Using orbital habitats

[Ri0Rdian]

I'm not sure why everyone keeps reacting that way.  Steve had been mentioning at one point that he liked the idea of doing that and as far as I know was designing in that general direciton with how he was writing the code.

Also, you can drop waypoints to fly to arbitrary locations.

Actually, I did not know that. That you for improving my mood 

[Droll]

I'm not sure why everyone keeps reacting that way.  Steve had been mentioning at one point that he liked the idea of doing that and as far as I know was designing in that general direciton with how he was writing the code.

Also, you can drop waypoints to fly to arbitrary locations.

This is genius - Tug an orbital habitat to waypoint placed in one of those "empty" star systems then send colony ships to it. Would that be possible? I want to be able to have deep space colonies. This might necessitate the creation of new station components such as "construction faicilities" or overhaul the existing orbital habitat component to in addition of providing living space provide limited construction space for the standard planet-bound installations to be built. Either way this could mean the old "orbital habitat" designation making a return as such a station would be distinct from a space station with refueling or recreational module.

[SpikeTheHobbitMage]

I'm not sure why everyone keeps reacting that way.  Steve had been mentioning at one point that he liked the idea of doing that and as far as I know was designing in that general direciton with how he was writing the code.

Also, you can drop waypoints to fly to arbitrary locations.

This is genius - Tug an orbital habitat to waypoint placed in one of those "empty" star systems then send colony ships to it. Would that be possible? I want to be able to have deep space colonies. This might necessitate the creation of new station components such as "construction faicilities" or overhaul the existing orbital habitat component to in addition of providing living space provide limited construction space for the standard planet-bound installations to be built. Either way this could mean the old "orbital habitat" designation making a return as such a station would be distinct from a space station with refueling or recreational module.

Unfortunately no.  Orbital habitats currently require a colony to actually do anything.  This method works to place a forward supply station in such a system, but habitats won't help with that.

[QuakeIV]

Currently you could put them there but they wouldn't become a colony.  Unfortunately.  As mentioned I have high hopes that Steve will one day change that.

[Steve Walmsley]

I'm not sure why everyone keeps reacting that way.  Steve had been mentioning at one point that he liked the idea of doing that and as far as I know was designing in that general direciton with how he was writing the code.

Also, you can drop waypoints to fly to arbitrary locations.

This is genius - Tug an orbital habitat to waypoint placed in one of those "empty" star systems then send colony ships to it. Would that be possible? I want to be able to have deep space colonies. This might necessitate the creation of new station components such as "construction faicilities" or overhaul the existing orbital habitat component to in addition of providing living space provide limited construction space for the standard planet-bound installations to be built. Either way this could mean the old "orbital habitat" designation making a return as such a station would be distinct from a space station with refueling or recreational module.

Unfortunately no.  Orbital habitats currently require a colony to actually do anything.  This method works to place a forward supply station in such a system, but habitats won't help with that.

What I probably could do easily is allow you to place a tiny rock in space (using the waypoint mechanics). That is all you need for the orbital habitat. You can do that manually already,

[Droll]

I'm not sure why everyone keeps reacting that way.  Steve had been mentioning at one point that he liked the idea of doing that and as far as I know was designing in that general direciton with how he was writing the code.

Also, you can drop waypoints to fly to arbitrary locations.

This is genius - Tug an orbital habitat to waypoint placed in one of those "empty" star systems then send colony ships to it. Would that be possible? I want to be able to have deep space colonies. This might necessitate the creation of new station components such as "construction faicilities" or overhaul the existing orbital habitat component to in addition of providing living space provide limited construction space for the standard planet-bound installations to be built. Either way this could mean the old "orbital habitat" designation making a return as such a station would be distinct from a space station with refueling or recreational module.

Unfortunately no.  Orbital habitats currently require a colony to actually do anything.  This method works to place a forward supply station in such a system, but habitats won't help with that.

What I probably could do easily is allow you to place a tiny rock in space (using the waypoint mechanics). That is all you need for the orbital habitat. You can do that manually already,

That would cool - a new type of waypoint called a "colony waypoint" or something to that effect. You would have to decide how to handle the deletion of such a way-point though.

[QuakeIV]

If there was just a way to delete it with a confirmation prompt or something I presume that would work fine.  I for one am actually pretty enthusiastic about that solution.  Its somewhat hacky but it would do the job.

[Jorgen_CAB]

If there was just a way to delete it with a confirmation prompt or something I presume that would work fine.  I for one am actually pretty enthusiastic about that solution.  Its somewhat hacky but it would do the job.

If you delete the way point it should also delete any colony there as well... but not necessarily the Habitat as you can move that.

If you want to move Habitats you basically need to delete the colony and create it again in the new spot as you can't move the Habitat with the people inside.

[Steve Walmsley]

If there was just a way to delete it with a confirmation prompt or something I presume that would work fine.  I for one am actually pretty enthusiastic about that solution.  Its somewhat hacky but it would do the job.

If you delete the way point it should also delete any colony there as well... but not necessarily the Habitat as you can move that.

If you want to move Habitats you basically need to delete the colony and create it again in the new spot as you can't move the Habitat with the people inside.

Or to avoid potential bugs, you can't delete the way point until you delete the colony.

[Thrake]

I'm not sure why everyone keeps reacting that way.  Steve had been mentioning at one point that he liked the idea of doing that and as far as I know was designing in that general direciton with how he was writing the code.

Also, you can drop waypoints to fly to arbitrary locations.

This is genius - Tug an orbital habitat to waypoint placed in one of those "empty" star systems then send colony ships to it. Would that be possible? I want to be able to have deep space colonies. This might necessitate the creation of new station components such as "construction faicilities" or overhaul the existing orbital habitat component to in addition of providing living space provide limited construction space for the standard planet-bound installations to be built. Either way this could mean the old "orbital habitat" designation making a return as such a station would be distinct from a space station with refueling or recreational module.

Unfortunately no.  Orbital habitats currently require a colony to actually do anything.  This method works to place a forward supply station in such a system, but habitats won't help with that.

What I probably could do easily is allow you to place a tiny rock in space (using the waypoint mechanics). That is all you need for the orbital habitat. You can do that manually already,

Have you considered the ability of tuging small bodies like comets or asteroids? Perhaps even moving them beetween systems, for those systems without any body.

[Ri0Rdian]

I'm not sure why everyone keeps reacting that way.  Steve had been mentioning at one point that he liked the idea of doing that and as far as I know was designing in that general direciton with how he was writing the code.

Also, you can drop waypoints to fly to arbitrary locations.

Comets and asteroids are probably too heavy, even compared to the biggest stations we build in the game. Engines would not be strong enough for that, maybe late end game? Still not sure if 40km/s would be fun to see.
Wouldn't the mass of such objects be way beyond even the biggest stuff people build now? Thus potentially not having engines that could push such a thing under very late endgame (if at all). Having to move one at 20km/s does not sound like much fun.
This is genius - Tug an orbital habitat to waypoint placed in one of those "empty" star systems then send colony ships to it. Would that be possible? I want to be able to have deep space colonies. This might necessitate the creation of new station components such as "construction faicilities" or overhaul the existing orbital habitat component to in addition of providing living space provide limited construction space for the standard planet-bound installations to be built. Either way this could mean the old "orbital habitat" designation making a return as such a station would be distinct from a space station with refueling or recreational module.

Unfortunately no.  Orbital habitats currently require a colony to actually do anything.  This method works to place a forward supply station in such a system, but habitats won't help with that.

What I probably could do easily is allow you to place a tiny rock in space (using the waypoint mechanics). That is all you need for the orbital habitat. You can do that manually already,

Have you considered the ability of tuging small bodies like comets or asteroids? Perhaps even moving them beetween systems, for those systems without any body.

Asteroids and comets are most likely too big and heavy, quite a lot than even the heaviest stuff we now build. Late endgame tech might be enough in some cases, though not sure if moving at 40km/s is fun to do.

[Droll]

I'm not sure why everyone keeps reacting that way.  Steve had been mentioning at one point that he liked the idea of doing that and as far as I know was designing in that general direciton with how he was writing the code.

Also, you can drop waypoints to fly to arbitrary locations.

This is genius - Tug an orbital habitat to waypoint placed in one of those "empty" star systems then send colony ships to it. Would that be possible? I want to be able to have deep space colonies. This might necessitate the creation of new station components such as "construction faicilities" or overhaul the existing orbital habitat component to in addition of providing living space provide limited construction space for the standard planet-bound installations to be built. Either way this could mean the old "orbital habitat" designation making a return as such a station would be distinct from a space station with refueling or recreational module.

Unfortunately no.  Orbital habitats currently require a colony to actually do anything.  This method works to place a forward supply station in such a system, but habitats won't help with that.

What I probably could do easily is allow you to place a tiny rock in space (using the waypoint mechanics). That is all you need for the orbital habitat. You can do that manually already,

Have you considered the ability of tuging small bodies like comets or asteroids? Perhaps even moving them beetween systems, for those systems without any body.

If not for this specific purpose this would be helpful in order to tow asteroid listening posts. You could also include a tech line not too dissimilar from the orbital mining tech line that influences the maximum size of asteroid that your tugs can tug on.

On a tangential note, it would be nice if there is some way to allow multiple tugs to tug the same object, whether that be system body, space station or ships.

[SpikeTheHobbitMage]

If there was just a way to delete it with a confirmation prompt or something I presume that would work fine.  I for one am actually pretty enthusiastic about that solution.  Its somewhat hacky but it would do the job.

If you delete the way point it should also delete any colony there as well... but not necessarily the Habitat as you can move that.

If you want to move Habitats you basically need to delete the colony and create it again in the new spot as you can't move the Habitat with the people inside.

That is one major concern: What happens to the people when you want to move a habitat somewhere else or abandon the site?  Also, this temporary colony shouldn't allow ground forces or installations of any kind, including infrastructure.

[Jorgen_CAB]

If there was just a way to delete it with a confirmation prompt or something I presume that would work fine.  I for one am actually pretty enthusiastic about that solution.  Its somewhat hacky but it would do the job.

If you delete the way point it should also delete any colony there as well... but not necessarily the Habitat as you can move that.

If you want to move Habitats you basically need to delete the colony and create it again in the new spot as you can't move the Habitat with the people inside.

That is one major concern: What happens to the people when you want to move a habitat somewhere else or abandon the site?  Also, this temporary colony shouldn't allow ground forces or installations of any kind, including infrastructure.

I don't see the problem with this as it is only you the player that decide how the rules should apply.

As to moving the habitat there are two ways... either YOU decide that you can move the habitat with the people inside it. You simply delete the people on the colony with SM, move the habitat and add the people back.

Or... you build a new habitat and move the population with colony ships and then move the old habitat.

You will also still face the issue with factories and other structures... are they on the ground or in space... If in space the NPR will still treat it as ground and can invade it.

In my opinion you should just treat this way-point as if there IS a small asteroid there and it just happen to be there all the time OR you simply towed the asteroid there using all of your tugs or something.

This would purely be a role-play thing so that is who you should treat it. You do with what you will.

You already can use SM to place a rock anyplace anyway and then put a habitat there, this would just make that process easier.

If you are after a proper mechanic for building a full habitat in space with factories and all that is a different matter and would need to be handled very differently, for now I think we need to mainly treat it as if the habitat actually is orbiting some sort of body (in most cases).

[SpikeTheHobbitMage]

If there was just a way to delete it with a confirmation prompt or something I presume that would work fine.  I for one am actually pretty enthusiastic about that solution.  Its somewhat hacky but it would do the job.

If you delete the way point it should also delete any colony there as well... but not necessarily the Habitat as you can move that.

If you want to move Habitats you basically need to delete the colony and create it again in the new spot as you can't move the Habitat with the people inside.

That is one major concern: What happens to the people when you want to move a habitat somewhere else or abandon the site?  Also, this temporary colony shouldn't allow ground forces or installations of any kind, including infrastructure.

I don't see the problem with this as it is only you the player that decide how the rules should apply.

As to moving the habitat there are two ways... either YOU decide that you can move the habitat with the people inside it. You simply delete the people on the colony with SM, move the habitat and add the people back.

Or... you build a new habitat and move the population with colony ships and then move the old habitat.

You will also still face the issue with factories and other structures... are they on the ground or in space... If in space the NPR will still treat it as ground and can invade it.

In my opinion you should just treat this way-point as if there IS a small asteroid there and it just happen to be there all the time OR you simply towed the asteroid there using all of your tugs or something.

This would purely be a role-play thing so that is who you should treat it. You do with what you will.

You already can use SM to place a rock anyplace anyway and then put a habitat there, this would just make that process easier.

If you are after a proper mechanic for building a full habitat in space with factories and all that is a different matter and would need to be handled very differently, for now I think we need to mainly treat it as if the habitat actually is orbiting some sort of body (in most cases).

There is a general problem with habitats that removing one causes overpopulation and unrest on the (former) host colony the following production cycle.

My point is that a deep-space station, which is what this hack is meant to represent, should not be able to use ground facilites or be vulnerable to ground assaults.  'Just role-play it' is not sufficient because the NPRs need to be subject to the same rules.