A more logical landing pad numbering system
- Thread starter Peoplearestrange
- Start date
You don't need wheels. But you need a clear way for glide approach before a landing zone. That, or another system that nullifies gravity, like an entrance tunnel to underground facility instead of simple pads around an irregular base with stupid towers in the way.So which engineer is going to fit your ship with wheels?
I purposely don't do that. I just fly whatever way I wish!
Lestat
Banned
My skill with only using the compass I don't need to see below me.
I realise Im reply to an old thread of mine, but I still feel this is all relevant so:
There are two ways we can look at this situation; Game hat and Simulator hat. The current system falls flat on both of these IMHO.
For the game, the system is not intuitive, as others have put it may be LOGICAL but its not at a glance easy to understand. When you go into a cinema/theatre you look at the first seat when you enter and see A1 (probably), you then intuitively know that if you have a ticket for G5 that you need to go 6 more rows back and 5 seats along to the centre. If you had seat 42 and the first seat was 1 it would be a LOT more difficult to guess where your seat would be without much more information, possibly learning the system they have in place or at least a bit of wondering around. Another example would be airline seats, you know that row 43 is towards the back and seat A is probably a window seat.
Now with the Sim hat on. A lot of people use the "go slower" or "just look at the compass" as an excuse for the poor design. The first massively depends on the size and weight of your ship, and could very possibly mean you cause a large obstruction while you crawl in at 50, even at 100 stopping a T9 to get to your bay thats above and a little back from your current positions is a faff. The compass issue is worse still because you are focusing ALL your attention on a tiny section of your hud that often isn't near other useful information. Hell you could easily miss another ship coming towards you. Its the reasons fighter pilots and larger airlines have a HUD with information such as airspeed and altitude DIRECTLY in their line of vision to the outside view.
Also my GOD its the future, we've already got HUD everywhere to the point it can overlay a marker on a target and add orbit lines, why not at LEAST have an arrow or markers leading you towards your pad. Visually interesting and mechanically useful!
There are two ways we can look at this situation; Game hat and Simulator hat. The current system falls flat on both of these IMHO.
For the game, the system is not intuitive, as others have put it may be LOGICAL but its not at a glance easy to understand. When you go into a cinema/theatre you look at the first seat when you enter and see A1 (probably), you then intuitively know that if you have a ticket for G5 that you need to go 6 more rows back and 5 seats along to the centre. If you had seat 42 and the first seat was 1 it would be a LOT more difficult to guess where your seat would be without much more information, possibly learning the system they have in place or at least a bit of wondering around. Another example would be airline seats, you know that row 43 is towards the back and seat A is probably a window seat.
Now with the Sim hat on. A lot of people use the "go slower" or "just look at the compass" as an excuse for the poor design. The first massively depends on the size and weight of your ship, and could very possibly mean you cause a large obstruction while you crawl in at 50, even at 100 stopping a T9 to get to your bay thats above and a little back from your current positions is a faff. The compass issue is worse still because you are focusing ALL your attention on a tiny section of your hud that often isn't near other useful information. Hell you could easily miss another ship coming towards you. Its the reasons fighter pilots and larger airlines have a HUD with information such as airspeed and altitude DIRECTLY in their line of vision to the outside view.
Also my GOD its the future, we've already got HUD everywhere to the point it can overlay a marker on a target and add orbit lines, why not at LEAST have an arrow or markers leading you towards your pad. Visually interesting and mechanically useful!
I dont even care about the layout because the compass always points to your pad.
Takes half a second to locate your pad.
Takes half a second to locate your pad.
I agree with the OP, the landing pad numbering is seemingly random. There is a quasi-pattern but not very well designed for intuitive locating of the pad. I still have no idea where the pads are physically located. I must always depend on my compass and quick visual search every time.
For very practical reasons it would make sense to have a more systematic numbering system. Like if the pad holographic number malfunctioned? There is no other identifier on the pad. I would imagine a potential passenger on the station might have a tough time finding the pad too. I can imagine I would spend a long time walking around inside station hallways trying to find the correct pad. Probably frustrating for new maintenance personnel too.
For very practical reasons it would make sense to have a more systematic numbering system. Like if the pad holographic number malfunctioned? There is no other identifier on the pad. I would imagine a potential passenger on the station might have a tough time finding the pad too. I can imagine I would spend a long time walking around inside station hallways trying to find the correct pad. Probably frustrating for new maintenance personnel too.
Last edited:
How can you even dream that the numbering is random? It is really simple, from front to back, starting immediately below the slot and working clockwise around the station (looking in from outside).
Honestly, you don't know that pad 1 is directly under the slot and that pad 24 is directly over the slot? Is it hard to remember that numbers below 24 are to your left on entering and numbers over 25 are to your right?
I blame docking computers.
Ha ha! No, the compass. I just blindly follow the compass.
I am curious how Frontier numbered the parking spots outside their offices. I suspect new employees get confused.
Everyone, except the OP, that finds it difficult to follow the indicator that points exactly where you need to go.
Typical large parking lots and multi-level parking garages are identified in a grid fashion. Like a chess board. Makes finding your spot easier. Its the normal thing to do. (instead of assigning an incrementing number that wraps around and keeps counting up).
If each concentric circle is considered a "level" it would make it naturally intuitive. Similar to a multilevel parking garage.
I don't think the OP is saying current system is really difficult or a game breaker. And probably can't/won't be changed at this point. Personally I think it was a development oversight, probably not much thought was put into it.
If each concentric circle is considered a "level" it would make it naturally intuitive. Similar to a multilevel parking garage.
I don't think the OP is saying current system is really difficult or a game breaker. And probably can't/won't be changed at this point. Personally I think it was a development oversight, probably not much thought was put into it.
Wrong.... It was actually changed to make it more obviously sequential.
The diagram in the OP is actually a nightmare - complete nonsense and why anyone would defend it I do not know.
The ring + slot numbering is less of a nightmare but still is too radical a change.
Thousands of us have used the current sequentially-numbered system for years and are quite familiar with pad locations, changing it now would be ludicrous.
That would only work though if each parking spot was the same size.
Because there are small , medium and large pads you can't make a circle out of landing pads.
I have to agree this is the current system. Logical and ordered. If you look to the farthest landing pad and get it's number you can work out what pad is below you.
The OP scheme will give you epilepsy
Not really much of an issue. The large pad level can currespond to the small pad beside it. Think about how the interior of the station is likely laid out (yes, speculation), levels being assigned to concentric rings as you travel along the axis of the station. This method would also allow for the easy scaling size of a space station without having a completely new numbering system. A rotating space station with a docking bay twice the length maintains the same scheme. Or a mini station that is half the length. And a station could be designed with more "rows" than 12 and it would still follow the pattern.
Honestly I really don't care, its just a video game. Its not real. Its not difficult. And they likely won't make variations in size to the stations because its just a game. And the pad numbering system isn't gonna get changed.
Edit: Ooops, yes I just rechecked the OPs diagram and isn't really very ideal. I should have looked closer. A better system follows a normal clockwise grid pattern such as this:
<cough, cough>
Relabel Landing Pads for Large Stations
Currently the layout is: Credit to the unknown commander that created it. I propose it changes to: I hope the advantages are self evidentforums.frontier.co.uk
Last edited: