Module Bays

[IndigoWyrd]

The most recent Livestream Sandro mentioned looking to Module Bays as a solution to the limpet controller situation.

This reminded me of a very old post I made, probably year ago or so, requesting Bay Dividers to split a larger bay into smaller bays. I still think this is a very valid and viable option. Perhaps these could be available in certain classes, say Class 3, Class 5 and Class 7.

What would they do? A Class 3 divider would have two slots, both Class 1 in size. A Class 5 would have 2 slots, both Class 2, and Class 7 would have 2 slots, both Class 4.

Why? The divider itself would take up some space (one Class), leaving a little less space, yet creating additional spaces for additional modules, to allow for more ship variety when it comes to outfitting.

Keeping these as a Universal Divider, you would not be limited to only certain modules this way - it's sort of self-balancing as well with a diminished return.

Just a thought, but one I think worth revisiting.

 

[lemon cup]

Just wanted to point out, the math is wonky when it comes to modules. A class 5 module is actually the same size as four entire class 3 modules.

So if we really did have to take a drastic cut in size by turning a class 5 into two class 2s, I don’t think I’d be in favor of that.

But if it was semi-reasonably balanced and turned a class 5 into two class 3s, I’d be reasonably happy (I’m fine with the other 16 cubic meters just “disappearing” via handwavium).

The big problem I see is without restrictions, that would remove most of the challenge in building capable ships. Off the top of my head exploration would be the most affected, which would probably turn into step 1: buy anaconda or asp, step 2: cram it with everything.

I would look into limiting number of modules that can be divided to just one module, maybe two for bigger ships like the anaconda.

 

[Arthur Shappey]

I've also favoured the idea of module dividers in the past.

I am less certain now. With flexibility comes blandness - you could effectively turn many a ship into a Python-wannabee jack-of-all-trades.

I have come to respect the fact that we have to compromise with limited fixed slots. The limpet controller is the slight exception only owing to the fact that FDev keep introducing new types of limpets...

 

[Mugur]

Dividers would be great, but unfortunately they want to implement a sort of universal limpet bay with controllers stacked like SLFs or SRVs in a vehicle bay. Anyway, the sooner, the better, otherwise there are only a handful of ships that can take all the types of limpets in existence in the same time...

 

[Godsailsaqueen]

I'm more in the vein of the stream... should be applied on a case by case by case basis. Limpets and scanners are already a good direction.

 

[Alex Brentnall]

I've also favoured the idea of module dividers in the past.

I am less certain now. With flexibility comes blandness - you could effectively turn many a ship into a Python-wannabee jack-of-all-trades.

I have come to respect the fact that we have to compromise with limited fixed slots. The limpet controller is the slight exception only owing to the fact that FDev keep introducing new types of limpets...

I'm more in the vein of the stream... should be applied on a case by case by case basis. Limpets and scanners are already a good direction.

I just want to agree with both of you.

I'd like the ability for scanners to be combined and limpet controllers. Other than that I don't feel the need to mix & match.
That leaves: AFMUs, fighter/srv hangars, shields, fuel tanks, refinery, cargo rack, cell banks, hull/mod packages, passenger cabins and interdictors. <- All of which I think are fine.

Choice is good, overwhelming number of things is bad. Happy medium is my hope

 

[Six6VI]

Have also considered this conundrum at some length.

If, for example, there are never any larger CRCR's, using a divider to put 3x class 1 racks in a class 3 bay already brings a level of loss (1x3E cargo rack = 8 units while 3x class 1 CR's is only 6 units of cargo).

A class 1 3D SRV printer sitting on top of a class 2 SRV hangar would be immensely handy for long range explorers. [In a class 3 bay]

Both an ADS and DSS in the same class 2 bay would also be immensely handy.

Bigger bays, say size 5 and up that tend to be dedicated to specific, and larger modules maybe not so much but I'd like to see a more versatile range of options available to the smaller ships so newer players get an opportunity to test equipment and develop a plan for what might be needed for larger, and more dedicated vessels later.

 

[Vasious]

From what it sounded like to me

The wont be universal dividers but themed ones
Like the Limpet Controller rack allowing the allocation of several smaller controllers in each slot.

So there wont be a universal module but maybe an exploration one if there are more scanners and widgets to fit.

You wont have the case of a large module subdivide and stacked with more cost effective modules like HRP

 

[IndigoWyrd]

From what it sounded like to me

The wont be universal dividers but themed ones
Like the Limpet Controller rack allowing the allocation of several smaller controllers in each slot.

So there wont be a universal module but maybe an exploration one if there are more scanners and widgets to fit.

You wont have the case of a large module subdivide and stacked with more cost effective modules like HRP

A class 5 bay split into 2 Class 2 Bays sounds like you might be able to stuff in a couple more HRP's but...

A class 5 HRP gives you 390 Armor.
A Class 2 HRP gives you 190 Armor - two stuffed in a split bay gives 380 Armor. This is 10 less than a single class 5.
It's almost like they thought about this in the first place.

Of course, it's entirely possible that Reinforcement Packages would simply not be allowed in split bays, making them slight less that universal - which would be just as reasonable.

Just wanted to point out, the math is wonky when it comes to modules. A class 5 module is actually the same size as four entire class 3 modules.

So if we really did have to take a drastic cut in size by turning a class 5 into two class 2s, I don’t think I’d be in favor of that.

But if it was semi-reasonably balanced and turned a class 5 into two class 3s, I’d be reasonably happy (I’m fine with the other 16 cubic meters just “disappearing” via handwavium).

The big problem I see is without restrictions, that would remove most of the challenge in building capable ships. Off the top of my head exploration would be the most affected, which would probably turn into step 1: buy anaconda or asp, step 2: cram it with everything.

I would look into limiting number of modules that can be divided to just one module, maybe two for bigger ships like the anaconda.

Not only is math a little wonky but so is geometry. What are the physical dimensions of a Class 5 slot? I can't find anything that supports a Class 5 module bay being four times the size of a Class 3 bay.

If we think of a module bay as a room, a bay divider would be building walls inside of that room to make smaller rooms.

You lose some of the overall square footage of the original room to divide it into small rooms. In the case of modules however, there still has to be supporting infrastructure to allow for those smaller modules to be connected into ship's systems - power, cooling, running water, whatever the requirements of the module in question might be, which means a bit more square footage lost to accommodate this, thus I don't feel that "1" Class size reduction for the installation of a divider to be unreasonable, which leaves, in the case of a Class 5 bay, "4" class sizes, evenly divided, 2 Class 2 bays.

 

[Kzak]

Also, a maximum of one divider per ship, similar to only being allowed one fuelscoop per ship, would be a good limitation.

 

[Gizzard]

I think Elite 2 was better using tonnage instead of the module system. This would however mean adjusting the weights of most existing modules if not all.

 

[Drelthar]

Nah, I prefer the bay option using the srv/fighter system. Makes sense, cleaner, already implemented.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Not only is math a little wonky but so is geometry. What are the physical dimensions of a Class 5 slot? I can't find anything that supports a Class 5 module bay being four times the size of a Class 3 bay.

Simples - a Class 5 Cargo Bay can hold 32t of cargo whereas a Class 3 Cargo Bay can only hold 8t, i.e. Class 5 can carry 4x the cargo that a Class 3 can.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Instead of module dividers (and then addition artificial complexities like "one per ship", I would much prefer to see a handful of relevant "combi-modules".

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

Limpet controllers makes sense, now that there are so many of them.

As for scanners, while there are only 2 it's not important, but if the exploration expansion adds more then there would be a case.

There would also be logic in moving the KWS, wake and manifest scanners to be modules instead of utilities. Being able to put all 5 into a class 3 or 4 slot would be awesome.

 

[MajorHavoc]

Limpet controllers makes sense, now that there are so many of them.

As for scanners, while there are only 2 it's not important, but if the exploration expansion adds more then there would be a case.

There would also be logic in moving the KWS, wake and manifest scanners to be modules instead of utilities. Being able to put all 5 into a class 3 or 4 slot would be awesome.

To add, Q4 extra mining tools have been mentioned ........ if gas mining and different fuel types are introduced later then sub-modules seems like a good way to do it.

 

[Watcher]

I like the idea of bay splitters and have also suggested these in the past. They would have to balance this carefully though, probably losing total capacity, increasing weight, possibly having some power draw and limiting the allowed modules (excluding slfs for instance). This would let you do the jack of all trades thing (I don't think this is bad!) but you would be worse off than using base bays if you can.

This all said the modules with slot thing is probably fine since it would give you a bit more generality for things like limpets.. Still hope they make those ammo based though.. Guess we'll see how things go

 

[Arguendo]

The most annoying of all modules are the scanners tbh. They are all Size 1, while the ships with "explorer" in their name don't have a single Size 1 module bay. Because...logic?

Being able to split a Size 3 bay into 2xSize 1 would atleast make it feel like you don't have to waste those Size 2 bays for doing the very thing the ship was made to do.
Heck, for the explorer ships I'd even accept that FDev just changed the loadouts and replaced one Size 3 for two Size 1s. That would actually make sense for those ships. It wouldn't solve the issue of limpet controllers though

 

[IndigoWyrd]

Simples - a Class 5 Cargo Bay can hold 32t of cargo whereas a Class 3 Cargo Bay can only hold 8t, i.e. Class 5 can carry 4x the cargo that a Class 3 can.

Cargo might be a bad basis of comparison to determine the physical dimensions of something. Why?

Look at the cargo container. They're all one standard size, let's just call it a 4 foot tall, 2 foot in diameter "drum".

One of these, full of gold, weighs 1 ton.

One of these, full of feathers also weighs 1 ton.

One of these, full of water (which is a non-compressible fluid*) also weighs a ton.

It doesn't add up. And * - yes, I had to use water and point out that it is a non-compressible fluid, to prevent "but you could compress that 2.7 million cubic feet of feathers into the same size cargo container as a ton of gold..."

Weight and Volume are odd factors, especially where modules are concerned, considering the mass density of gold is 19.3 g/cc, lead is 11.4 g/cc, copper is 9.0 g/cc, aluminum is 2.7 g/cc, and water is 1.0 g/cc, when all of these would be 1x1x1 centimeter cubes, thus all fit into the same sized space. Identical volumes, different weights, vastly differing masses.

Then we have to consider also that ships differ considerably in shape, yet modules are standardized. The same Class 5 Cargo Rack that fits in an Anaconda also fits in an Orca, also fits in an Asp, also fits in a Python.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Cargo might be a bad basis of comparison to determine the physical dimensions of something. Why?

Look at the cargo container. They're all one standard size, let's just call it a 4 foot tall, 2 foot in diameter "drum".

One of these, full of gold, weighs 1 ton.

One of these, full of feathers also weighs 1 ton.

One of these, full of water (which is a non-compressible fluid*) also weighs a ton.

It doesn't add up. And * - yes, I had to use water and point out that it is a non-compressible fluid, to prevent "but you could compress that 2.7 million cubic feet of feathers into the same size cargo container as a ton of gold..."

Weight and Volume are odd factors, especially where modules are concerned, considering the mass density of gold is 19.3 g/cc, lead is 11.4 g/cc, copper is 9.0 g/cc, aluminum is 2.7 g/cc, and water is 1.0 g/cc, when all of these would be 1x1x1 centimeter cubes, thus all fit into the same sized space. Identical volumes, different weights, vastly differing masses.

Then we have to consider also that ships differ considerably in shape, yet modules are standardized. The same Class 5 Cargo Rack that fits in an Anaconda also fits in an Orca, also fits in an Asp, also fits in a Python.

Cargo is the perfect basis for comparison, in my opinion.

Cargo canisters are indeed one standard size - to fit in the standard cargo handling system employed in all cargo bays.

They are also limited to a single permissible mass - 1 tonne, regardless of the density of the cargo in question. This upper mass limit is consistent with the available volume and maximum permissible weight of intermodal containers, i.e. a 20' container has an internal volume of 32.9m³ but is limited to a maximum payload of 28.2t, resulting in a maximum cargo density of 0.857 t/m³ if the container is to be completely filled. Ultimately the weight limit is driven by standards for container handling, i.e. container port cranes.

We know that a cargo canister can accommodate 1 tonne of hydrogen - presumably liquid (could be solid however that requires an even lower storage temperature) - which has a density of 70.8 kg / m³ and therefore requires an available volume of 14.13m³ (86 kg/m³ and 11.63m³ respectively for solid hydrogen).

We know that each superior class of cargo bay can accommodate exactly twice the number of cargo canisters than the preceding class, from Class 1 at 2t to Class 8 at 256t.

The point about modular outfitting is that the modules are designed to meet a common physical interface standard - so that any ship built to that standard can accommodate them.