as well as severe conveyor connections x3 I can see it work in certain circumstances though

Yeah it's a bit of a tradeoff with the welder and centralization there x3

WHY do we have this helm here!? 🤣

xD

xD rip

I think so too yeah c= I just prefer having my drills being able to do everything x3

@@LucaTheGuide Fair enough. But that kind of requires it's own vehicle. A base like, carrier like ship, rarely fits in that hole.

O: which avatar ship

@@LucaTheGuide O:! Your kidding me !!! THE AVATAR! Blue people?

@@LucaTheGuide oh and hey I really LOVE your steam profile picture!🖤

Thanks Opossum c= and which thing xD

Its in the same location. If we want a back up put it elsewhere

@@brady157 ah ok

Yeah it's mostly how they're pretty much next to each other c= that can be useful in an armored cocoon but right in front both of them would likely have gotten destroyed already if the other one is destroyed x3 but yeah I did notice that that's there because that's the main bridge in the video

It can be xD much more expensive though x3

I really don't see a single drill block being better armor than 190 blocks of heavy armor. Or even light armor. :P One drill has same integrity as 13 light armor blocks or 2 heavy armor blocks, large grid. And costs a LOT more PCU.

Another point of view is that the game is called Space ENGINEERS, and a huge part of engineering is figuring out how to achieve your goals within the limitations imposed by the world. I totally get your desire for complete design freedom, but a large part of the community (myself included) loves trying to build within those limits. That said, Luca's years of online MP play has made her a bit fanatical. The connector on top is fine, and is almost certainly there for a small ship to dock. The bottom connector is fine as it a connector that is completely flush with the bottom armor. Luca prefers to have connectors sticking all the way out but it's irrelevant, the only question that matters is "can it dock?". Between the front and bottom connector that ship will have no problems docking at any station, even if it's has a small scout or mining ship docked on top. Because myself and Luca build from different schools of thought there's plenty of her stuff that drives me crazy. I prefer to have a separate mining ship, a cargo ship, and a base, and perhaps a combat ship. Luca prefers to have an all-in-one behemoth. Either way is perfectly valid. I choose my way so that if I get wreckless or lose a battle, I can lose my ship completely and just respawn back at my hidden base. Then I can build another ship and just get back into it. It's far less likely that Luca will lose a battle, but if she does, she loses everything and has to start over unless she has a stockpile hidden somewhere. On this ship I would remove the front drills, add a storage container in that area that isn't conveyored to anything, put the drill parts in there as well as enough to add some conveyors to extend them out from the ship. Then when I need to do some mining it take a minute to build the drills on the front, get what I need, and remove the drills again. That way the drill never block the from connector, and having them always there when you aren't using them IS A WASTE OF PCU LUCA. Hehehehekekekekeke! Finally I get to tell LUCA TO STOP WASTING PCU!

They're based on how blocks affect server performance though c= but yeah if PCU isn't a concern then it shouldn't be a problem x3

@@mrJMD All my ships are 400-500m long. Player made missiles would one shot all these low PCU ships. I mean one hit, very little left. You can remote controll the missile and guide it to the target. Basically unlimited range. They can't take the hit, can't avoid the missile and have too little firepower to stop it. These missiles cost nothing PCU wise. Fill a container with pistol ammo and when it goes bang. Thats the whole ship gone.

@@mrJMD I came here to say exactly your first point: "A huge part of engineering is figuring out how to achieve your goals within the limitations imposed by the world." Obvs SE is a sandbox game, so people can indulge in their fictional escapism however they want. I've done my unlimited creative mode rampages too, with 40k PCU ship builds. But in defining different limits and challenges for myself, I've found MORE creativity. Different kinds of creativity are fine, but it's inaccurate for Cronyx to say that budget limitations restrict creativity. You don't have to use it, but don't knock it until you try it. I remember one of the little SE creator gangs on the Workshop periodically put out a rush of designs on a theme. A while back, one was "Design a ship without using any armor blocks." Boom, limitation. Saw a lot of really creative builds from that. Some of my neatest "large grid gone small" shuttles came from me sticking to a 500-PCU limit. Minimalism is an accepted form of art style. So you can't say it's not creative. it's not for everyone, which is fine. And it's often not something that less experienced people from developed nation cultures really get, at first. It's a fairly universal human reaction to think that "more is better" -- our psychology defaults to additive, not subtractive. That's been shown in studies on human design processes. Even when a simpler or more elegant solution would offer more improvement, human design participants often tend to assume they should add to the design before they think to consider taking away from the design. It's also why we don't see negative space in design right away, either. But there's a reason why, once you see it, often the reaction is "that's so cool". Taking away requires some combination of experience, training, and/or education. But most of all mindset. Having all the former qualities but no motivation to implement "less is more" won't get you to elegance or minimalism in design. Again, far from the only approach to creativity, but definitely can't say that it's not creative.