Bases without foundations / how to control build height / bases built into terrain?

SpacedInvader

I've seen a couple of base pictures where the modules appeared to be raised off the seafloor and had no foundation. I've tried to replicate this more than once in my playthroughs, but whenever I try to place a base module without a foundation, it digs deep into the ground, eliminating a large square area around the module and generally looking stupid / unnatural. This brings me to the next point, bases that look like they are built into cliff faces or caves... I've seen several base pictures that looked like they were well integrated into the rock around them, but every time I try to build something like this, the same large elimination area gets cut out and leaves the area surrounding the base looking like a base shaped bomb went off prior to construction.

Is there any way to get around these issues?

R2T9

Not to my knowledge. Base pieces auto-terraform the land around them.

SporkWitch

The trick is to build a foundation, a single i-corridor, and then something attached to it but not above the foundation. Now deconstruct the first corridor and the foundation. Now everything will attach to the object that's using struts into the ground.

None of this is perfect, mind you. The most annoying issue is the moon pool, which REALLY wants to have legs, and will even randomly add one or more legs when other modules change after construction. This is fairly difficult logic to program, though, so I'll cut slack until 1.0 lol

SpacedInvader

SporkWitch wrote: »

The trick is to build a foundation, a single i-corridor, and then something attached to it but not above the foundation. Now deconstruct the first corridor and the foundation. Now everything will attach to the object that's using struts into the ground.

None of this is perfect, mind you. The most annoying issue is the moon pool, which REALLY wants to have legs, and will even randomly add one or more legs when other modules change after construction. This is fairly difficult logic to program, though, so I'll cut slack until 1.0 lol

I've noticed a lot of issues with base legs in general, especially as the base becomes more complicated. I've added a new room to my base, only to turn around and see the entire thing floating, supported by only 2-3 legs under one of the foundations. Also, yeah, the moon pool can't figure out what it wants to do and seems to change configuration every time I scene change (dock or enter/exit the base). I've docked while it had one long leg (I have been building my moon pools over ledges so the seamoth doesn't touch bottom when it drops) only to jump back into the water to see four short legs hanging off the bottom, not touching anything.

I'll give the method you described a try on my next playthrough. Its not that I don't like the foundations per se, just that they don't seem to fit with my concept of an underwater base.

SporkWitch

I hear you, I try to set up my moon pools similarly, to minimize the obstructions on approach. One easy fix (for the devs) might be to make it so if you have two corridors attached it doesn't grow legs (we can say the connected parts support it).

Maybe even have such a configuration play into integrity. Modules without struts could use up more integrity, depending on how many corridors attach to support them.

SpacedInvader

SporkWitch wrote: »

I hear you, I try to set up my moon pools similarly, to minimize the obstructions on approach. One easy fix (for the devs) might be to make it so if you have two corridors attached it doesn't grow legs (we can say the connected parts support it).

Maybe even have such a configuration play into integrity. Modules without struts could use up more integrity, depending on how many corridors attach to support them.

I would tend to think that moon pools would weigh too much to be supported like that, though I guess if they have enough surrounding supports they wouldn't need their own (i.e. if the moon pool was in a central location in the base with rooms all around it). That said, I think the easier fix would be to increase the maximum length of the support legs so they would always spawn unless you built it on the edge of a hundred meter cliff.

SporkWitch

I see the argument, it's just a question of how realistically we want to model it. I'm inclined to think that if we wanted to be that realistic we wouldn't have the forced space between things and use square rooms instead to make a "solid" stricture, instead of the networked designs we have now.

SpacedInvader

SporkWitch wrote: »

I see the argument, it's just a question of how realistically we want to model it. I'm inclined to think that if we wanted to be that realistic we wouldn't have the forced space between things and use square rooms instead to make a "solid" stricture, instead of the networked designs we have now.

I think the networked designs are more realistic than a single solid structure. Everything we build is essentially a pressure vessel, which gets harder to maintain the larger you make it. This is modeled a little through the use of structural integrity, but in reality its much easier to build multiple small pressure vessels that interconnect than a single large one.

SporkWitch

Yes and no. There's an upper limit, but we're nowhere near it. When I think of a medium size base I picture the rig from The Abyss. Everything is part of the larger structure, and one of the benefits of this is keeping the moon pool away from the support struts and any other obstructions.

SporkWitch

(I could go into more detail explaining pressure dynamics, but i'm on my phone)