Area triggers now trigger most logic blocks. They do not work with NOT and can only toggle T-Flip-flops into a high state. I'm not sure if this is an intended behavior or if they should only function with buttons and activators. I know personally I had this break some of my circuits as the area triggers started to toggle blocks they were never intended to.

On more testing it looks more like editing a ship is what changes the tracking. The first time I put a missile computer down the missile seems to track but if I delete it and re-place it it won't track properly so width doesn't seem to be a factor.

Behavior has changed, the NOT gate no longer changes rail orientation on any state change.

I believe many more options for display modules are planned.

In T1919#75643, @Megacrafter127 wrote:

Isn't there a hardcoded limit of 1 station per sector, or is that just a default config limit?
If hardcoded, it is also possible have any created station not appear where the user was pointing, but in the exact center of the sector instead. That way we won't even need an indicator for the center.

In T1919#75575, @Megacrafter127 wrote:

There should also be a way to indicate the center of the current sector.

I was actually thinking about this the other day. I get used to it but switching back from SM to MC is painful. This is a much needed option IMHO

It's the star squadron server. The problem starts here and it just keeps throwing out these errors until the server dies.

Some more log files if it helps. We have an entire region on our server afflicted by this issue since the chunk update. The only solution I've found is to delete every offending sector but I keep finding more.

While I don't support the current permission system it is what we have to work with so I am voting yes.

The whole permission system needs to be overhauled. Being restricted to placing blocks next to something you want to give access too is just a bad system. I know it's an engine limitation currently but it's still a bad system.

More logic implementation is always desired. Currently storage logic doesn't even work properly so that needs to be addressed as well.

This is more or less the idea that I had for jump interdiction before it was added to the game. If I looked hard enough I'm sure I could find myself making a very similar suggestion. I would like to see the ability to lock down areas with stations. This would prevent ships from jumping directly to a protected location and maybe even allow for a player to set up an ambush point along a known travel route by preventing ships from jumping past a certain point.

A toggle would probably be a good idea. There are also a LOT of players that do not know this feature already exists

Personally I would love to remove the core entirely from docked ship parts to denote that they are actually part of the main ship and not ever able to operate on their own. So in that end you would not need any additional docks, as turrets and ships can easily use the same dock and you denote a ship part from removing the core but that's really it's own suggestion and more or less off topic but I think I'll vote no.

Yeah I would love to have a way to denote that certain docked entities are part of that ship and should be treated as such and not docked entities but I'm not sure having three different dockers is the solution.

In T1672#65565, @Crimson-Artist wrote:

Not to go off topic but this brings up an issue that i've been thinking about for some time. what happens when we, members of the council, come up with an idea for a suggestion?
do we need to create a thread on SMD first then link it to the council suggestion? would that be a conflict of interest? Do we go looking for a thread with our specific suggestions then? What if none exist? Do we create a thread then ask another councilor to make a council suggestion? isn't that a little redundant?
This is a very weird situation that i figured we'd run into sooner or later. Personally i thought i'd be the first one to do this since I got a boat load of ideas that I'm holding off on cuz i'm not sure if doing this is right or wrong.

In T1672#65479, @Megacrafter127 wrote:

In T1672#65403, @Sven_The_Slayer wrote:

I'm not really sure why we are bypassing normal suggestion procedure on this.

we are not, it is just that the suggestion in question has no thread.

I'm not really sure why we are bypassing normal suggestion procedure on this.

In T1651#64596, @lancake wrote:

Targeting each individual ship to get their status in a battle is quite tedious. If we had this combined with an ability to individually order ships, that would be amazing. Check your nav, see a ship is heavily damaged so you order them to retreat or other ships to their aid.

In T1643#64457, @AndyP wrote:

This is how I thought the original multi stack was going to work. Full support

If a blueprint is too heavy you would have to keep it in a storage system large enough to hold the mass. This way you cannot have pocket battleships.

In T1643#64171, @Crimson-Artist wrote:

Understandable. However i feel that it's a nessecary game play element. Especially for new players. We can take steps to encourage the building of shipyards with some nerfs to blueprint spawning such as having a build time that's slower than a shipyard. But ultimately I think that blueprint spawningis how we're gonna eventually be able to sell completed ships at player shops

I am voting no because I feel that the ability to spawn from blueprints and to use blueprints to store items bypassing cargo requirements be removed from the game entirely. Blueprint spawning makes shipyards unnecessary. With massive cargo stores, instant spawning and no need for a specific structure there is never any actually need to build a shipyard over simply using blueprints.

This feature originally used adjacency to work but then went to linking so Schema decided to go back to adjacency?

Linking Storage Computers (Chests) to logic gets output based on if a chest is full or not. When linking to an OR you get a signal when there is anything in the chest and an ACTIVATOR will trigger when the storage is full. These connections can no longer be made.