Updated Vehicle Handbook in the works

Um... I think I need to put some work into putting in some more commas in the numbering format.
The 'Recreational Space' is also misleading, since each garden is 5 Spaces, each park 50 and each venue 100 and you're just getting the unit count, not the space count, whereas a hangar bay, machinery, or zone is by Space. Some logic needs work... but the city does fly...

1731556946701.png
 
Um... I think I need to put some work into putting in some more commas in the numbering format.
The 'Recreational Space' is also misleading, since each garden is 5 Spaces, each park 50 and each venue 100 and you're just getting the unit count, not the space count, whereas a hangar bay, machinery, or zone is by Space. Some logic needs work... but the city does fly...

View attachment 2890
Over 15 million Dtons... Makes Me wonder if it would be easier just to build it as a ship.
 
But if you did, and the two more or less matched up, THAT would mean the system is working and the construction mechanics are unified.
yes... well convergence is the longer term goal.
The accommodation allocation in space stations is a lot tighter too. What I have for this city gives well, obviously 15 tons per person - and as accommodations are about 2/3 of the city, that's still 10 tons on average. Which, if you had a 3 metre ceiling is 47 square metres per person or 20,000+ people per square kilometre - if it was flat (one story on average), it would be Manhattan density - but on the 1 kilometre diameter disk, it's 785,000 people per square kilometre, which is still ridiculously cramped (though to be fair, the 'average' height is 90 stories, so it's not a fair comparison - more arcology than island - the diameter was arbitrary as was the population. I just wanted to see how the numbers came out.

It better be cheaper than a space station, since there's no environmental controls and fusion is only a backup power source.
 
yes... well convergence is the longer term goal.
The accommodation allocation in space stations is a lot tighter too. What I have for this city gives well, obviously 15 tons per person - and as accommodations are about 2/3 of the city, that's still 10 tons on average. Which, if you had a 3 metre ceiling is 47 square metres per person or 20,000+ people per square kilometre - if it was flat (one story on average), it would be Manhattan density - but on the 1 kilometre diameter disk, it's 785,000 people per square kilometre, which is still ridiculously cramped (though to be fair, the 'average' height is 90 stories, so it's not a fair comparison - more arcology than island - the diameter was arbitrary as was the population. I just wanted to see how the numbers came out.

It better be cheaper than a space station, since there's no environmental controls and fusion is only a backup power source.
You should try building the Floating Palace of Drinax :)
 
They seriously need to do something to help the big numbers be more readable.
The only restriction right now is on credits, the rest I will fix.
And I'll ask about K (yes, fine, maybe 'k' is correct, but konfusing - I'm sure this is some weird historical reason for it, or someone didn't want to confuse a 'thousand' with a 'Kelvin', but really?), G, and T, and... Q .... no, it would P and then E and Q is way bigger.
 
The only restriction right now is on credits, the rest I will fix.
And I'll ask about K (yes, fine, maybe 'k' is correct, but konfusing - I'm sure this is some weird historical reason for it, or someone didn't want to confuse a 'thousand' with a 'Kelvin', but really?), G, and T, and... Q .... no, it would P and then E and Q is way bigger.
Generally, positive exponent majuscule negative exponent minuscule. k for kilo is an exception, no idea why. (Apparently so is h for hecto but nobody ever actually uses that except when tweaking this one guy who gets torqued when someone refers to hectopascals, and he may be dead now.)
 
Back
Top