You can in a way. Each module has a preferred hatch, door or ladder location. You have to learn where those are and design accordingly. It takes a great deal of trail and error, but I managed to build a 200m ship with 16 decks and tons of halls, rooms, and all that. It's easy to navigate. But I had to force the game to do what I wanted it to do.I just wish they added the option to define where to put hatches between ship modules. The automatic system makes your ship feel like a maze.
Modules have multiple locations for possible hatches, especially large ones, you can control it to a degree, but it is PITA and never perfect. I'd rather have the tool than having to go back 365 times to the ship builder to get an approximation of what I wanted in the first place.You can in a way. Each module has a preferred hatch, door or ladder location. You have to learn where those are and design accordingly. It takes a great deal of trail and error, but I managed to build a 200m ship with 16 decks and tons of halls, rooms, and all that. It's easy to navigate. But I had to force the game to do what I wanted it to do.
In some ways, the larger the ship the easier this is to do as you have the extra space needed to layout modules in a way more to your liking. You have to essentially force foot traffic through an area in one direction in order to make that work.
Once I figured it out, I was able to build ships that match or exceed the size of the UC Vigilance without a ton of visits to the ship builder. It's actually harder to make work on smaller ships where the modules can't be spaced out to avoid direct contact where you don't want it.Modules have multiple locations for possible hatches, especially large ones, you can control it to a degree, but it is PITA and never perfect. I'd rather have the tool than having to go back 365 times to the ship builder to get an approximation of what I wanted in the first place.
Just as with my computer cases, I prefer efficient usage of space in my spaceships as well. I've never even came close to the original size limitation so far.Once I figured it out, I was able to build ships that match or exceed the size of the UC Vigilance without a ton of visits to the ship builder. It's actually harder to make work on smaller ships where the modules can't be spaced out to avoid direct contact where you don't want it.
I felt constrained by the original size and module limits the first time I used it. It's fantasy. Cost isn't a real barrier here and efficiency isn't a factor. Efficiency is also a nebulous term that can mean a lot of things. A small case that's space efficient can be a huge pain in the *** to work with. Working on a system your hands barely fit in tongue punches goat anus.Just as with my computer cases, I prefer efficient usage of space in my spaceships as well. I've never even came close to the original size limitation so far.
I felt constrained by the original size and module limits the first time I used it. It's fantasy. Cost isn't a real barrier here and efficiency isn't a factor. Efficiency is also a nebulous term that can mean a lot of things. A small case that's space efficient can be a huge pain in the *** to work with. Working on a system your hands barely fit in tongue punches goat anus.
Small cases that are space efficient are also rarely ever efficient for air flow. With ships, I do value a layout that is easy to navigate and somewhat intuitive. Believe it or not, you can still have that in a 200+ meter ship if you know what you are doing.
And you don't think I have? I've literally built hundreds of computers and I've serviced and deployed tens of thousands of them. While ease of maintenance and installation isn't only a function of size, a cases internal volume is a big part of it. Out of all the cases I've built in, the larger cases are typically the easier ones to build in. Of course its not a 100% universal constant but generally speaking, it usually reigns true.I've worked with tons of different cases, from the smallest to the hugest, most expensive ones, and ease of work is not a function of size.
All things being equal, smaller cases with equivalent hardware will run hotter than larger ones. There are always points of diminishing returns and there are good cases that are small and bad ones that are large. Smaller cases are also much more limited with their cooling options. Not just fan placement, but radiator space in the case of AIO or water-cooled systems. You don't need to step up to a Caselabs case but in my experience, super small cases with really high end hardware run hotter than medium sized cases do.Neither is cooling efficiency. The matter is not how much air volume is inside the case, but to extract enough heat from or pull in enough cold air to not get heat soaking.
I don't disagree with you. I would like a system for defining this more clearly and forcing the game to do what I want it to do more easily. It would allow for complex interiors in smaller spaces that can still be easily navigated and it would allow for even greater projects than the ones I've done with greater complexity and more efficient use of space.As for ships in starfield space efficiency doesn't give you any benefits, it is just my preference. Have everything in a neat package where form meets function, but never encroaches on it. I want intuitive and easy to navigate in smaller form factor, and to have that I need the tool to clearly define where to have a passage and where not to have one.
And this has been completely true for me as well....a cases internal volume is a big part of it. Out of all the cases I've built in, the larger cases are typically the easier ones to build in. Of course its not a 100% universal constant but generally speaking, it usually reigns true.
Something I noticed when some friends and I started messing around with full-tower cases, and when working with deeper/wider/taller midtowers.All things being equal, smaller cases with equivalent hardware will run hotter than larger ones
I don't doubt you have. But it seems to me that the ease of work with some larger cases is not causation but correlation. I've worked on small cases that were brilliantly easy to work on, while I've had full tower cases that were a nightmare due to idiotic design decisions, like having the MB tray so close to the edge, that you can't screw in the MB screws with a proper screwdriver because it is under the edge of the case opening.And you don't think I have? I've literally built hundreds of computers and I've serviced and deployed tens of thousands of them. While ease of maintenance and installation isn't only a function of size, a cases internal volume is a big part of it. Out of all the cases I've built in, the larger cases are typically the easier ones to build in. Of course its not a 100% universal constant but generally speaking, it usually reigns true.
Except all things are rarely equal. If all things were truly equal outside of size, the smaller case would not get hotter than a large one.All things being equal, smaller cases with equivalent hardware will run hotter than larger ones. There are always points of diminishing returns and there are good cases that are small and bad ones that are large. Smaller cases are also much more limited with their cooling options. Not just fan placement, but radiator space in the case of AIO or water-cooled systems. You don't need to step up to a Caselabs case but in my experience, super small cases with really high end hardware run hotter than medium sized cases do.
