Who the h*ll designs these stations....????

[SMcA]

Indeed to echo SMcA - I find outpost docking easier than flying the letterbox no matter where the pad is - just approach it directly from above. Once your nose is close enough to trigger the landing graphic you can roll till your underside is showing, pitch up, thrust down - job done.

Another tip I've worked out. When your have the graphic. FA off, pitch back then let go of the stick. FA on when you are orientated. That saves any wayward rolling or yawing.
As for the OP's comment. They would be badly designed if there were any H&S rules.

 

[Pilot in red shirt]

Talking about station designs.. The larger one should have a RoRo system (roll on, roll off) where you enter at one side and leave on the other.
That would solve a lot of letterbox headache's.

Yeah - then you could do "can I fly in one end and out the other on full boost with no docking permsion and not get blown up?". I like your thinking!
.
You'd have to put some kind of chicane in the middle to up the challenge rating a bit, maybe only have some small slots at the edges that connect the two halves? I think we should put a design competition together for this and then demand FD add it to the game.
.
Might cause a whole bunch of new letterbox headaches but no one said life was going to be easy.
.

 

[Bane Six Echo]

There are several outpost layouts that need to be fixed by either removing obstructions or rotating the approach vector 180 degrees. Gameplay excuses aside, this is one of those immersion-breaking things that drive me kind of crazy every time I encounter it. You don't put obstructions at the beginning or end of runways just to make it more interesting for the pilots. It's ridiculous.

As for stations, CMDR Kridnos posted a pretty great idea on reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/EliteDangerous/comments/36fc7r/my_idea_for_a_new_starport_with_pictures/

 

[Tarman]

There are several outpost layouts that need to be fixed by either removing obstructions or rotating the approach vector 180 degrees. Gameplay excuses aside, this is one of those immersion-breaking things that drive me kind of crazy every time I encounter it. You don't put obstructions at the beginning or end of runways just to make it more interesting for the pilots. It's ridiculous.

As for stations, CMDR Kridnos posted a pretty great idea on reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/EliteDangerous/comments/36fc7r/my_idea_for_a_new_starport_with_pictures/

You can't put the gameplay aside - this is a game.

Our job is not to vett safety procedures and station engineering protocols for 31st century traffic management. It is to fly around pretending to be Han Solo. Having every station be logical and safe is more immersion-breaking imo, because IRL NEVER works like that.

 

[SMcA]

You can't put the gameplay aside - this is a game.

Our job is not to vett safety procedures and station engineering protocols for 31st century traffic management. It is to fly around pretending to be Han Solo. Having every station be logical and safe is more immersion-breaking imo, because IRL NEVER works like that.

I agree. You should have seen some of the approaches the paraffin budgies had to take when I worked on the oil rigs. Which these outstations remind me off. BTW
The crane drivers would put things anywhere. Not like in the movies where everything was spic and span.

 

[who?]

There are several outpost layouts that need to be fixed by either removing obstructions or rotating the approach vector 180 degrees. Gameplay excuses aside, this is one of those immersion-breaking things that drive me kind of crazy every time I encounter it. You don't put obstructions at the beginning or end of runways just to make it more interesting for the pilots. It's ridiculous.

As for stations, CMDR Kridnos posted a pretty great idea on reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/EliteDangerous/comments/36fc7r/my_idea_for_a_new_starport_with_pictures/

But we're not talking about runways. On a runway, the vast majority of aircraft don't have VTOL ability, so they have to have a long obstruction-free zone around it. On an outpost, that's not essential, as all craft can take off and land vertically. On a runway, land is relatively cheap to have this clearance on the approach. On an outpost, perhaps many Ly from the nearest habitation, real-estate would be *extremely* expensive and you'd cram everything in as tightly as you possibly can.

There's a reason why the stations near the biggest population centres are big and plush, and those on the outskirts of distant systems tend to be (relatively) tiny outposts.

 

[Faster than Jesus [VR]]

I lost an Asp due to a design like that. I didn't notice the 'protrusion' in front of the pad (well not until about two seconds before the insurance screen) and came in slightly too hot.

 

[Kayweg]

If you were to design outposts in space, you'd design them in a way that makes taking off and landing as easy as possible.

Putting a blooming big tower or solar panel right in front of your intended approach is just plain silly.

If you want to present players with a challenge, figure something out that makes sense.

The way it is now, it's like placing mortar bricks on the greens of a golf course.

More difficult ? yes

Believable? no

 

[Cody]

I rather like them!

 

[xondk]

If you were to design outposts in space, you'd design them in a way that makes taking off and landing as easy as possible.

I would like to counter this with something I think people are forgetting.

The reason we think of this as a bad design, even though there is plenty of ways to land and take off, is that vertical takeoff is not something we see as 'simple' or easy, I think due to the fact that it isn't something we can do in everyday life.

But consider people that life in space, constantly fly space ships, constantly work with all three directions, with no real up or down, why would they be bothered by which way they should land or takeoff? If landing or taking off in any direction feels natural and normal, why would this bother them?

 

[teaurn]

Ok, time for me to chime in again!

A) I'm joking (for all you serious guys out there, talking about design in a serious way!)
B) There's VTOL and there's VTOL...if the tower was, say 10m high, you could overfly lined up with the pad, and then drop in, which is how I like to land. But this damn thing is HUGE, which means approaching either *very* high indeed and dropping hard, or coming in to one side, then thrusting sideways for an instrument landing.

and finally

C) I actually think this is funny as hell...makes me laugh every time I see the bloomin' thing, and don't mind it a bit, really!

 

[DePriest]

Take a look at the helipads on oil platforms, more often than not they also have towers and other structures sitting right up close to the pad. Sometimes space is a premium.

 

[Cody]

... which means approaching either *very* high indeed and dropping hard, or coming in to one side, then thrusting sideways for an instrument landing.

I dive nose-first into the pad, level-up at the last second and drop onto it.

 

[who?]

C) I actually think this is funny as hell...makes me laugh every time I see the bloomin' thing, and don't mind it a bit, really!

I agree with you there. I see some outposts and their zany layout (such as pads on the edge of an outpost, next to a big "block" of the station, and of course you have to approach and exit the pad from the "wrong" side), and think "Challenge Accepted"!

 

[Mufus]

Someone who knew you can fly vertically and sideways as well as forwards and backwards?

Is this perhaps the same someone who didn't bother to fit rear or up / down cameras on any ships? Landing vertically is considerably easier when you can see where you are going.

There are several outpost layouts that need to be fixed by either removing obstructions or rotating the approach vector 180 degrees. Gameplay excuses aside, this is one of those immersion-breaking things that drive me kind of crazy every time I encounter it. You don't put obstructions at the beginning or end of runways just to make it more interesting for the pilots. It's ridiculous.

As for stations, CMDR Kridnos posted a pretty great idea on reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/EliteDangerous/comments/36fc7r/my_idea_for_a_new_starport_with_pictures/

It's the same as many stupid MMOGs out there where they confuse tedious with difficult for no reason other than to make the game longer. In any vaguely sane landing scheme, the flight paths of space ships (speeding lumps of weaponised metal with a fusion reactor for added boom) should be kept as clear as possible. While for gameplay reasons stations are indestructable, for common sense reaons, you'd want to avoid collisions, and the subsequent debris clouds, as much as possible. However in this game ships are destroyed in the letterbox and inside stations, which would do enormous amounts of damage from the debris cloud.

I dive nose-first into the pad, level-up at the last second and drop onto it.

That is pretty much my technique. The aim of the game is to go in as fast as possible, hit zero thrust and come to a stop just before the nose of your ship hits the landing pad. Then it's the chore of rotating the ship so that it's facing the correct way. Or double checking that you're attempting to land on the correct pad because there are no markers on or near the pad itself, just a disappearing hologram that isn't there when close.

 

[DrakeAurum]

That great big thing doesn't bother me nearly as much as those annoying skinny lamp posts on the corners. The number of times I've got hooked around one of them coming in...

 

[Iskariot]

What sort of Onionhead addicted engineer was responsible for this abomination?

Just sayin'...

I do not see a problem to be honest. More than enough room to take off.
I love the fact that some stations are constructed in such a way that you will have to take off with care.

 

[Rankaze]

But we're not talking about runways. On a runway, the vast majority of aircraft don't have VTOL ability, so they have to have a long obstruction-free zone around it. On an outpost, that's not essential, as all craft can take off and land vertically. On a runway, land is relatively cheap to have this clearance on the approach. On an outpost, perhaps many Ly from the nearest habitation, real-estate would be *extremely* expensive and you'd cram everything in as tightly as you possibly can.

There's a reason why the stations near the biggest population centres are big and plush, and those on the outskirts of distant systems tend to be (relatively) tiny outposts.

The problem with this idea is that we cannot SEE below us, nor in many craft can we see to the sides (the Vulture jumps immediately to mind), and being in space there is a distinct lack of reference points we can see by which to align ourselves. And we are not given sufficiently precise instruments to align ourselves until very near the pad.

It is, from an in-universe perspective, atrocious design.

This is doubly true given that we approach and depart from the same end of the pad. Given that, you would think these obstructions could be placed on the OTHER side.

 

[DrakeAurum]

The only time I ever approach an outpost pad from the back is by coincidence.

 

[EUS]

[video=youtube;CUSuV82rywE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUSuV82rywE[/video]
Designed so you park like this.