So much....So much....

[sidereal6]

Ships are modular. What if you swap 2 modules in hangar? How should it be reflected "on the walk" visual ?

This guy managed to figure out how to solve that problem:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxPkrWe7Q88


He has a whole series of videos like that. It appears the ships are laid out in such a way that swapping modules will be possible.

Systems can be over flooded with carriers

Solution: remove carriers from the system map. After all, megaships and installations aren't on the system map, and those work just fine.

At the very least, make system map visibility an optional module for a fleet carrier (maybe make it a module only available to squadrons) - call it, "nav beacon" or something. I don't know. I should also only be on if you can land at the carrier.

Finally, make very slightly different icons, or decorations to the icons, for different services offered. At the very least, an FC that wants to buy platinum from a miner should be able to advertise that without having to name their carrier, "platinum 500k" or whatever.

 

[alexzk]

This guy managed to figure out how to solve that problem:

No, he managed to make 1 possible solution. Ask him how much time it took.
Imagine I have 7 optional slots and I want to put 7 modules of size 1. Lets say we have 20 different modules to install (I didn't count, but looks we have much more, there are 5+ different limpets only).
So we have N objects = 20 and we want to place K possible combinations = 7
Result = N! / (N-K)! = 390700800 possible combinations of placement of 20 modules grade 1 in 7 slots.

 

[varonica]

Solution: remove carriers from the system map. After all, megaships and installations aren't on the system map, and those work just fine.

Except that wouldn't remove the problem of congestion and not being able to get your carrier into many systems, it would just turn it from visible congestion to invisible congestion, you still wouldn't be able to get your carrier in, but now you wouldn't know why!

There other issues it would cause as well, there are only so many orbital slots available per body, and in a congested system you can see which bodies have orbital slots available and which don't because you can see the carriers, if they weren't visible you would have to blindly click every body and try to navigate there with your carrier, causing a huge slowdown in actually navigating to a free body in a crowded system.

 

[sidereal6]

No, he managed to make 1 possible solution. Ask him how much time it took.
Imagine I have 7 optional slots and I want to put 7 modules of size 1. Lets say we have 20 different modules to install (I didn't count, but looks we have much more, there are 5+ different limpets only).
So we have N objects = 20 and we want to place K possible combinations = 7
Result = N! / (N-K)! = 390700800 possible combinations of placement of 20 modules grade 1 in 7 slots.

I'm a software engineer, and I have to tell you, I really don't follow your objection here. It sounds like maybe you're suggesting that each of those N! configurations must be individually created by one or more humans.

That's like saying we can't possibly have all these weapons because ...OH MY GOD!! how many configurations is that per ship??? A sidewinder has two weapon slots and there are 23 weapons that can fit in each slot! 23^2 possibilities!!

Except that wouldn't remove the problem of congestion and not being able to get your carrier into many systems

That's true. I interpreted the comment I responded to to be about the congestion on the system map. I guess I haven't been particularly bothered by FCs other than what I see on the system map. So, that's the issue I addressed.

The issue you bring up probably can't be solved completely. There probably will always be some limit. But maybe if FDev didn't feel the need to display every FC on the map, they would be willing to double (or more) the number of FCs that can actually be in a system. Aside from the system map, the position is likely (I'm just guessing) something like an address that lets the game know where to display the market in supercruise. There's certainly an upper limit, but maybe it can be increased if we got away from the system map issue.

 

[HRDiagram]

a galaxy burning event rendering credits and all currently owned ships useless? why not

Patches already do some of this, to an extent!

 

[Cohen the Worrior]

First of all - adding another, smaller, cheaper FC is not a solution. And current FC is cheap enough.

Even if FCs were at first designed for squadrons, it quickly became obvious it wouldn't work as a shared asset.

That's because squadrons don't work. Fix squadrons first.

 

[Florenus]

That's because squadrons don't work. Fix squadrons first.

How?

 

[Cohen the Worrior]

How?

Pay me and I'll tell you.

 

[Northpin]

After all, megaships and installations aren't on the system map, and those work just fine.

Nope.
Dockable assets DO appear on system map. (stations, outposts, megaships and carriers)

 

[Florenus]

Pay me and I'll tell you.

Then maybe quit posting such pseudo bright ideas.

Typing replies to such posts is only a waste of time.

 

[zikolach]

The issue you bring up probably can't be solved completely. There probably will always be some limit. But maybe if FDev didn't feel the need to display every FC on the map, they would be willing to double (or more) the number of FCs that can actually be in a system. Aside from the system map, the position is likely (I'm just guessing) something like an address that lets the game know where to display the market in supercruise. There's certainly an upper limit, but maybe it can be increased if we got away from the system map issue.

Be careful posting suggestions like these. You are risking to trigger Veronica's database-related knowledge to pour on our heads once again

I agree with you that these are probably different issues and visual clutter created on system map could be addressed separately (also affecting potentially bigger amount of players - not only FC owners):

• either by removing FCs from system map at all
• or by replacing multiple carriers by single icon
• or by moving them to planetary view (as orbiting specific stellar body)

In general I would like to see planetary map as separate (from the system map) screen to be available on dedicated hotkey (when available) and maybe button on mission screen etc - to avoid unnecessary loading of planet textures (which happens every time opening system map).

Then maybe quit posting such pseudo bright ideas.

Typing replies to such posts is only a waste of time.

Pay him to quit

Pay me and I'll tell you.

We all paid our time while reading this thread, so eagerly waiting content to be delivered!

 

[Northpin]

• either by removing FCs from system map at all
• or by replacing multiple carriers by single icon
• or by moving them to planetary view (as orbiting specific stellar body)

None of these will work

I sometime select my destination in the system map, not in the nav panel, so i need the dockable destinations to be easily visible, even if that would mean clutter
Also, in system map you can select a carrier and get a lot of info - facilities enabled/disabled, docking permissions, owner etc - i would hate to see the carriers hidden under a single icon or to force me to dive into planetary view

 

[Trollymctrollerson]

OP you have my condolences. Going forward, lower your expectations and you can avoid being as disappointed.

 

[varonica]

But maybe if FDev didn't feel the need to display every FC on the map, they would be willing to double (or more) the number of FCs that can actually be in a system. Aside from the system map, the position is likely (I'm just guessing) something like an address that lets the game know where to display the market in supercruise. There's certainly an upper limit, but maybe it can be increased if we got away from the system map issue.

We here again? It just never seems to end. FDEV have told us there's a hard limit to the number of Fleet Carriers in a system, it has nothing to do with the system map, it has to do with the number of ID64's put aside for persistent objects like stars, planets, stations etc in each system. The last nine digits in the ID64 of the galaxy databse are put aside for each system, the rest of them represent the star itself and it's position in the galaxy, and that's it, there are no more, they can't increase that number. These 9 digits are used to represent stars, planets, stations and any other persistent assets in a system. I remember hearing that one is reserved so that gives us an 8 bit number and a maximum of 256 persistent objects per system. Some people don't think there is a reserved digit which gives us 9 bits or a maximum of 512 but that's just a disagreement over the exact details, not the fact that there is an absolute limit that can't be exceeded.

When you fail to jump to a full systems that's because each time a carrier jumps it has to be assigned a new ID64 for the new system, using the 55 bits for that star and the first available number in the reserved digits for that system, if there are no available ID64's left for that system the database can't be updated and the carrier can't enter the system. This change and propagation of the new ID64 across the entire network, Xbox, PS and PC all around the world is why there is a rather lengthy wait for carrier jumps, it's not something you want to rush.

 

[sidereal6]

We here again?

Yes, apparently we are once again at the point where you tell us what is as if that's in any way relevant.

If it was necessary to increase the number of FCs allowed in a system, there are any number of ways that FDev could accomplish that. All of the ways they would accomplish it would involve changing code. Telling me that the code doesn't currently support it isn't even a tiny little bit relevant to this discussion.

 

[Northpin]

If it was necessary to increase the number of FCs allowed in a system, there are any number of ways that FDev could accomplish that. All of the ways they would accomplish it would involve changing code. Telling me that the code doesn't currently support it isn't even a tiny little bit relevant to this discussion.

It kinda is.
The code is tied to the database and the database is tied to the stelarforge and everything is tied by certain design choices
The net result being: that's how it is and it cannot be changed.

The issue you bring up probably can't be solved completely. There probably will always be some limit. But maybe if FDev didn't feel the need to display every FC on the map, they would be willing to double (or more) the number of FCs that can actually be in a system. Aside from the system map, the position is likely (I'm just guessing) something like an address that lets the game know where to display the market in supercruise. There's certainly an upper limit, but maybe it can be increased if we got away from the system map issue.

So, the system map is displaying every dockable asset (it's not hiding megaships as you said, but only megaships that are not dockable)
And the number of carriers per system is certainly hard-limited (i dont remember seeing more than 128 carriers in a system, so this could be it)

It's a take it or leave it situation.

I'm personally not really bothered by the fact that certain system maps are crowded with carriers.

But i'm mildly bothered because i cannot filter the carriers out of the nav panel without also filtering my bookmarked carriers
And I'm also mildly bothered because i cannot filter settlements from the Nav Panel without also filtering out the settlement i have bookmarked and where i want to land.

 

[sidereal6]

it cannot be changed.

Objection: stating facts not in evidence.

It obviously could be changed. I don't know how much work it would take, and the decision to change it - or to change anything in a piece of software - is a matter of balancing the estimate of that work and the risk of introducing new bugs against the perceived benefit of the change.

But everything can be changed.

 

[zikolach]

None of these will work

I sometime select my destination in the system map, not in the nav panel, so i need the dockable destinations to be easily visible, even if that would mean clutter
Also, in system map you can select a carrier and get a lot of info - facilities enabled/disabled, docking permissions, owner etc - i would hate to see the carriers hidden under a single icon or to force me to dive into planetary view

We have to do it for settlements, ports and other surface pois. Why not for carriers orbiting this planet? It would be helpful to have search bar for system map to quickly navigate and some extra dropdown buttons for settlements and carriers to open planetsry view with pre-selected settlement/carrier and info panel open. Hold would set destination. Search bar should be able to find not only by names, but also by services available system-wide.

 

[DemiserofD]

I've said it before, but I don't see any reason why fleet carriers can't be stored locally. Each player has their own set of signal sources, for example, which don't exist for anyone else. Make the fleet carrier into a 'signal source', stored on the local player's computer. Nobody else could drop in on it or see it, unless they wing nav locked on the player who was near it.

From a technical perspective, when first made invisible, the FC would 'jump' to an empty system that only exists in the server files, which is not the same system as it appears to be in. It remains there until the player chooses to make it visible again, at which point it 'jumps' to the system it seems to be in. If the system is full of visible carriers, the jump would fail, just like it currently does, and it would remain invisible. Since these 'psuedo-systems' wouldn't actually exist, they could be generated and deleted freely as players move their carriers in and out of public visibility.

This handily bypasses any issues of ID64 limits in a system, because the FC isn't actually in the system it appears to be in. It also means significantly less strain on the server, because when the FC jumps, it doesn't actually need to update its location with the servers, it just needs to update it with itself and the local pc.

There would be issues of what happens if a player is docked on an invisible carrier that then jumps away while the docked player is offline, since the docked player wouldn't have their position updated. To solve this, just have players be automatically ejected from the carrier when they log off(have a 15 second log off countdown warning them of this).

They would then log back in in the same position in space, but with nothing around them, just like if they'd logged off in a signal source.

Poof! Infinite carriers in systems! Problem solved!

 

[Lashed]

OP you have my condolences. Going forward, lower your expectations and you can avoid being as disappointed.

Notice how this thread is still alive? lol