[quote=“Weyrling, post:55, topic:3254”][quote=“GrizzlyAdamz, post:54, topic:3254”]What I’m saying is, so long as the recipes are ambiguous and the results defined by their properties, we don’t need to be explicit, and indeed it may be a good thing.
I’m for adding new functionality- bush guards to protect lights, aimable spotlights, dozer bumpers. But introducing (what I assert is) needless complexity to a system that works? That’s a harder sell for me good sir.[/quote]
You make some good points, but my main point wasn’t about having more complexity the way you described it. I was thinking more along the lines of just having more ways of doing things, rather than adding more steps.
For example having steel bars as a component, it would be lighter than a wall or door, obstruct movement, and be transparent. You could either attach it to a frame/board as a barrier (like a cage around your motorcycle seat) or reinforce a windshield with it. Or perhaps having a ‘glass door’ made out of a sheet of glass instead of a steel frame.[/quote]
Ah ok, fair enough then! Hrm, what would be the balance for rebar vs windows & walls though? Stopping movement & allowing vision are very desirable traits- doors compensate by being fragile, (kind of). Maybe we could do something similar to EP, except with cars?
I agree with solar panels- from the behavior my 4-panel vehicle demonstrates, it seems as if I’d only really need 1 to keep my base mobile & swimming in power.