AFMU in military compartments

[Chris Simon]

Just an idea. I was just going through some of my builds (especially the hull tanking ones) and I though it would be cool to allow AFMU to be installed into military compartment slots.
I think it would allow the combat based ships, which usually have very limited number of optional compartments, to be a little more comfortable to outfit and allowed for longer combat assignments.

Especially now, that the pirating career seems to be brought back into focus in which case one has to fit a cargo hold and limpet controllers.

Like I said. Just a thought.

 

[Vasious]

This makes sense
Actually AMFU, Repair Limpet controllers and Fuel Tanks (not scoops) seem like additioanl options for military internals.

 

[Riverside]

I thought this was already a thing So yes, I support this

With an increasing number of limpet controllers I can see more benefit in multiple smaller compartments rather than fewer larger ones.

This potentially encourages the suggestion of a combined ADS/DSS module too.

 

[Justinian Octavius]

This makes sense
Actually AMFU, Repair Limpet controllers and Fuel Tanks (not scoops) seem like additioanl options for military internals.

Yep, 100% agree.

 

[Robert Maynard]

With an increasing number of limpet controllers I can see more benefit in multiple smaller compartments rather than fewer larger ones.

I'd really, really, like to see a limpet controller rack:

1) each rack would offer one or more controller bays.
2) the number of controller bays depends on the class of the rack.
3) each limpet controller would require one or more controller bays.

The UI already offers the concept of sub-modules (i.e. SRVs in a Planetary Vehicle Hangar) so, hopefully, implementation would not be terribly difficult.

 

[Riverside]

I'd really, really, like to see a limpet controller rack:

1) each rack would offer one or more controller bays.
2) the number of controller bays depends on the class of the rack.
3) each limpet controller would require one or more controller bays.

The UI already offers the concept of sub-modules (i.e. SRVs in a Planetary Vehicle Hangar) so, hopefully, implementation would not be terribly difficult.

I like that idea - maybe with an interface similar to the crotch panel to select which program to use, although it could still be handled by firegroups.

 

[Chris Simon]

I'd really, really, like to see a limpet controller rack:

1) each rack would offer one or more controller bays.
2) the number of controller bays depends on the class of the rack.
3) each limpet controller would require one or more controller bays.

The UI already offers the concept of sub-modules (i.e. SRVs in a Planetary Vehicle Hangar) so, hopefully, implementation would not be terribly difficult.

I think this may be too much to ask. I'm afraid we are venturing into the "Outfitting is supposed to be a compromise, it was design decision and I'm not budging on that -Sandro Sammarco" territory.

But as for the AFMU, I think it WOULD be a nice compromise between module protection and module repairability.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I think this may be too much to ask. I'm afraid we are venturing into the "Outfitting is supposed to be a compromise, it was design decision and I'm not budging on that -Sandro Sammarco" territory.

But as for the AFMU, I think it WOULD be a nice compromise between module protection and module repairability.

If you don't ask, you don't get....

Yes, outfitting is meant to be a compromise - however few of the plethora of limpet controllers existed when the internal subdivision of most ships was decided on - so I would hope that some movement is possible in this regard.

 

[Chris Simon]

If you don't ask, you don't get....

Yes, outfitting is meant to be a compromise - however few of the plethora of limpet controllers existed when the internal subdivision of most ships was decided on - so I would hope that some movement is possible in this regard.

Heheh, you're right. Well, I've made the thread, after all.
And yes, the number of different limpet controllers is starting to look ridiculous and I think it should be revisited from design perspective. Sooner rather than later.

For example - leave the exsisting controllers but introduce a new one - a programmable universal controller. It could be less effective than a dedicated ones (fewer active limpets, higher power draw, etc.) and perhaps "switching" functions would take time (or material resources), but you'd be able to have something useful for every situation.