No Man's Sky Wiki
No Man's Sky Wiki

"The length of the twilight period will get longer at the expense of both day and night period lengths - the closer the Solar Panel is to either of the two geometric poles of the current planet or moon, while both the day and night periods will likewise get longer (at the expense of twilight period length) the closer the Solar Panel is to the geographic equator."

Could you please supply some evidence of this? It's just never worked this way in the past (extensive testing done by myself & many others) & if something has changed, it has not been mentioned. The day night cycle has always been the same regardless of planet or position on planet. If this has changed, we need evidence of it please. Thanks. I notice similar things cropping up on several other wiki pages also.

Hi, sure - just test it on any geographic North/South pole of any planet or moon (i can see I made a typo there "geometric" is wrong, should be "geographic"). If you're having trouble finding a geographic pole using my instructions, just retest at the pole I've found: I've tested the above statement at these coordinates: Galactic Coords: 09E0:0087:0E89:0045 = Gerodo system (Euclid galaxy), planet - Bury Prime, planet geographic pole coords +23.47/+48.55. Build a base somewhere closeby, build a Solar Panel next to it - it will generate 25 kPs round the clock (well, it did for me anyway in game version 2.55). Trajos (talk) 18:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)


Fantastic addition by Trajos, adding the iconography, on the 'upgrade module' page, which I couldn't get to work previously. Thank-you. I've also copied your changes over to the identical tables in 'blueprints'. I wondered if you knew how to make the columns with the letters in into a coloured background also, based on the colours of the tech family in game when adjacency bonus is activated. I've seen it on the 'technology bonus' page & could look into the code; but don't want to mess up the hard work you & myself have put into the upgrade module & blueprint pages; by making any mistakes. I wondered if you might be better qualified to sort this out instead of me? EDIT: I've figured it out. No worries.

Yes indeed, thanks for the good work. Two quick comments here. If the tables are indeed identical, is there a need for both of them? It might make more sense to create a separate page for the table, and then link to it from both pages. I've wondered if that might not be a good idea for all of the recently expanded tables for blueprints and upgrades. I've found that the longer a page gets, the less likely people are to scan it from top to bottom. It also means there's only one page to keep updated instead of two. Second comment - we try to avoid coloured backgrounds and coloured text as much as possible. There are few places we use it, but on the whole, we try to stay with the color schemes provided by the wiki css. Thanks Ddfairchild (talk) 23:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

¬ I mean like I've done on my testing page, so far made it through the exosuit & ship, if you'd like to take a look: I believe the two mentioned pages are the only instances of these tables, to my knowledge. But yes, one page would certainly be easier to manage. The tables existed in one form previously on both pages, so didn't want to delete one, as it started off as not my work. But happy for you to make the necissary change there. Atlantisking1985

Perhaps what make the most sense is to link to separate pages for each (exosuit / ship / bioship / multi-tool / exocraft / freighter). As then the pages would be smaller & therefore easier to read & load. What do you think? Atlantisking1985
What I think about this guys:
  1. The big page with all the tables is definitely useful when I am going shopping across multiple space stations, so in that sense it would be a shame if Upgrade Module disappeared, or turned into a list of links. At the same time, a small table on each upgrade page is likewise very useful, e.g. Boltcaster Upgrade, replacing the table with a link there would be detrimental to the user experience. I admit this results in duplication of information, in the other wikis they were able to deal with the problem reasonably effectively by using a macro for each separate table that which was duplicated, so I'd say making 7 macros and include them both on the main page and then also on each of the smaller pages would be the best solution in my view. Each macro could be controlled with parameters to display the desired upgrade (e.g. for multitool this would be boltcaster, mining module, javelin etc. - each parameter would be true for the big page, and then for small upgrade pages all but 1 parameter would be false).
  2. Regarding colors - my view is that we should try to mimic the game as much as possible, and if we do so - then a thin vertical bar with the color code on the left-hand-side of the "Upgrade Modules" table seems like a better match of what the game does than using it in the background color for the wider "class" column.
  3. On another note - do you guys want to move this discussion somewhere more public, e.g. Talk:Upgrade_Module? Trajos (talk) 08:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)