Let us move space paltform hub.

[kitters]

WHAT?
I said, please, let us move space paltform hub.

WHY??
Because it's frustraiting to rebuild the whole platform around it if I need to move it 2 tiles lower. We try to build compactly.

I suppose there is a reason why you don't do this, for example a platform can't exist without a hub by the code. But the problem is too frustraiting, I suggest to rewirte code for solution. For example, don't let it be removed until a ghost of it is placed.

[Stargateur]

that would be very annoying to implement in code

[AileTheAlien]

Can't you just cut/paste everything else in the platform in the opposite direction? I mean, how often does this happen? Plus, it holds all buildable items for the platform, which would mean you need to allow items to be stored...somewhere else...in the one and only case where you move the hub. This seems like it'd cause problems.

[erkki772]

Go to Nauvis and CUT + PASTE. I do all my fine tuning there

[boskid]

Short answer: No.

Long answer: There are some obstacles:
1/ We do not want to allow that because there is a build restriction imposed on the space platforms: you cannot build entities more than 200 north from the hub. This was added to avoid one of the speedrunner's spear cheese where a 20000+ long 1 tile wide spear was built from the north so the asteroid spawner head was far enough that a platform was able to travel to aquilo and to the win screen without any turrets just sacrificing tiles before asteroids destroyed the hub. Because we do not want to allow the spear strat again, this would require having extra restrictions to not allow moving a hub to a position that would have more than 200 tiles to the north from the new position.
2/ Space platform hub was intentionally made to have core snapping of 256 tiles which means if you have a blueprint it is easier to aim it over an existing hub. If a hub would be allowed to move, this core snapping of a hub would have to be reduced down to 2 so a full platform blueprint would be allowed to be placed with any alignment
3/ There is a restriction of at most 1 hub on a space platform. We definitely do not want to allow having no hubs on a space platform at a given point in time because hub entity is used in at least one of the critical pieces of space platform logic: if an asteroid destroys tiles causing the space platform to be split in half, then only a section that still has a hub on it will survive. Not having a hub would mean tile loss could make entire space platform to dissapear. Another issue would be that having no hub would mean the condition of when platform is destroyed would need to also include having no tiles (rather than just having hub be destroyed). Because of that it would have to be a solution that does not involve removing existing hub, there would have to be always exactly 1 hub on a platform.

Most reasonable solution (if we would be willing to change current limitation) would be to have hub be possible to mark for deconstruction, hub would have core snapping reduced to 2 and if there is a ghost of a hub on a different position, this one hub would effectively be destroyed in one spot and constructed at the other spot in the same tick (or teleported to keep all the settings). On top of that i do not know if orbital logistics is currently capable of handling hatches teleport around, and i do not know if cargo bays inventory effect is easy to make to reattach to the other hub in a way that avoids intermediate state of having no inventory bonus. On top of that i would become slightly afraid if teleporting hub over a space platform hub could be abused as a weird item teleportation scheme where you load items in one spot on the platform, move the hub (that would have to still obey the 200 tiles restriction from the north) to a different place and take items from there.

[IsaacOscar]

I'm perfectly happy with the hub not being moveable and seems totally logical.
What does annoy me however is that when using copy/cut it can select the hub, but that can't be moved so.
Thus I have to be careful to not select the hub,. And so I have to cut/copy things in chunks (or make a blueprint and deselect the platform?)

Anyway, allowing ghost hub would solve this problem. You can simply make it impossible to build unless it's over an existing hub, and then it would override the settings.

[IsaacOscar]

Short answer: No.

Long answer: There are some obstacles:
1/ We do not want to allow that because there is a build restriction imposed on the space platforms: you cannot build entities more than 200 north from the hub. This was added to avoid one of the speedrunner's spear cheese where a 20000+ long 1 tile wide spear was built from the north so the asteroid spawner head was far enough that a platform was able to travel to aquilo and to the win screen without any turrets just sacrificing tiles before asteroids destroyed the hub. Because we do not want to allow the spear strat again, this would require having extra restrictions to not allow moving a hub to a position that would have more than 200 tiles to the north from the new position.
2/ Space platform hub was intentionally made to have core snapping of 256 tiles which means if you have a blueprint it is easier to aim it over an existing hub. If a hub would be allowed to move, this core snapping of a hub would have to be reduced down to 2 so a full platform blueprint would be allowed to be placed with any alignment
3/ There is a restriction of at most 1 hub on a space platform. We definitely do not want to allow having no hubs on a space platform at a given point in time because hub entity is used in at least one of the critical pieces of space platform logic: if an asteroid destroys tiles causing the space platform to be split in half, then only a section that still has a hub on it will survive. Not having a hub would mean tile loss could make entire space platform to dissapear. Another issue would be that having no hub would mean the condition of when platform is destroyed would need to also include having no tiles (rather than just having hub be destroyed). Because of that it would have to be a solution that does not involve removing existing hub, there would have to be always exactly 1 hub on a platform.

Most reasonable solution (if we would be willing to change current limitation) would be to have hub be possible to mark for deconstruction, hub would have core snapping reduced to 2 and if there is a ghost of a hub on a different position, this one hub would effectively be destroyed in one spot and constructed at the other spot in the same tick (or teleported to keep all the settings). On top of that i do not know if orbital logistics is currently capable of handling hatches teleport around, and i do not know if cargo bays inventory effect is easy to make to reattach to the other hub in a way that avoids intermediate state of having no inventory bonus. On top of that i would become slightly afraid if teleporting hub over a space platform hub could be abused as a weird item teleportation scheme where you load items in one spot on the platform, move the hub (that would have to still obey the 200 tiles restriction from the north) to a different place and take items from there.

Thanks so much for the detailed response! It's clear moving them would be very hard to implement

[AileTheAlien]

What does annoy me however is that when using copy/cut it can select the hub, but that can't be moved so.

Maybe the hub should not be selectable? Seems like an oversight, if it doesn't count as a proper "bug".

[IsaacOscar]

What does annoy me however is that when using copy/cut it can select the hub, but that can't be moved so.

Maybe the hub should not be selectable? Seems like an oversight, if it doesn't count as a proper "bug".

It is useful if you want to copy circuit connections and settings between platforms. Hence my 'unbuildable ghost' idea.

[Koub]

[Koub] Moved to Won't Implement.