Unstable build feedback thread

[Tynan]

Is it by intention that the the Autocannon turret can hit things within its dead zone?  Because when I was defending a raid, it fired off two volleys and, not even joking, in the first volley to took off one of my colonists arms at the shoulder, and then did the same in the 2nd volley to another colonist.  I had put sandbags in front of it with the intention that I would keep my colonists fairly close to the turret so when the enemies closed the gap and the turret wasn't able to aim at them anymore, I wouldn't be at risk of losing it since its fairly expensive.  I'm kind of disappointed that I can't actually put and people in front of it, even though, logically, it shouldn't be able to hit them within its dead zone.

No, that sounds like a problem, we'll look into it. I can see justifications either way but it seems intuitive it won't hit inside it's min radius.

[alxddd]

Storyteller: Phoebe
Difficulty: Rough
Biome/hilliness: Temperate Forest/Mountainous
Commitment mode: Yes
Current colony age (days): 683
Hours played in the last 2 days: 4-6
Complete mod list: Conduit Deconstruct

Just to add to this, I had a colonist shot dead by the Uranium Slug Turrent significantly inside its minimum range and was so surprised that was possible.

Is it by intention that the the Autocannon turret can hit things within its dead zone?  Because when I was defending a raid, it fired off two volleys and, not even joking, in the first volley to took off one of my colonists arms at the shoulder, and then did the same in the 2nd volley to another colonist.  I had put sandbags in front of it with the intention that I would keep my colonists fairly close to the turret so when the enemies closed the gap and the turret wasn't able to aim at them anymore, I wouldn't be at risk of losing it since its fairly expensive.  I'm kind of disappointed that I can't actually put and people in front of it, even though, logically, it shouldn't be able to hit them within its dead zone.

No, that sounds like a problem, we'll look into it. I can see justifications either way but it seems intuitive it won't hit inside it's min radius.

[5thHorseman]

If it's not a bug then it makes no sense to have Building Wealth already high when you haven't even landed, even on Naked Brutality starts.

If I didn't know it was that the game now counts floors (and anything else with a dollar value, like rocks if you have that mod installed) then I'd just assume it was the raw value of the land I fell onto.

[alxddd]

Storyteller: Phoebe
Difficulty: Rough
Biome/hilliness: Temperate Forest/Mountainous
Commitment mode: Yes
Current colony age (days): 683
Hours played in the last 2 days: 4-6
Complete mod list: Conduit Deconstruct

Just testing out the new transport loading. If I set a transport to load a human and then remove them from the items to load contents lists before they go into the pod, they still go into the pod anyway, every time, and the transport says it's completed the loading. Then I removed the human from the loaded items contents list and they exit but begin to wander aimlessly. While in this state they are not listed when trying to form a caravan. They do respond to drafting, but seem otherwise to be bound to wander forever. I had to go to the transport pod and cancel the load in order to snap them out of it.

seems like transport loads should be auto cancelled when all contents have been removed. not sure how else you might fix the wandering problem.

[erdrik]

...  I'm kind of disappointed that I can't actually put and people in front of it, even though, logically, it shouldn't be able to hit them within its dead zone.

I disagree. That is not logic, it is video game logic.
Logically a projectile will hit the first thing it's trajectory path happens to cross over.

It sounds like the colonists are being hit by the same mechanic that allows bullets to hit obstructions between the shooter and the target. To me it makes perfect sense that if you stand in front of the barrel of a gun as it fires you gun' get shot. Standing closer to it won't prevent that regardless of how ineffective it is to aim it at close range.

Of course if the Auto-Cannon Turret is actually on a raised platform or tower, then that could present a situation in which a colonist can stand in front of it and not get shot. But then I feel like if that is the case it should not be buildable under a roof.

[Boboid]

...  I'm kind of disappointed that I can't actually put and people in front of it, even though, logically, it shouldn't be able to hit them within its dead zone.

I disagree. That is not logic, it is video game logic.
Logically a projectile will hit the first thing it's trajectory path happens to cross over.

It sounds like the colonists are being hit by the same mechanic that allows bullets to hit obstructions between the shooter and the target. To me it makes perfect sense that if you stand in front of the barrel of a gun as it fires you gun' get shot. Standing closer to it won't prevent that regardless of how ineffective it is to aim it at close range.

Of course if the Auto-Cannon Turret is actually on a raised platform or tower, then that could present a situation in which a colonist can stand in front of it and not get shot. But then I feel like if that is the case it should not be buildable under a roof.

I'd like to know what your real-world-logic based reason is for the minimum range on autocannons that simultaneously accounts for situations like the one being discussed.

I'm not being snide, I genuinely want to see if someone can come up with a design that allows for a straight-firing projectile weapon to have a minimum range and still be capable of accidentally hitting targets within that minimum range.

Edit: I've been sketching away here trying to design something that would allow for what I've described and all I can come up with that's even vaguely plausible in 3d space is a weapon that can't physically aim at a given point but the projectile's inherent scatter is sufficient to allow it to deviate into a theoretical minimum range.
The problem of course is that the only way that makes any sense is for the scale to be absurd.
Quite simply I'm 100% sure that what's going on here is real world logic. If you're given a minimum range for a projectile weapon it's reasonable to assume that it simply can not hit targets within that minimum range except for possibly edge cases near the outer extent of said range.

[Snafu_RW]

...  I'm kind of disappointed that I can't actually put and people in front of it, even though, logically, it shouldn't be able to hit them within its dead zone.

I disagree. That is not logic, it is video game logic.
Logically a projectile will hit the first thing it's trajectory path happens to cross over.

[snip]

Of course if the Auto-Cannon Turret is actually on a raised platform or tower, then that could present a situation in which a colonist can stand in front of it and not get shot. But then I feel like if that is the case it should not be buildable under a roof.

Hmm.. altho not RL compatible, a solution may be to make autocannons/uranium slug turrets ballistic weps rather than direct-fire weps? This way they should be unroofed (creating a problem in toxic fallout for crewed weps?) but retain their min range stat 'realistically'..
A RL autocannon (whether it uses DU shells or not) is a direct fire wep with no effective min range*: the range stat arises from it's main use in pairs on fighter planes where cone-of-fire convergence at range is an issue. Ofc, if T is equating 'Autocannon' with 'Cannon' in-game, it makes much more sense to have it be ballistic rather than direct-fire..
*The difficulty in manually crewing such a massive wep is why they're so ineffective outside a vehicle mount, similar to minigun IG

[Snafu_RW]

I'm not being snide, I genuinely want to see if someone can come up with a design that allows for a straight-firing projectile weapon to have a minimum range and still be capable of accidentally hitting targets within that minimum range.

If the AC is a dual-barreled wep mount with the barrels fairly far apart, the convergence point will allow something to close to within 'min range'  - if it's lucky enough not to be shredded while doing so. Think triangles

ACs being so unwieldy, it makes a certain amount of sense, but I'm not sure how it fits with IG logic ATM..

[Boboid]

I'm not being snide, I genuinely want to see if someone can come up with a design that allows for a straight-firing projectile weapon to have a minimum range and still be capable of accidentally hitting targets within that minimum range.

If the AC is a dual-barreled wep mount with the barrels fairly far apart, the convergence point will allow something to close to within 'min range'  - if it's lucky enough not to be shredded while doing so. Think triangles

ACs being so unwieldy, it makes a certain amount of sense, but I'm not sure how it fits with IG logic ATM..

The scale for what you're describing is completely incompatible with the RW representation of an autocannon however. Autocannons in rimworld are 2x2. Even if you assume the tiles are 3-5feet wide and the barrels are on the far edges. At that point it's starting to get weird.
It's also completely incompatible with the way that minimum range is displayed. It's not conical.

If you start with the condition " Minimum range = true " and go from there I genuinely can't find a way to bend real world physics to allow for what's being described.
Which is really the heart of the issue. It's not video game logic to assume nothing within that displayed sphere(circle) can be struck by the weapon.

[Snafu_RW]

That's fairynuff Bob; I'll have to dream up some other headcanon overnight before T fixes the inconsistency

Reminder to self: "If you start with the condition " Minimum range = true " and go from there I genuinely can't find a way to bend real world physics to allow for what's being described."

[erdrik]

...
I'd like to know what your real-world-logic based reason is for the minimum range on autocannons that simultaneously accounts for situations like the one being discussed.
...

Like real real world, or real world in the context of AI or ES controlled turrets that can be built by the average joe(that fell in a drop pod from space) from spare scrap found on sight? (Im assuming the later, because the former severely limits options and this is a gaming forum...)

-The turret is fully capable of physically firing on targets within the minimum range.
-The AI/ES that controls it is not allowed to target anything within the minimum range.
-There are no other limitations.

This would result in the AI/ES being able to target an enemy that is not in the minimum range, even if another pawn that is not the target(but is in minimum range) is standing between the cannon and the cannons target.
T = Target
B = Bystander
C = Cannon
MAX___________MIN
|_______T______|_____B______C

[jchavezriva]

Some tribal traders are not leaving the map while there is a toxic fallout. They used to do it before if im not wrong. Guess this is a bug.

[jchavezriva]

With the update on Pelvis, i wanted to rebuild it on a colonist with dev mode but the option to restore pelvis is not there. Is that intended? If yes, what can i do?

[jchavezriva]

I just noticed that friendlies downed by the toxic fallout begin walking as soon as the debuff hits serious.

As soon as they step outside it goes to extreme again.

They should wait to the end of the fallout or at least move when the debuff is on minor so that they can leave without dying.

[Boboid]

Like real real world, or real world in the context of AI or ES controlled turrets that can be built by the average joe(that fell in a drop pod from space) from spare scrap found on sight? (Im assuming the later, because the former severely limits options and this is a gaming forum...)

-The turret is fully capable of physically firing on targets within the minimum range.
-The AI/ES that controls it is not allowed to target anything within the minimum range.
-There are no other limitations.

That's very clever. The displayed minimum range is still accurate/true and it allows for shots to land within the displayed minimum range.
Shifting the restriction from physical impossibility to programmed disinclination works quite well.
Of course I don't know why you would designate a minimum range for a direct-fire weapon if it's still capable of firing within said range. You just end up at the same problem as before if said minimum range serves no purpose.
Interesting though.