Fighter Hangar individual dropship

[Binnila]

I've been out exploring in a large ship, and decided to bring a fighter hangar to scout the terrain before finding a landing spot.
It would have been great if I could bring a new kind of "fighter" that functions like a dropship.

It should not be viable in combat. At most maybe a symbolic hardpoint. I think it could benefit from having a data link scanner and composition scanner.
It should be able to land on a surface and have the option to disembark from it.

The main ship should remain hovering nearby, like it usually does when I'm out in a fighter.

I believe this feature would fit right into the game today. I think having to outfit your ship with a fighter hangar is a decent counterbalance already to the added convenience of a landable tiny vehicle like this.

 

[aRJay]

The difference between your suggestion and the fighter situation is of course with the fighter it is only your point of view that leaves the ship you are still sat there running the drone using a limited range link system. Which is why SLFs can’t land as there is no point seeing as they are empty.

 

[Kissamies]

Yes, I have had this idea too: A shuttle that uses the SLF hangar. You only get one, no reprints, and you are actually in it.

 

[Thinking]

It seems to me that it should be more of a system of Leaving with, let's say, 10m SRV from a ship that has no possibility of unloading, you fly up, you pick on the srv and so on.

 

[Cmdr. Numa]

The difference between your suggestion and the fighter situation is of course with the fighter it is only your point of view that leaves the ship you are still sat there running the drone using a limited range link system. Which is why SLFs can’t land as there is no point seeing as they are empty.

When Odyssey released we should have gotten the option to decide if we want to remote control it (for combat) or actually go out in it (for landing and general planetary operation).

 

[CMDR Don Samen]

I have suggested this some years ago. A great benefit would be to land at medium stations when flying a large ship. Having dedicated secure "parking area" or distance from station for the large ship while deployed in the shuttle. The shuttle could have all weapons replaced with landing capabilities. It should have four slots for cargo to complete search/rescue missions on stations with small/medium pads. Then also use the shuttle for planetary landing while exploring? All while my NPC crew handles the main ship. Such shuttle bay could either come in one dedicated optional or take one of the slots replacing fighters with only one or two shuttles available depending on class.

 

[Aleks Zuno]

Giving landing gear to the existing fighters actually would help a lot with a reason I dislike flying them—they would become able to gear-boost! It is the secret to unlocking the agility hidden within long-boosting starships such as the Mamba and Imperial Cutter, and indeed a present fighter is very much less agile than a gear-boosting Mamba, noting that the fighter also has a stock Power Distributor.

 

[CMDR X]

An SLF that has the Scarab wave scanner, rock blaster and mats scoop would be the bees knees for me.

 

[Cmdr. Numa]

An SLF that has the Scarab wave scanner, rock blaster and mats scoop would be the bees knees for me.

This so very much, especially considering the bumpy hellscape Odyssey planets are for the SRV.

 

[Greasetrap42]

An SLF that has the Scarab wave scanner, rock blaster and mats scoop would be the bees knees for me.

A Viper with a convertible top, that can be opened up allowing pilot to directly jump in/out of cockpit. This would be the ultimate surface exploration vehicle for me. No need to land the ship... just stop wherever and jump out leaving the ship hovering. Yes it will consume fuel while hovering, idc. And yes...mount mount the SRV scanner onto the ship. If it takes a Utility Mount that's okay.

While seated in the cockpit the cmdr wears helmeted suit which is recharging directly from the ship. So the cmdr can have the convertible top open indefinitely, even in the vacuum of space. Well, until the ship itself is exhausted of fuel. Helmet UI would need to be adapted (or turned off) while flying the ship.

 

[Alaska Sædelære]

I like the idea. I posted this in another suggestions thread titled "stupid high hopes..." a while ago:

The ability to carry a Sidewinder in a fighter bay instead of an SLF, or alternatively, a different kind of hangar module for this purpose. It has to be able to house my own Sidewinder build of course, not just a default one. If you die in your Sidey, you should revive back in your main ship. You pay the usual rebuy for getting the Sidewinder back. There would probably be some twists with programming this, as these functions are otherwise only available to fleet carriers. Envisioned use case is the ability to try something potentially risky while being far out without needing a fleet carrier.

...

 

[Cosmo]

When Odyssey released we should have gotten the option to decide if we want to remote control it (for combat) or actually go out in it (for landing and general planetary operation).

Seconded.

All the original SLF have landing gear. This would make exploration and exobiology more fun for large ships + SLF.

 

[SlickPBW]

I kinda like this idea.

 

[Nidoboros]

What if singular vehicle bay, where Shuttle and SRVs nap next to each other until its time to wake them up? I would include SLFs, but they need extra storage space for backups and assembly...

Wait. We actually already have math for this! Size 6 fighter bay holds 16 fighters total, size 6 SRV fits 4 SRVs, so 4 fighters to 1 SRV. SIZE 1 VEHICLE BAY WITH TWO FIGHTERS, LET'S GOOOOOO!

 

[Alaska Sædelære]

Seconded.

All the original SLF have landing gear. This would make exploration and exobiology more fun for large ships + SLF.

But this would clash with the concept of piloting an SLF as telepresence. It would completely alter what happens when using it as an actual fighter and dying in it. I suppose this was the primary intended use case, telling by the given name. That it also makes an excellent exploration tool is a side effect. Maybe if the SLF could be equipped with a genetic sampler, or there was a version that comes with one instead of weapons? I bet if this was possible, going with SRV would become rather unpopular.

What if singular vehicle bay, where Shuttle and SRVs nap next to each other until its time to wake them up? I would include SLFs, but they need extra storage space for backups and assembly...

Wait. We actually already have math for this! Size 6 fighter bay holds 16 fighters total, size 6 SRV fits 4 SRVs, so 4 fighters to 1 SRV. SIZE 1 VEHICLE BAY WITH TWO FIGHTERS, LET'S GOOOOOO!

I suggested this a while ago, ability to carry a Sidewinder instead of SLF (post #132):

place your stupid high hopes " major feature overhaul for 2023 "

As I explain in the following post we can have potential on elevators mixed with procedural POIs that take advantage of it in some creative forms, so this boost up the exploration if used properly (potential POIs far from bubble)...

forums.frontier.co.uk

If the consequences of such a feature would be seen as overpowering or rendering existing ways of playing obsolete, we have that in spades already with recent developments.

 

[Nidoboros]

I suggested this a while ago, ability to carry a Sidewinder instead of SLF (post #132):

place your stupid high hopes " major feature overhaul for 2023 "

As I explain in the following post we can have potential on elevators mixed with procedural POIs that take advantage of it in some creative forms, so this boost up the exploration if used properly (potential POIs far from bubble)...

forums.frontier.co.uk

If the consequences of such a feature would be seen as overpowering or rendering existing ways of playing obsolete, we have that in spades already with recent developments.

Oh, this is sillier than putting a Sidewinder in a SLF. This is 'make all ships SLF capable, replace SRV and SLF Modules with a universal 'Vehicle Bay' (I kind of want SRVs to also used the SLF elevator for the aesthetic, but if not, it wont be the end of the world).

SLF Fighters take half the space of an SRV, Shuttles can take... an amount to be tinkered with later. Probably double the space of an SRV.

The biggest issue is I would also want shuttles to break off from the top, Firefly-style, so you can shuttle while the ship is landed, but it feels impractical to not use the same entry point as the other vehicles.

 

[Cmdr. Numa]

But this would clash with the concept of piloting an SLF as telepresence. It would completely alter what happens when using it as an actual fighter and dying in it. I suppose this was the primary intended use case, telling by the given name. That it also makes an excellent exploration tool is a side effect. Maybe if the SLF could be equipped with a genetic sampler, or there was a version that comes with one instead of weapons? I bet if this was possible, going with SRV would become rather unpopular.

Meh. Take the SRV. As per definition of the game you are actually in that thing. Yet what happens if you die in it ? You respawn in your ship. Why could that not allowed for SLF ? There is no realism in any of this.

 

[Alaska Sædelære]

Oh, this is sillier than putting a Sidewinder in a SLF. This is 'make all ships SLF capable, replace SRV and SLF Modules with a universal 'Vehicle Bay' (I kind of want SRVs to also used the SLF elevator for the aesthetic, but if not, it wont be the end of the world).
...

It's like the old metaphor: If you hold your little finger at a crocodile, it will bite off your entire arm. Any new feature, big or small, is always responded to with "not enough, moar, faster!" and ever escalating demands.

Meh. Take the SRV. As per definition of the game you are actually in that thing. Yet what happens if you die in it ? You respawn in your ship. Why could that not allowed for SLF ? There is no realism in any of this.

Realism... cough. I like it a lot but we know it has limits in the game. Inconsistencies like the one you point out are everywhere. I assume the logic behind this is a kind of hierarchy: If you die in your ship, you spawn at the station you were last docked. If you die in your SRV, you spawn in the ship it was last docked. The telepresence for SLF, however, is conceptually more like multicrew. You are not actually in that thing, you operate it like a drone. You don't die when it gets destroyed.

I assume (please correct me if wrong, not sure about this detail of game development history) that some time in the past SLFs were technically like ships (indicated by them having had landing gear), and also in that time you would lose combat bonds when you died, so the idea came up to change SLFs which have such weak defences to the telepresence principle because people complained about losing too much. That combat bonds are no longer lost upon death was changed only later (is this correct?) which broke the chain of logic there. Interestingly, the same was never granted to explorers.

 

[Cmdr. Numa]

Realism... cough. I like it a lot but we know it has limits in the game. Inconsistencies like the one you point out are everywhere. I assume the logic behind this is a kind of hierarchy: If you die in your ship, you spawn at the station you were last docked. If you die in your SRV, you spawn in the ship it was last docked. The telepresence for SLF, however, is conceptually more like multicrew. You are not actually in that thing, you operate it like a drone. You don't die when it gets destroyed.

But technically you do. What happens when the fighter gets destroyed is the same as when the SRV gets destroyed: You are back in your ship.

 

[Alaska Sædelære]

But technically you do. What happens when the fighter gets destroyed is the same as when the SRV gets destroyed: You are back in your ship.

No, when you operate a drone (SLF), you never leave the ship. When it gets destroyed, only the connection is interrupted and you snap back from VR to your physical location. All that within the simulation which is the game itself, VR within a VR