Ship launched cargo transport vessel

[Lestat]

Let's look at a scenario of how it could work.

Assume we've outfitted a Type 9 as linked below (sorry don't know how to insert an image from imgur):

https://imgur.com/a/DQsFsQQ

That's 500t cargo capacity in total, with a free size 8 slot that I've currently got a Fighter Hangar in as a placeholder for the Cargo Vessel Hangar.
Consider that the size 8 slot is capable of holding an 8A Prismatic Shield Generator weighing in at 320t.
If we were to aim for a Cargo Vessel with a 100t capacity for the size 8 slot, that would leave 220t for the ship hull and internals plus fuel.

To put that in perspective, a stripped down Type 6 with 100t of cargo space can weigh as little as 266t fully laden, which is well under the 320t upper limit, and that's without engineering.

However, it would be fair to assume that a specifically geared ship launched cargo vessel would have a lighter hull and core internals, so a size 8 slot could potentially hold a cargo vessel capable of moving well over 100t, with that scaling down as you drop in slot sizes.

All in all, quite doable.

Please look at your picture carefully and read it also go on Fighter Hangar and read it carefully then come back and talk to us. Because I see at the most you can hold 30 tons ship and a Sidewinder in the largest Fighter Hanger So the Sidewinder without the Frame Shift Drive will only hold 16 cargo. Please, fact check first before posting. Note I did not point out Class 5 which only holds one ship 20 tons of lower or Class 6 40 tons split into 2 equals 20 tons. So My guess they would only hold 10 or lower tons.

I misunderstood... again, (I do a lot of that)
If you were to have a Cargo Shuttle it would not have to have all of the modules in a sidewinder (and presumably not even resembling one either) it would just have to be a container with a cockpit at one end and an engine at the other, perhaps a bit like a container wagon, drop off a full one and pick up an empty one... or full of a different cargo, whatever, either way the player could entertain herself/himself ferrying cargo back and forth, this would add gameplay for those that chose to do it and would annoy the hell out of people that don't want it.

Like CMDR Novindus you are Ignoring how big the Fighter Bay is. Two ships 30 tons each largest ship that can fit in there right now is 25 tons Sidewinder. But you and Novindus are talking like you can put 100 tons in a truck that can only hold 30 tons. I Also pointing out the First 2 Fighter bays that only hold 20 tons. Class 5 and class 6.

Nice text. So you basically say that:

- You go mining. If you use an Anaconda, you would have go to two different places to sell or perhaps not even manage to access all stations you need to sell.
- You instead use a Python, as that one allows you to land at outposts and thus you can sell everything.
- Now you want an option for the Anaconda to also sell at the outpost.

So come again, in which way would it help your Python to be more useful?

All i see is that it would help your Python to collect dust, while your Anaconda would be able to do everything.

Considering that Anacondas already since a long time are the go-to ship, used for anything out there but docking at outposts, i really don't see any profit there. I mean, why not just change the Anaconda to use a medium landing pad? Wouldn't that be the more honest and more direct fix?

I 100% agree with you. I think the players that want large ships to be able to drop cargo at smaller stations are NOT using features of this game. Using The Open Galaxy map in Mission board or not buying System data Then they whine when they switch to a larger ship and find out that the station small. Next time before accepting mission Do your research first.

 

[VR CMDR Novindus]

Please look at your picture carefully and read it also go on Fighter Hangar and read it carefully then come back and talk to us. Because I see at the most you can hold 30 tons ship and a Sidewinder in the largest Fighter Hanger So the Sidewinder without the Frame Shift Drive will only hold 16 cargo. Please, fact check first before posting. Note I did not point out Class 5 which only holds one ship 20 tons of lower or Class 6 40 tons split into 2 equals 20 tons. So My guess they would only hold 10 or lower tons.

Like CMDR Novindus you are Ignoring how big the Fighter Bay is. Two ships 30 tons each largest ship that can fit in there right now is 25 tons Sidewinder. But you and Novindus are talking like you can put 100 tons in a truck that can only hold 30 tons. I Also pointing out the First 2 Fighter bays that only hold 20 tons. Class 5 and class 6.

I 100% agree with you. I think the players that want large ships to be able to drop cargo at smaller stations are NOT using features of this game. Using The Open Galaxy map in Mission board or not buying System data Then they whine when they switch to a larger ship and find out that the station small. Next time before accepting mission Do your research first.

You seem to be working off the assumption that the Cargo Vessel Hangar must have the same weight and/or size restrictions that the Fighter Hangar does. There is nothing to indicate that this must be the case.
Further, and as stated, a size 8 internal slot can hold 320t, and the Type 9 has over 22 times the volume of a Type 6.
That means that with both weight and size considered, the Type 9 is capable of holding a Type 6 ship configured for 100t of cargo.

Once a built-for-purpose lighter and smaller 100t capacity Ship Launched Cargo Vessel has been designed, possibly with folding/retracting parts, the viability only increases.

Moreover, what if players who want large ships to be able to drop cargo at smaller stations did their research first, and did not whine, but still want large ships to be able to drop cargo at smaller stations?
I don't agree with Sylow on this one, because to have a large ship take advantage of this mechanic, there is an investment of credits (for the hangar and the vessels), time (for loading/unloading each batch of 100t), and the sacrificing of an internal slot that could otherwise be used for more cargo or other modules. Also, for a 100t cargo capacity vessel, only the Cutter, Type 9, and Type 10 have the size 8 internal slot, which would be a good way to restrict its use.

Mostly, I think people would just find this a bit of fun, particularly for multicrew, and if you can launch two of these at a time all the better. It's quite feasible that a Python quickly purchasing and selling around 250t of cargo a pop without having to load and unload in batches could probably make near enough to a Type 9 mucking about with Cargo Vessels, given the same amount of time and with much less investment, so it's hardly going to be collecting dust.

 

[Lestat]

You seem to be working off the assumption that the Cargo Vessel Hangar must have the same weight and/or size restrictions that the Fighter Hangar does. There is nothing to indicate that this must be the case.
Further, and as stated, a size 8 internal slot can hold 320t, and the Type 9 has over 22 times the volume of a Type 6.
That means that with both weight and size considered, the Type 9 is capable of holding a Type 6 ship configured for 100t of cargo.

Once a built-for-purpose lighter and smaller 100t capacity Ship Launched Cargo Vessel has been designed, possibly with folding/retracting parts, the viability only increases.

I think it always funny when people who do not do their research first. You are forgetting how small the fighter bay launch hatch is. Or are you going to suggest a redoing all Fighter bay Hatch to fit your need?

Moreover, what if players who want large ships to be able to drop cargo at smaller stations did their research first, and did not whine, but still want large ships to be able to drop cargo at smaller stations?

We have 37 ships to suit your needs. Note you can store more than one ship at a station. Small ships have a lower cargo hold. But benefit from being able to dock at Both stations. A larger ship Has a vast amount of cargo it also has a disadvantage It can't dock at a small station. Each ship has its pros and cons. We don't need an easy mode for large ships because the player doesn't want to use key features of the game to help them decide what best ship for a mission.

I don't agree with Sylow on this one, because to have a large ship take advantage of this mechanic, there is an investment of credits (for the hangar and the vessels), time (for loading/unloading each batch of 100t), and the sacrificing of an internal slot that could otherwise be used for more cargo or other modules. Also, for a 100t cargo capacity vessel, only the Cutter, Type 9, and Type 10 have the size 8 internal slot, which would be a good way to restrict its use.

I do agree with Sylow

Mostly, I think people would just find this a bit of fun, particularly for multicrew, and if you can launch two of these at a time all the better. It's quite feasible that a Python quickly purchasing and selling around 250t of cargo a pop without having to load and unload in batches could probably make near enough to a Type 9 mucking about with Cargo Vessels, given the same amount of time and with much less investment, so it's hardly going to be collecting dust.

Maybe you should see how small the Flight ships and Launch hatch is. Remember they are smaller than a Sidewinder, not something that can hold something as size of Type 6.

[video=youtube;o00Rl_PCiRM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o00Rl_PCiRM[/video]

 

[VR CMDR Novindus]

I think it always funny when people who do not do their research first. You are forgetting how small the fighter bay launch hatch is. Or are you going to suggest a redoing all Fighter bay Hatch to fit your need?

We have 37 ships to suit your needs. Note you can store more than one ship at a station. Small ships have a lower cargo hold. But benefit from being able to dock at Both stations. A larger ship Has a vast amount of cargo it also has a disadvantage It can't dock at a small station. Each ship has its pros and cons. We don't need an easy mode for large ships because the player doesn't want to use key features of the game to help them decide what best ship for a mission.

I do agree with Sylow

Maybe you should see how small the Flight ships and Launch hatch is. Remember they are smaller than a Sidewinder, not something that can hold something as size of Type 6.

Perhaps you should watch the video again. The fighter ship takes up about a fifth of the volume offered by the hatch from the platform to the base of the ship's hull.
But as this is a feature suggestion, having the hatch redesigned to lower further if required would naturally be part of the feature implementation, or some other solution at the game designer's discretion.

We have 37 ships, and none of them suits the need to have large ships make use of ship launched cargo vessels to load and offload cargo from stations they can't dock at.
If this feature is implemented, the large ship's disadvantage would change to having to sacrifice a potential cargo bay slot in order to equip a large and expensive Cargo Vessel Hangar, and to make multiple trips to load and unload cargo, which takes more time and effort, and so is not an "easy mode".

The player that wants this functionality is asking for additional key features of the game, hence the suggestion and those supporting it. Your response to that seems to be "if it's not a feature of the game, you can't do it, so don't ask for it", which seems to be in total opposition to the whole point of feature requests in general.

Reiterating that you agree with Sylow on this point by quoting my reasoning for disagreeing with him and then failing to address a single word of the reasoning provided does not add to the discussion.

I've seen little but nay-saying comments from you since I began again to frequent the forums recently.
Personally I find it tiring. I much prefer Cooperative mode rather than PvP on the forums, which means assisting by offering solutions rather than simply pointing out obstacles and problems with a suggestion to shut it down.

Not saying that's all you do, but it seems very prevalent.

 

[PauloG01]

To me it makes sense, not because of efficiency but as pure gameplay. Using a large ship for trade and using an unloading shuttle to take the goods to an outpost is something i would like to see in ED. The same applies to a mining specialized fighter, in both situations we would need to trade some cargo capacity to be able to add those.

 

[Velixar]

Well Frontier tries to make ships make sense instead of non sense. But Running Two accounts with a type 6 next to a Type 10 launch bay opening. The type 6 too big.

 

[VR CMDR Novindus]

Well Frontier tries to make ships make sense instead of non sense. But Running Two accounts with a type 6 next to a Type 10 launch bay opening. The type 6 too big.

I'd be interested to see a screenshot of that. Here is a to scale image comparison between the Type 6 and the Type 9 (which I've been using as a running example).

Volumetrically, the Type 9 can easily fit a few Type 6 ships, but the above image does intimate that a Type 6 would not fit in the hatch.

Obviously, if this change were implemented, there'd be a lighter built-to-purpose cargo vessel with much smaller dimensions than a Type 6, but still able to carry 100 tonnes of cargo.
It would have nothing unnecessary in terms of modules, components, utilities, and hardpoints, as well as no consideration for crew or cabin space.
Also, if the cargo vessel couldn't be made small enough for the hatch, then either the hatch platform could be made to drop lower, or the hatch size itself increased, or both, but only on those 3 ships with a size 8 internal component (Type 9, Type 10, and Cutter), which I'm recommending as the key restrictive aspect for this feature.

 

[Velixar]

Best idea look at both ships close up. Maybe record it and try to prove your case. And like others pointed out. This is not needed. And seeing a large ship giving birth to a ship almost the size of Type 6. Would look fake and unrealistic.

 

[VR CMDR Novindus]

Best idea look at both ships close up. Maybe record it and try to prove your case. And like others pointed out. This is not needed. And seeing a large ship giving birth to a ship almost the size of Type 6. Would look fake and unrealistic.

The case at least regarding volumetric comparison in cubic meters demonstrates viability, even if that says nothing of the fighter bay size.

As for what is needed, it's a cool feature that doesn't exist in the game, and which many people would like. It introduces new gameplay but with enough of a credits, time, effort, and module slot sacrifice such that it doesn't create an "easy mode". Moreover, I think, given that the Type 9 has many times the volume of a Type 6, it'll mean that a much smaller bare-bones built-for-purpose cargo-only vessel might look believable coming out of an enlarged fighter bay, or better yet the cargo bay door you'd expect these ships to have. It wouldn't be too much work to implement one of those solutions for only three ships in the game, but it would make those ships a good deal more interesting.

The problem is that since there are no listed physical dimensions for cargo racks (as far as I could see), I can't really get a sense of how large the hull would have to be at minimum, which means only the game designers can give a definitive word.

 

[Velixar]

Maybe what you should do is look at our own ways of moving freight on Earth. Trains, boats, and planes don't deliver freight to our homes or stores. But Big Rigs ,trucks, smaller trucks and cars deliver to them. They don't give birth to them. It should be the same way for smaller stations on Elite Dangerous.

If you want to do smaller stations use a smaller ship. Sidewinder could be a car a big rig is a Type 6 or Python anything larger is too large. I think that how Frontier looking at small stations.

 

[VR CMDR Novindus]

Maybe what you should do is look at our own ways of moving freight on Earth. Trains, boats, and planes don't deliver freight to our homes or stores. But Big Rigs ,trucks, smaller trucks and cars deliver to them. They don't give birth to them. It should be the same way for smaller stations on Elite Dangerous.

If you want to do smaller stations use a smaller ship. Sidewinder could be a car a big rig is a Type 6 or Python anything larger is too large. I think that how Frontier looking at small stations.

Well, the Airbus Beluga could almost carry a triple trailer big rig. Its cargo hold is more than long and wide enough, but the height falls short about 40cm, which I guess you might be able to get around by letting out the tires for the trip.

That aside, if I’m considering what feature I’d find interesting or fun in a futuristic space game, I’m not going to be thinking along the lines of what appears practical with the current day real equivalents. Of all the improbable or fantastic features in a space game, I’m genuinely surprised that something so mundane as a volumetrically viable ship launched cargo vessel from a massive ship could stretch people’s credulity so easily.

In any case, I find it practical that ship manufacturers or third party engineers would find a way to allow large cargo ships to service outposts or stations that they’re too large to dock at.

 

[[VR] Frank_G]

A mining "fighter" with mining lasers or abrasion blasters and seismic charges would be nice as well. So would be an unarmed stealth recon fighter which can run silent for a longer time and has equipment to intercept and distort enemy comms - and of course an exploration fighter, with sensor equipment for close range analysis.

 

[Skip Rockbounder]

Please look at your picture carefully and read it also go on Fighter Hangar and read it carefully then come back and talk to us. Because I see at the most you can hold 30 tons ship and a Sidewinder in the largest Fighter Hanger So the Sidewinder without the Frame Shift Drive will only hold 16 cargo. Please, fact check first before posting. Note I did not point out Class 5 which only holds one ship 20 tons of lower or Class 6 40 tons split into 2 equals 20 tons. So My guess they would only hold 10 or lower tons.

Like CMDR Novindus you are Ignoring how big the Fighter Bay is. Two ships 30 tons each largest ship that can fit in there right now is 25 tons Sidewinder. But you and Novindus are talking like you can put 100 tons in a truck that can only hold 30 tons. I Also pointing out the First 2 Fighter bays that only hold 20 tons. Class 5 and class 6.

I 100% agree with you. I think the players that want large ships to be able to drop cargo at smaller stations are NOT using features of this game. Using The Open Galaxy map in Mission board or not buying System data Then they whine when they switch to a larger ship and find out that the station small. Next time before accepting mission Do your research first.

Look Lestat, Nowhere in my post did I mention that the size of the module had to be 100 tons, that was you, I also didn't say that it had to fit into a fighter bay, that again is one of your assumptions.

I'll try to make things a little clearer here.

a cockipt 2 cubic meters, seat and joystick with hud.
Telescopic framework of cargo container size (say, 30 ton container?)... not the barrels but the box that we see on wagons today.
or Magnetic/gravitic grappler, with flex hose or perhaps fly-by-wire connectors... either way the bit in the middle doesn't need to be there.
Drives and fuel 5-6 cu meters.

The whole gagiggery would be no bigger than about 6-8 tons when not in use.

Now, I understand you don't like it, but your arguments seem to be only from your vision where you can place hurdles and walls that you can point at and say it won't work, before the fighter bay we had none, now we have one, that allows players with ships not geared up for zippy combat to partake in zippy combat... something they would have had to do in a smaller craft before.

 

[djadjok]

There is at least one "fundamental" point in OP's idea opposing actual state of game design. It is supposed that SLF's (or in this case SLT's) are LANDABLE (or dockable).

 

[Skip Rockbounder]

There is at least one "fundamental" point in OP's idea opposing actual state of game design. It is supposed that SLF's (or in this case SLT's) are LANDABLE (or dockable).

I know, it's nice to be able to sum up a major flaw in a suggestion with the big hitting and knockout point!

but the problem with that is... why could/would/should they not be landable?
Place 'luggs' on the bottom of the module and it will 'land' ...come to rest on the surface of... well, whatever

 

[Scubadog]

A mining "fighter" with mining lasers or abrasion blasters and seismic charges would be nice as well. So would be an unarmed stealth recon fighter which can run silent for a longer time and has equipment to intercept and distort enemy comms - and of course an exploration fighter, with sensor equipment for close range analysis.

Being able to configure your fighter for specific purposes would be cool, particularly once carriers become a thing. Right now you have to choose between a handful of pre-configured types. It would be nice to be able to configure and engineer fighters.

 

[Scubadog]

There is at least one "fundamental" point in OP's idea opposing actual state of game design. It is supposed that SLF's (or in this case SLT's) are LANDABLE (or dockable).

ALTHOUGH....notice when you go into the Livery to customize the aesthetics of your fighter. It's on the deck with landing gear. So, it's clearly capable. ED just has never actually added that mechanic. And, to be honest, I'm trying to imagine a use case for adding that to the fighters given how the mothership mechanics work. There are only a couple of scripted behaviors for motherships when the fighter is launched. Basically, they are "tethered", and the fighter will self-destruct if out of range of the mothership. Unlike the SRV, you can't dismiss the ship while in the fighter. And, without space legs (I am NOT advocating for this ridiculous idea) what would you really do once you landed in your fighter? For a cargo skiff, for lack of a better term, the one reason for it to be able to land would be on a docking pad. BTW, the one non-traditional use I have for the fighter I carry on my exploration Anaconda is for composition scanning geological or biological sites. It's difficult at best to scan those buggers in Anaconda, and many locations are just to difficult and time consuming to land it and deploy the SRV. Launch the fighter, scan the growth, re-dock and move on.

 

[djadjok]

I know, it's nice to be able to sum up a major flaw in a suggestion with the big hitting and knockout point!

but the problem with that is... why could/would/should they not be landable?
Place 'luggs' on the bottom of the module and it will 'land' ...come to rest on the surface of... well, whatever

Don't get me wrong, I rather appreciate the idea of landable/dockable SLF's/SLT's (or better yet SC-capable) or mother ship capable of landing while SLF stays airborne. But I'm speaking about actual game design. It seems to me that the problem lies a bit deeper than landing gear animation. May be I'm too pessimistic, but proposed suggestions can lead to many opportunities that current implementations of game instancing, mission servers, C&P system, etc will be incapable to deal with - at least without some amelioration on the core level.

(EDIT)PS: about cargo transfer between large-sized ships and outposts. Now we have limpets that can hack cargo bays on space installations. Why we cannot do also the opposite - a complete mystery.

 

[Velixar]

Well, the Airbus Beluga could almost carry a triple trailer big rig. Its cargo hold is more than long and wide enough, but the height falls short about 40cm, which I guess you might be able to get around by letting out the tires for the trip.

Thing is that Airbus Beluga it landed at a Airport. It not flying by a small Airport while those triple trailer big rig flying off to the small Airport and landing like planes.

That aside, if I’m considering what feature I’d find interesting or fun in a futuristic space game, I’m not going to be thinking along the lines of what appears practical with the current day real equivalents. Of all the improbable or fantastic features in a space game, I’m genuinely surprised that something so mundane as a volumetrically viable ship launched cargo vessel from a massive ship could stretch people’s credulity so easily.

Well most people look at practical and realistic. If I wanted a game of impractical there many games you can choose from.

In any case, I find it practical that ship manufacturers or third party engineers would find a way to allow large cargo ships to service outposts or stations that they’re too large to dock at.

I find it impractical to have a LARGE ship give birth to a medium ship. It would be like having a person giving birth and having them asking to wait until the child is 5 years old and then give birth to a 5 year old.

 

[Skip Rockbounder]

Thing is that Airbus Beluga it landed at a Airport. It not flying by a small Airport while those triple trailer big rig flying off to the small Airport and landing like planes.

Well most people look at practical and realistic. If I wanted a game of impractical there many games you can choose from.

I find it impractical to have a LARGE ship give birth to a medium ship. It would be like having a person giving birth and having them asking to wait until the child is 5 years old and then give birth to a 5 year old.

Well I think the Keelback has a size 5 slot for a hanger... how silly does that look?
OK, think outside of the box presented to you, instead of stating how impractical it would be think about what would be practical, perhaps something smaller than a type six, perhaps half that size? would that look too silly to you?
Would you go smaller, or in fact just say no and be done with it... after all I'm sure when some players heard that a good few ships could/would be carrying a fighter they said no as well.