A Case for Docking Computers

[CMDR Oxnix]

I've always puzzled over this odd feature in the game. Spending many thousands or in the case of higher end ships, millions of credits, the ship builders add a computer that can pretty much do anything you need, but it can't land a ship??? ... seems a bit stupid if you ask me. Adding another level 1 slot? That actually might make it easier to add code to use it. Or, if we could put it into a utility slot, it makes more sense doing that. Or, just program the computer and add a simple feature on our consoles, which is my personal choice. I've flown most of the ships in the game, and while I can land my ship without a docking computer, I'd just as soon be lazy after a flight and just let the system land my ship while I take a break. All of these comments and not a single ED response? Sad, as many threads don't have this many comments. Oh well, we can hope this simple change will come about some day soon.

 

[Daynen]

It makes zero sense that we have FTL travel, scanners that can instantly identify bodies 500,000 LS away, beam weapons, energy shields, "telepresence" and ships big enough to require a dozen crew or more but can be flown, gunned, and maintained by a single pilot...yet docking computers aren't standard equipment? Hell, even our COVAS tells us that it's specifically required to be on all ships by the pilot's federation! But a way to guarantee safe docking isn't?

"It's only a game" is a very flimsy excuse when your game has decided to simulate the Milky Way galaxy, a full three-dimensional flight model, gravity, collision physics, crime and punishment, heat management and even INSURANCE...but docking computers are optional. Kinda strains credulity.

I'd be okay with a docking fee based on ship size; autodocking a sidey should be effortless for the station's systems, but getting your beluga in there cleanly is going to hold up traffic a bit. Lower security systems or non-mail slot stations could just not offer the service on account of just not having the systems or space for it and unfriendly systems could just refuse the service because they just don't like you, so there'd still be plenty of places where we'd need to learn the skill ourselves. It's just ridiculous that it takes up a slot. I've never even used it because I've always preferred to land manually no matter what I'm flying and I STILL think it's dumb to take up a slot on it. I'm all for ensuring players learn and grow their skills, but there are ways to do that without punishing players just for using a feature.

 

[dunno]

I'd be okay with a docking fee based on ship size

I disagree, no landing fees please.

Lower security systems or non-mail slot stations could just not offer the service on account of just not having the systems or space for it and unfriendly systems could just refuse the service because they just don't like you, so there'd still be plenty of places where we'd need to learn the skill ourselves.

A bit like the current civilian runway Instrument Landing System which a runway may have depending on whether the local authorities have the resources to install a ILS for a or all runways. ALL private airfields and many small civilian airfields don't have the resources to install a runway ILS system and a dirt strip or bush strip will never have a ILS for obvious reasons.
All civilian airliners have a minimum of 2 Auto Pilots and a ILS Radio receiver, the ILS receiver provides guidance signals to the Flight Director (computer) which commnads the Auto Pilot (computer), the Auto Pilot moves the aircraft's flight controls as commanded. All low visibility landings are done by the Auto Pilot, first approach mode, then Land mode. For a Category IIIB landing, (decision height 20ft and RVR of 50m, runway visual range), 3 auto pilots and 3 flight directors is a mandatory requirement, why 3?, because the auto pilots in Land mode talk to each other and if one has a horizontal or vertical error of more than "x" it is voted out and disengaged, the Land Mode Auto pilot system is now degraded to Category II which implies that CAT II landing minima must now be applied, which is a decision height of 200ft and RVR 250m, and so forth.

Hmm a long winded way of saying I like the idea of stations having a ILS (Instrument Landing System) system which determines whether a ships "Docking Computer" can be utilised.
Major orbitals, or Major Planetary Stations > ILS > Able to use docking computer.
Major Outposts > Depends on whether the factions can afford and maintain a ILS > May or may not be able to use a "Docking Computer".
Minor Outposts > no ILS > manual landing.

 

[Lestat]

I still have to say this game about choices and sacrifices. You still have to look at something and ask your self this. Is this module worth it for you? I am in a Type 10 Defender. I do have a docking computer It wastes a Size 2 Compartment Which I not going to boo hoo about. It also has two Size 3 compartment. When you are doing Large 3000 Cargo runs that take 7 plus trips or more. First, run I take ADS and surface scanner and no Docking computer. So I lose 10 cargo total. Or if I had all 3 Compartment with ADS, Surface scanner, and docking computer 18 slots lost. I still have 414 cargo. If I need a fuel scoop I lose another 16 slot. Size 4 compartment. Still, I have close to 400 at 398. That 8 runs.

But If you are smart and deposit Modules you don't need for the mission at the destination you finish the mission at or nearby. You can gain more space. In my case, I get the Max 432 Cargo hold and I still have the docking computer Or lose 20 Cargo slot in a Size 4 compartment for a fuel scoop. I still have 412 cargo spaces.

I not going to boo-hoo over losing 4 cargo spots.

 

[AimForAverage]

Removing the docking computer is a bad idea. It's a statement module. A symbol. A mark of class and status. It says to your victims that you are so superior that you don't need those MRPs or whatever. It winds people up. In fact I think a class 2 version that plays "God save the Queen" by the Sex Pistols should be introduced.

Seriously, I like the fee to auto dock idea, with this feature not available at damaged stations, etc. Brilliant.

 

[danielfriesen]

I enjoy docking, docking at a spaceport is much more enjoyable than frame shifting to another system which gets tedious over time.

But the absurdity that in such a futuristic universe ships aren't capable of docking on their own has been apparent to me for a long time. And the idea it requires a gigantic extra computer is equally absurd. And fixing that won't stop me from enjoying docking.

My 2¢, I loved the suggestion that auto-dock is station dependent functionality. Tiny outposts in the middle of nowhere, damaged stations in need of repair, stations maintained by an organization on the brink of collapse. It makes perfect sense that such a luxury feature would not be available in all situations.

I also buy the argument that a cheap Sidewinder on loan may lack such functionality at all. Lagging behind using outdated software bought on a discount. Skipping out on a few of the sensors required for that functionality that are only needed for luxury features. Anti-consumer behaviour by ship companies, purposefully omitting features from the basic ship class to entice people to buy a new vessel.

 

[Teh Smoo]

Removing the docking computer is a bad idea. It's a statement module. A symbol. A mark of class and status. It says to your victims that you are so superior that you don't need those MRPs or whatever. It winds people up. In fact I think a class 2 version that plays "God save the Queen" by the Sex Pistols should be introduced.

Seriously, I like the fee to auto dock idea, with this feature not available at damaged stations, etc. Brilliant.

A fee doesn't make sense, any cost would be MASSIVELY offset by the savings they incur by NOT having me grind my way out of the slot.

But having it NOT work in damaged stations? That makes a lot of sense.

 

[jagdmeister]

As a relative newcomer with about 460 hours in, a couple of observations if I may. I actually like and use the auto dock computer as it helps when I've had a few too many sherbets and let's be honest, life's too short for bouncing around and twanging off the walls of a big station, upsetting everyone Not sure I agree with a massive 10k charge for the convenience but if I had to pay it, I would.

Don't get me wrong, obviously early on I had to learn to land properly without it but now would rather choose to sit back and admire the views on my way in. I have found stations without AD and one was even on fire, so I guess we address the scenarios as they arise.

If anything I'd like an "auto leave the station" computer as well [big grin]

 

[Tigon]

Well, I guess the April update is bringing about a pretty good compromise to this: if you have your own reasons for hating the concept then you're getting an extra slot (or two); for those of us who quite like the back-up of a DC when trying to find that damned pad on the outpost after three months where the only thing you've landed on is a barren planet, well, nice.

Oh, and the "undocking" bit: that'll be nice for the Panther I reckon...

 

[Factabulous]

Well, I guess the April update is bringing about a pretty good compromise to this: if you have your own reasons for hating the concept then you're getting an extra slot (or two); for those of us who quite like the back-up of a DC when trying to find that damned pad on the outpost after three months where the only thing you've landed on is a barren planet, well, nice.

Oh, and the "undocking" bit: that'll be nice for the Panther I reckon...

So - is the plan to resurrect every thread that ever asked for auto-leave? Asking for a friend...

 

[Stealthie]

What do others think?

I think that, ultimately, every convenience should come with a commensurate downside.

You want a DC, you lose a slot.

If it was up to me, I'd make flight-assist an optional module and I'd create some kind of barebones navigation system and then move the functionality of the current system to a navigation computer module.
If you can do without both of those things, that's an extra couple of C1 slots available for alternative use.
Needless to say, the FSS would also become a regular module again too.

In the interests of fairness, I'd also create a couple of bigger (perhaps C2 or C3) modules which would provide additional functionality as well.
There could be, perhaps, a C2 "flight-control module" which provides the functionality of the DC and FA or a C3 "survey module" which provides the functionality of the FSS, DSS, provides enhanced navigation systems and provides surface-navigation capability too.

Ideally, I'd like to se as much "built in" stuff as possible stripped out of ships and then provide players with a wide variety of modules to provide various features in order to maximise the ability to design ships exactly as you want them - while still retaining the idea of compromise being required.

 

[Tigon]

Ideally, I'd like to se as much "built in" stuff as possible stripped out of ships and then provide players with a wide variety of modules to provide various features in order to maximise the ability to design ships exactly as you want them - while still retaining the idea of compromise being required.

There isn't anything "built in" though is there? That's what all the slots are for (apart from the shell of the ship and the bridge).

Anyway, each to their own. I'm just glad my traction control and power-assisted steering don't require a 10L fuel tank and no mirrors.

 

[tafkabb]

Please make (or add to) a new thread rather than bump a very old one. Thanks.