Landing on planets in the Type 10 must be what Hell is like

[Windscreen Smudge]

Hitbox on the landing gear was probably changed slightly and no one noticed. All of the symptoms mentioned point towards geometry issues with the ship.

When you recall your ship the algorithm that decides where it lands gets to determine every possible position from every possible angle before picking a spot, in a fraction of a second, so naturally it'd seem like it was working fine when that feature is used. A computer is triangulating by the hard mathematics of the terrain, not squinting through the cockpit window and trying to make an educated guess about the radar.

On the bright side you've got plenty of hull, so you can always try the noob trick of grindin' 'til she sticks without any serious consequences.

 

[Lightspeed]

On the other hand, it is very un-fussy about landing pads. I can land my T-10 without the blues of the landing radar being fully lit sometimes.

 

[Unshackled AI]

Yes. Alternatively, let us deploy our SRV when hovering over the surface at low altitude. It's already possible to board the ship when it can't find a landing spot on being recalled and keeps hovering instead... so why not the other way around?

Yeah I like the sound of this. It wouldnt only make it easier, but also make sense if you are planning to dismiss the ship anyway.

 

[GG7]

I don't think it is a "bug", and nor would I say the advice I offered equates to "jumping through hoops".
It's pretty-much the same technique I use with any big ship.

I'm afraid you are flat out WRONG on this my friend. Not going to argue with you over something so obvious.

The fact the T-9 can land at all the places the T10 can't should have been your first clue. Couple that with the AI's inability to set the ship down during a recall, and it respawning underground on a session reboot all adds up to some serious T10 specific issues in these areas.

Fortunately myself and others are on the case and bug reports and tickets have been filed/opened.

You can thank us later.

 

[IndigoWyrd]

The closest thing I've had to a problem landing the Type-10 on a planet was paying a visit to The Dweller to do something with that passible pile of circuits called a Power Distributor. I found the Type-10, like a number of other ships has a "fatal angle", at which the thrusters no longer provide lift and it will fall out of the sky like a brick. This particular drop landed me between a couple of domes, from which escape was quite challenging, and caught me a loitering fine.

Since that incident, I've had no issues putting it down pretty much anywhere I've wanted. Ever so often one of those generated rocks will turn up in an inopportune location and force me to wiggle my landing a little, but that's about the worst problem I've run into, otherwise, landed, it's a perfectly nice craft, with the SRV bay very conveniently located, plenty of clearance, and unlike the Anaconda, a parachute is not required to disembark.

 

[Lightspeed]

The closest thing I've had to a problem landing the Type-10 on a planet was paying a visit to The Dweller to do something with that passible pile of circuits called a Power Distributor. I found the Type-10, like a number of other ships has a "fatal angle", at which the thrusters no longer provide lift and it will fall out of the sky like a brick. This particular drop landed me between a couple of domes, from which escape was quite challenging, and caught me a loitering fine.

Since that incident, I've had no issues putting it down pretty much anywhere I've wanted. Ever so often one of those generated rocks will turn up in an inopportune location and force me to wiggle my landing a little, but that's about the worst problem I've run into, otherwise, landed, it's a perfectly nice craft, with the SRV bay very conveniently located, plenty of clearance, and unlike the Anaconda, a parachute is not required to disembark.

Haha ! Yes! I did the same at a 3G planet ..... tough as boots though .... plenty of hull left after the bounce

 

[IndigoWyrd]

Haha ! Yes! I did the same at a 3G planet ..... tough as boots though .... plenty of hull left after the bounce

[video=youtube;ckVs9bZx9-A]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckVs9bZx9-A[/video]

Parked one at Ceres Tarn - 4.26 G. Haven't burned verticals like that since I parked a Corvette there with Grade D thrusters. Neither my chair nor the seat of my pants could take another one of those landings!

 

[Stealthie]

I'm afraid you are flat out WRONG on this my friend. Not going to argue with you over something so obvious.

The fact the T-9 can land at all the places the T10 can't should have been your first clue. Couple that with the AI's inability to set the ship down during a recall, and it respawning underground on a session reboot all adds up to some serious T10 specific issues in these areas.

Fortunately myself and others are on the case and bug reports and tickets have been filed/opened.

You can thank us later.

The thing is, I haven't actually had any special problems landing the T10.
That's all I'm saying.

If there are bugs related to it sinking into the surface, or whatever, fair enough.
That does need fixing.

I said, before, that I've dismissed my T10 a few times and, upon recalling it, it doesn't actually land but, instead, just hovers and opens the SRV bay doors.
Not sure if this is a bug or intentional.
The ship doesn't deploy it's landing gear and the wings remain extended so it would appear to be deliberately remaining in "flight mode" rather than attempting to land.
If they can, I hope they can keep this cos it's kind of cool.

I had a definite issue today though.
Landed my T10 and it seemed to lock down perfectly.
Disabled my thrusters so that I could power-up my AFMUs and make some repairs.
Deployed my SRV to take some selfies and....

Spoiler

That can't be right! [where is it]

Note that the thrusters are, apparently, firing.

Took those pic's and then immediately re-boarded the ship...
...whereupon I find that I'm not actually landed at all (despite previously being able to deploy the SRV) and I am, in fact, about 15m off the ground.
And my thrusters are still disabled.
At which point I fell back to the surface, bounced, rolled, and did a bit of damage which then required me to use my AFMUs again. [blah]

 

[GG7]

Sorry you nearly blew up, but glad you are finally seeing what we have all been talking about.

I figured it would only be a matter of time before everyone who has claimed to not see any issues starts to see these issues.

FYI: Hovering without actually landing, but being able to re-board the ship is definitely NOT normal AI behavior. None of that stuff is supposed to come online until AFTER engine shutdown on the surface.

No other ship in the game has ever had the AI landing behavior we are seeing with the T-10 on smooth fully landable surfaces. There are now also reports of getting odd loitering warnings at StarPorts from adjacent pads during touchdown. Again... A T-10 first.

Something regarding the ship's HitBox and/or Collision Detection size is larger/wider and/or deeper than it should be. I believe that the game is not seeing the ship we are seeing, but something much larger. This is causing all of these strange behaviors we are seeing over multiple situations, including damage during combat from shots that are clearly "missing" the ship.

Let us hope that FDev is already monitoring the bug report forums and is aware of the problem. A HotFix update next week would be nice.

It would suck if we had to put up with this for weeks or months.

 

[Bortas]

[removed, please delete]

 

[Lightspeed]

There's a request for videos of difficult landings with the T-10 from QA Mitch

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...d-on-planets?p=6260142&viewfull=1#post6260142

 

[GG7]

There's a request for videos of difficult landings with the T-10 from QA Mitch

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...d-on-planets?p=6260142&viewfull=1#post6260142

I would just point him over to this thread. There is more than enough feedback from a wide variety of commanders to demonstrate that this IS AN ISSUE that needs looking into.

EDIT: I actually did what I suggested.

 

[S3B4ST13N]

I would just point him over to this thread. There is more than enough feedback from a wide variety of commanders to demonstrate that this IS AN ISSUE that needs looking into.

QA and devs will look for things you or I wouldn't think of. The videos are helpful.
Otherwise it's like going:

• Customer: "there's an error."
• Dev: "where?"
• Customer: "over there."
• Dev: Need more info plz.
• Customer: "Pft, you're the dev, you figure it out; not going to do your job for you."

Yeah, we get customers who do that.. needless to say, their issue never gets attended to.

 

[Deleted member 38366]

Hmm, after a few landings while on the Colonia Transit Corridor, I'd agree the T10 has a surprisingly hard time finding a spot.

So far, every Landing required me to do a "Micromanaged Search" with most spots ending up not permitting actual touchdown.
(Blue Line perfectly centered, Ground contact made and FA OFF - Ship does not positively engage on the Ground)

Basically every Landing felt like trying to land a Cutter/Conda/Corvette in actual rough Terrain.

Would be neat if that'd be looked into.
Kinda annoying being limited to isolated 1m*1m tiny spots which are prone to refuse positive touchdown.

 

[GG7]

Yeah, we get customers who do that.. needless to say, their issue never gets attended to.

If you need video proof for an issue that is so easy to reproduce, the problem doesn't lie anywhere close to the player's feedback choice.

You're just being lazy and failing to do your job.

 

[S3B4ST13N]

If you need video proof for an issue that is so easy to reproduce, the problem doesn't lie anywhere close to the player's feedback choice.

You're just being lazy and failing to do your job.

I'm a developer. Not support. And over 30 years of experience with customers who behave in this manner has lead the company to this point. It's not difficult to log an issue when there's a "report this error" button; or a very handy 24/7 support number they can call if they're stuck.

Anyway, my point was that the more information you can provide to QA/Dev, the better; even if you don't see any benefit from doing it.

 

[Stealthie]

There's a request for videos of difficult landings with the T-10 from QA Mitch

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...d-on-planets?p=6260142&viewfull=1#post6260142

"Videos?"

I must say, I'm a little concerned that fixating on problems landing the T10 might be a bit beside the point.

If it is unduly difficult to land that certainly needs fixing but it seems like there's a much broader issue with the T10 in regard to how it interacts with planet surfaces in general.
It acts oddly when recalled, it allegedly (I haven't seen this myself) sinks into the ground and it gets airborne all by itself after you've deployed an SRV.

TBH, the only thing I'm not having much of a problem with is the actual landing.
I kind of like the idea of big ships being hard to land because it creates more of a reason to use smaller ships instead.
It's all the other stuff which is definitely out of whack.

 

[GG7]

I'm a developer. Not support. And over 30 years of experience with customers who behave in this manner has lead the company to this point. It's not difficult to log an issue when there's a "report this error" button; or a very handy 24/7 support number they can call.

Anyway, my point was that the more information you can provide to QA/Dev, the better; even if you don't see any benefit from doing it.

I stand by my previous comments.

Again... If you can't pull up the game and attempt to reproduce a widely reported issue, then you SUCK at what you do!

 

[S3B4ST13N]

I stand by my previous comments.

Again... If you can't pull up the game and attempt to reproduce a widely reported issue, then you SUCK at what you do!

Maybe spend a few years in QA with a massive backlog of issues that need to be tested, validated and then logged back to development for fixing; and maybe you'll understand why more information = better.

 

[GG7]

Maybe spend a few years in QA with a massive backlog of issues that need to be tested, validated and then logged back to development for fixing; and maybe you'll understand why more information = better.

I have actually.

The company had/has one of the highest customer service rankings on the planet. (180 degrees from where "your" company likely ranks based on your admitted attitude/approach to customer reported bugs/issues)