Internal Compartment Splitting Service

[Mephane]

Here's what it does and how it works:

Internal Compartment Splitting Service

• Internal compartment sizes work by powers of 2. 2^1=2, 2^2=4, 2^3=8, 2^4=16 etc. This is especially evident with cargo racks. This means a compartment of any given sizes is twice as large as one of the next lower size.
• Depending on the ship and loadout, you can end up with a situation where you must waste large compartments for smaller pieces of equipment. For example exploration scanners on a Cobra take the place of a class 2 compartment, even though they would fit into class 1; the same applies to the docking computer. Another example are the various limpet controllers, which come in multiple but always odd sizes.
• To remedy this sometimes very frustrating situation, at any station with outfitting capabilities, one can pay for a service that splits an internal compartment in half, thus producing two compartments each one size lower.
• The price of this service increases with the original size of the compartment. For example, turning 1x class 2 into 2x class 1 may cost 10,000cr, but turning 1x class 6 into 2x class 5 costs 1,000,000cr. Generally speaking, the price must be high enough that it is more expensive to turn a compartment into 2 smaller ones and then buy 2 smaller cargo racks, than just taking one bigger cargo rack.
• The service can undo any such modifications, but this costs the same fee again.
• The service can only be used when a) any affected compartment is empty or b) contains no equipment that wouldn't fit after the modification.
• You can only undo the splitting of compartments; you cannot combine two smaller compartments into a bigger one if they were part of the default configuration of the ship. This preserves the balancing aspects of ships starting with various compartment sizes (for example you cannot have a class 5 shield and class 5 SCB on an FDL simultaneously) while particularly solves awkward situations where you waste precious space on smaller modules.
• One of the most extreme example where such a service is in need is the Anaconda. Its compartment list ends in the sizes 4, 4, 4, 2. To equip both exploration scanners and a docking computer, one has to fill 2x class 4 compartments and 1x class 2, despite all 3 modules would physically fit into a single class 4 with lots of room to spare. By splitting up that lists into 4, 4, 3, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1 all three modules can be equipped with no wasted internal volume.

 

[goemon]

i think you gave a very good example why your idea would totally unbalance ships. as much as i would love it and as much as it would probably make sense from a more "realistic" point of view. with that i could put the same moduls into an dbe as into an explotation anaconda...

[*]One of the most extreme example where such a service is in need is the Anaconda. Its compartment list ends in the sizes 4, 4, 4, 2. To equip both exploration scanners and a docking computer, one has to fill 2x class 4 compartments and 1x class 2, despite all 3 modules would physically fit into a single class 4 with lots of room to spare. By splitting up that lists into 4, 4, 3, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1 all three modules can be equipped with no wasted internal volume.
[/LIST]

 

[Magic Man]

As above.
It's an over-complication that makes balancing tricky.

 

[Mephane]

i think you gave a very good example why your idea would totally unbalance ships. as much as i would love it and as much as it would probably make sense from a more "realistic" point of view. with that i could put the same moduls into an dbe as into an explotation anaconda...

Why is it unbalanced? Because an Anaconda could free up a few tons of, for example, extra cargo space that would otherwise be wasted, empty volume in a compartment too oversized for what it holds?

And yes, exploration (or just a side activity of exploration in a multi-purpose build) in particular is a case where a number of ships suffered disproportionately because they don't end in, say, 2x class 1 compartment, but 1x class 2. I bet the design of these ships actually intended the class 2 modules to be superior to having 2x class 1, which they are in some situations.

Let's look at one most apparently and aggravating scenario: a mining Cobra. You lose a whole 4 tons of cargo capacity for no benefit, because the designers omitted class 2 limpet controllers. This is just lost, because the independent design choices "Cobra gets 3x class 2 modules" and "limpet controllers come in classes 1, 3 and 5" clash against each other. You also have only the choice of a puny class 2 fuel scoop, or the super-powerful class 4 (really, the class 4 scoop feels like pure luxury on a Cobra, the class 2 feels totally insufficient - way back at the start, I did a long exploration expedition using a class 3 fuel scoop because I could not afford the class 4, and I did fine and never thought "man this fuel scoop is too weak for this ship").
And none of this is fuel lack of internal volume, or capacity to haul mass around. It is merely because there are internal spaces of a given size that would physically fit two modules at once. We must keep in mind these internal compartment sizes don't come out of thin air. FD have an idea for the internal layout of the ship, and where these compartments all fit in. They probably fill it with as many as big pockets as possible, adding smaller pockets in places where there is less room, and thus end up with a list of internal rooms. For example, the 3x class 4 compartments would make up a lot of the central bulk of the Cobra, the 3x class 2 compartments could fill in some holes near "wing tips" and, for example, below the cockpit.

 

[goemon]

okay. balancing. i will give you some examples.

a) DBS. the dbs is quite cheap and is better in many ways to the cobra, and nearby as fast. one of the things it is missing: it can't fit a scanner, a fuelscoop, scb, fsdi, cargo and shield at the same time. your suggestion would allow this.

b) ASP your suggestion would allow a ship, that can fully mine, explore with both scanners and a fuelscoop, having a decent fsdi, scb at the same time....

c) vulture: this would turn the vulture into a mission-game monster. fuelscoop, extra fueltank, scb, shield, and still 16 T of cargo.


as said, i have zero problems with your suggestion from a point of "realism". i'd say, it actually make sense. but it simply is a) a heavy buff for all ships and b) unbalances ships.

 

[Mephane]

okay. balancing. i will give you some examples.

a) DBS. the dbs is quite cheap and is better in many ways to the cobra, and nearby as fast. one of the things it is missing: it can't fit a scanner, a fuelscoop, scb, fsdi, cargo and shield at the same time. your suggestion would allow this.

b) ASP your suggestion would allow a ship, that can fully mine, explore with both scanners and a fuelscoop, having a decent fsdi, scb at the same time....

c) vulture: this would turn the vulture into a mission-game monster. fuelscoop, extra fueltank, scb, shield, and still 16 T of cargo.


as said, i have zero problems with your suggestion from a point of "realism". i'd say, it actually make sense. but it simply is a) a heavy buff for all ships and b) unbalances ships.

a) DBS is not that much cheaper than the Cobra, which would still have more of all these things.
b) Anaconda. It already has enough internals to do all these things in a single build. So what if the Asp could, too?
c) A yes? 5A shields, 4A SCB, 2A fuel scoop (which btw is rather pathetic), leaves 2 class 1 compartments already without the "splitting service". That's like 4 tons extra fuel or 4 tons cargo.

 

[goemon]

a) DBS is not that much cheaper than the Cobra, which would still have more of all these things.
b) Anaconda. It already has enough internals to do all these things in a single build. So what if the Asp could, too?
c) A yes? 5A shields, 4A SCB, 2A fuel scoop (which btw is rather pathetic), leaves 2 class 1 compartments already without the "splitting service". That's like 4 tons extra fuel or 4 tons cargo.

no, you'd split the class 5 into two class four or one four and two three. class 4A shield gets you rid of any powerproblems on a vulture.

 

[nathdixon92]

I like the idea, but your suggestions would unbalance things as there would be no compromise for converting so I would say a better option would be:

Class 1 - no split
Class 2 - no split
Class 3 - 2 x Class 1
Class 4 - 1 x Class 1, 1 x Class 2
Class 5 - 2 x Class 2
Class 6 - 1 x Class 3, 1 x Class 2
Class 7 - 2 x Class 3
Class 8 - 1 x Class 3, 1 x Class 4

 

[SyberSmoke]

I like the idea, but your suggestions would unbalance things as there would be no compromise for converting so I would say a better option would be:

Class 1 - no split
Class 2 - no split
Class 3 - 2 x Class 1
Class 4 - 1 x Class 1, 1 x Class 2
Class 5 - 2 x Class 2
Class 6 - 1 x Class 3, 1 x Class 2
Class 7 - 2 x Class 3
Class 8 - 1 x Class 3, 1 x Class 4

This would work since you would need to add additional hardware (connections, ports, mount points) into the cargo space to divide it for other use. I would also propose that the splitting would add mass and could only be done a certain number of times. So say you have 5 bays, you can split two in half adding weight to the ship and reducing your overall capacity as determined above. There will always need to be compromises. After all balance is all about compromise is it not?

 

[nathdixon92]

This would work since you would need to add additional hardware (connections, ports, mount points) into the cargo space to divide it for other use. I would also propose that the splitting would add mass and could only be done a certain number of times. So say you have 5 bays, you can split two in half adding weight to the ship and reducing your overall capacity as determined above. There will always need to be compromises. After all balance is all about compromise is it not?

Agreed, my logic would be you'd need to fit dividers and airlocks along with playing around with the corridors. I think such changes should be expensive and also, permanent. Being able to make such changes should come with downsides to ensure that any potential advantage is offset.

 

[Psycho Romeo]

This suggestion again. Yay.

I think it's a mistake to assume that internal compartments are uniform and their size increases in a standard way.

I also think ships should more heavily identify with its internal compartments. I don't think it's done especially successfully. But the OP (like the others before him) suggests a cure for a symptom, not the solution for the problem.

Don't complain the multipurpose cobra doesn't have internals that don't fit perfectly for exploration. This is ridiculous.

 

[Mephane]

Don't complain the multipurpose cobra doesn't have internals that don't fit perfectly for exploration. This is ridiculous.

Then let's turn the thing on its head: let's complain about some modules coming in arbitrary sizes only with no benefit whatsoever to the capacity to actually mount something larger. Like limpet controllers, which don't exist in classes 2, 4, 6 etc. Like the exploration scanners, which exists as 2 separate modules each consuming an entire compartment of any size even though they would fit together into a single class 2 compartment. I honestly wouldn't mind if these situations did not exists, and have suggested these modules be addressed, this thread is an alternative that does not need any modules to be changed and would be future-proof for further one-size-only modules and the like.

Edit: Re "internals perfectly fit for exploration". Let's look at the Asp, oh what do we get. Class 2 compartments are the smallest. Even the ship that has "Explorer" in its name suffers from wasted internal space when using exploration scanners. The Cobra was just an example because it is relatable, but lots of ships and builds suffer from this, even when a ship is built in a way that it was seemingly invented for.

 

[Hydrino]

I'm not sold on the OP proposal as things like fuel tanks and hard-points might typically be configured as core to the hull and thus re-configuring would be serious work or simply not supportable by the power plant available. Cargo capacity might likewise be hard to split when ships are so modular that loadouts can be changed very quickly, meaning a custom setup would take more time.

This could be part of the loot and crafting system that is coming as well. FD said they could have made a wider variety of modules but wanted to allow crafting at some point to let the players fulfill that role rather than the shipyards having some things by default.

But I do vote for more complex customization and management of ship space and power requirements.

The loadout screen on the buying menu is a bit confusing to me. In fact I think the docking bay loadout view needs a good overhaul or a second view. I'd like to see a more clear indication when comparing items and be able to compare more- or just list all modules of selected class and size on screen side-by-side in a table.

It would be cool to have a mini power simulation showing the power draw and space requirements for all modules on a 3D ship schematic, including option to display power draw of ship as each individual hard-point is deployed. Also, better indication of where modules go on a ship without zooming in for a narrow view.

But I also think these type of items are probably low on the priority list if they are even on it.

 

[CMDR Byr Goefin]

I suspect that bulkheads are the issue, and you really can't move bulkheads around without changing the structural integrity of the ship.

Maybe that is the solution? Turning those two class 3s into a 4 also reduces your hull rating, and possibly turn radius. A less rigid hull would not take the G forces as well

 

[Mephane]

I suspect that bulkheads are the issue, and you really can't move bulkheads around without changing the structural integrity of the ship.

Maybe that is the solution? Turning those two class 3s into a 4 also reduces your hull rating, and possibly turn radius. A less rigid hull would not take the G forces as well

My idea wasn't to move bulkhead around. If you have a class 4 internal compartment, that is a single open volume surrounded by bulkheads. What I would do now is pull up a wall in the middle to split it into two class 3 compartments.

There is, however, one counter-argument against this which I had not thought about until right now: the compartments may all have the shape of a cube. Halfing a cube leaves you with two non-cube cavities into which a cube-shaped module would not fit. If a compartment is however shaped different, for example rectangular of an aspect ratio that always yields two half-sized ones with the same proportions, just everything half as big, it would work. The square root of 2 is one such (or maybe even the only?) ratios which allows exactly that, which is also why one of the standards for paper sheets follows it - you can cut any DIN A series sheet in half in the middle along its shorter length, and thus receive two sheets of the A series one size smaller:

The international paper size standard, ISO 216, is based on the German DIN 476 standard for paper sizes. ISO paper sizes are all based on a single aspect ratio of square root of 2, or approximately 1:1.4142. The base A0 size of paper is defined as having an area of 1 m2. Rounded to the nearest millimetre, the A0 paper size is 841 by 1,189 millimetres (33.1 in × 46.8 in).

Successive paper sizes in the series A1, A2, A3, and so forth, are defined by halving the preceding paper size across the larger dimension. The most frequently used paper size is A4 measuring 210 by 297 millimetres (8.27 in × 11.7 in).

The significant advantage of this system is its scaling: if a sheet with an aspect ratio of \sqrt{2} is divided into two equal halves parallel to its shortest sides, then the halves will again have an aspect ratio of \sqrt{2}. Folded brochures of any size can be made by using sheets of the next larger size, e.g. A4 sheets are folded to make A5 brochures. The system allows scaling without compromising the aspect ratio from one size to another—as provided by office photocopiers, e.g. enlarging A4 to A3 or reducing A3 to A4. Similarly, two sheets of A4 can be scaled down and fit exactly 1 sheet without any cutoff or margins.

If the internal compartments do not follow a similar approach regarding their actual shapes, cutting them in half would indeed not work to directly create 2 half sizes, one class lower compartments. However, variations where you can get smaller compartments but lose some "filler" volume to be unused could still geometrically work, but may not worth it any more due to the net loss in usable volume.

 

[Psycho Romeo]

Then let's turn the thing on its head: let's complain about some modules coming in arbitrary sizes only with no benefit whatsoever to the capacity to actually mount something larger. Like limpet controllers, which don't exist in classes 2, 4, 6 etc. Like the exploration scanners, which exists as 2 separate modules each consuming an entire compartment of any size even though they would fit together into a single class 2 compartment. I honestly wouldn't mind if these situations did not exists, and have suggested these modules be addressed, this thread is an alternative that does not need any modules to be changed and would be future-proof for further one-size-only modules and the like.

Edit: Re "internals perfectly fit for exploration". Let's look at the Asp, oh what do we get. Class 2 compartments are the smallest. Even the ship that has "Explorer" in its name suffers from wasted internal space when using exploration scanners. The Cobra was just an example because it is relatable, but lots of ships and builds suffer from this, even when a ship is built in a way that it was seemingly invented for.

Like I said, I don't think it's particularly successful, but I don't wouldn't go so far as to allow full customization. A lot of ship identity can be written with its internals. I don't see a reason to take this away. If you called for the asp to have a pair of class one internals instead of class two, I'd be all over that. All exploration ships should have that, as this is iconic for explorers. Why they don't is beyond me.

The idea that you want to 'future proof' things by making it completely open ended is in my opinion terrible. Meaningful decisions come from inconvenience. Why bother having internals at all if we can just break them down into whatever we want?

 

[ToastSky]

Seems like a good idea to me, though this would complicated ship balancing slightly, but I totally support this! (Then again I am flying a Anaconda with a BDS stuck in a class 4 internal so I may be slightly biased XD)

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

Building a ship is about choices - fit some things at the expense of others.

I like the idea, but your suggestions would unbalance things as there would be no compromise for converting so I would say a better option would be:

Class 1 - no split
Class 2 - no split
Class 3 - 2 x Class 1
Class 4 - 1 x Class 1, 1 x Class 2
Class 5 - 2 x Class 2
Class 6 - 1 x Class 3, 1 x Class 2
Class 7 - 2 x Class 3
Class 8 - 1 x Class 3, 1 x Class 4

And this kind of "penalty" for splitting up modules would fit that ethos.

"You can split modules but there's a price to pay"

 

[Psycho Romeo]

Building a ship is about choices - fit some things at the expense of others.



And this kind of "penalty" for splitting up modules would fit that ethos.

"You can split modules but there's a price to pay"

I don't follow this at all. You're giving the player many near infinite options and severely reducing the significance of choices - how does this follow the ethos of ED?

Scenario current: AMFU or DSS? I want both but I only have one internal left.
Scenario proposed: I'll just split my class 3 internal and get both.

Please explain. I spent more than ten seconds thinking about it and found it clearly makes no sense.

 

[wargwargwarg]

Was about to post on a similar issue (auto-dock needing a whole hold) when I read your post.


Resizing the cargo holds for smaller equipments could make each ship an all-rounder, yes, but would not change the behaviour of the ship: engines, weapons, shields, sensors are not influenced. It would make it more versatile (fuel scoop, auto-repair, interdictor, refinery, whatever) but would not make it more effective in a tough situation.


I say YES, but with constraints.


Basicly, a cargo hold is a room with one hatch of minimum size to meet the demands. You can't put 2 devices there that both need to be extended out of the hull or be near the hull to work. You could not build another hatch in the same hold because that would compromise structural integrity or simply would be in the way of some system. You could divide one big hatch into 2 smaller ones, though.


When dividing the cargo hold, the external/ internal constraints should be considered.
EXTERNAL (use of a device)
- fuel scoop (small hatch required). Oh, and make it at least 0.5tonns. What, it's made of paper?
- transfer fuel (small hatch required). Same, at least 0.5 tonnes
- collector (large hatch door)
- cargo (large hatch required)
- interdictors (a type of directed radiation emitor, need to be near the hull to work, right?, small hatch required). Actually, I would place them on the hardpoints. When in use, that signal is directed not emitted in all directions...that would cut down your own drive, hehe...


INTERNAL
- scanners (basicly, a bunch of antennas all over the hull, connected to a server)
- additional fuel tank
- rafinery (in the same hold as the collector)


Say you have a class 3 cargo hold, you could make a colector & refinery combo, a scanner & fuel combo and a few other combinations. Nothing extraordinary or that will overpower the ships.
As you can cary a crop harvester combine even with the starting cargo hold and the hulls are quite cramped, I don't see bigger holds with (much) bigger hatches, so the above limitations remain in effect.


So, YEAH, with spatial constraints and prohibitive prices (like 10% of the ship or something).


And, please, do make the auto-dock a software upgrade, costly , yes, but not eating up a full hold! After some 500 dockings, flying in doesn't shine any more..