Advanced Docking Computer working as intended...

[Just Paul]

If the station does not support automated docking, the player should not be able to engage the ADC at all when using those stations.

Damaged stations are the only ones I encountered and the ADC can't be engaged there. I think the controller even says something about it not working.

If the player is meant to be participating in ADC-guided docking, they should be able to instantly take manual control back where needed to prevent accidents... And the ADC has no business triggering Boost. Like, EVER.

If the ADC wouldn't be allowed to boost I would have lost my Cutter a few times on a high-g planetary settlement.

The ADC works 99% of the time and there are only a few cases with which it has problems.
The ones I observed are: Cutters and asteroid bases are not a good match with the ADC engaged. Same for the older engineering bases. Another one would be leaving a really busy station, better to watch the timer. Once encountered everybody should be aware that the ADC has some flaws and should be supervised. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice,....

 

[DiabolusUrsus]

Stations that don't support ADC are quite rare, but they are out there in backwater systems.

Rarity is not the relevant issue here. Do you disagree with the notion of simply disabling ADC for unsupported stations?

The ED galaxy is meant to be a real galaxy and in the real world things break, things go wrong, it's up to a real world pilot - with all the navigation and landing assistants that exist in the real world - nevertheless to be ready for anything and deal with emergencies if or when they arise. The miracle on the Hudson being a great example of a pilot thinking on his feet, and landing his damaged aircraft, on a river! His (ship) wasn't meant to lose power in both engines though.

Opinion snip

Argument from realism is incredibly weak in this case, because there are ten zillion other ways in which ED deliberately breaks from reality.

FTL drives derived from alien space magic are entirely unrealistic.

Repairing a ship from 1% hull to 100% INSTANTLY just by paying credits is entirely unrealistic.

Gunfire breaking through canopies but never actually hitting the pilot and killing them instantly is entirely unrealistic.

Every time the game is unrealistic, it is for the sake of making it less inconvenient for the player and therefore an enjoyable experience. To suggest that the miniscule degree of added realism from a fallible docking computer adds value to the game while willfully overlooking all the other concessions it makes for convenience's sake is utterly asinine.

If the ADC wouldn't be allowed to boost I would have lost my Cutter a few times on a high-g planetary settlement.

Yes, but it would be behaving as an ASSIST, where the pilot is still responsible for most of the docking procedure.

The ones I observed are: Cutters and asteroid bases are not a good match with the ADC engaged. Same for the older engineering bases. Another one would be leaving a really busy station, better to watch the timer. Once encountered everybody should be aware that the ADC has some flaws and should be supervised. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice,....

Again, this is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether the ADC should/should not be improved.

 

[Winterwalker]

Argument from realism is incredibly weak in this case, because there are ten zillion other ways in which ED deliberately breaks from reality.

It doesn't have to be about realism. It's a departure from a linear gameplay.

I'm not saying FD add things like this on purpose but in the same way as planets are procedurally generated, and no two are the same, your ADC experience means not all landing/launching experiences are the same across all stations and all ships either. Not talking as someone who lost a cargo full of void opals but your experience makes those opals even more valuable, because it reminds how it's easy to lose them. If you're in space and you're not concentrating there are a thousand ways to die, the ADC is one of them.

 

[DiabolusUrsus]

It doesn't have to be about realism.

It SHOULDN'T be about realism, but you pitched it that way.

It's a departure from a linear gameplay.

I'm not saying FD add things like this on purpose but in the same way as planets are procedurally generated, and no two are the same, your ADC experience means not all landing/launching experiences are the same across all stations and all ships either. Not talking as someone who lost a cargo full of void opals but your experience makes those opals even more valuable, because it reminds how it's easy to lose them. If you're in space and you're not concentrating there are a thousand ways to die, the ADC is one of them.

If that is something you appreciate, you always have the option of simply not using the ADC.

The ADC exists specifically to aid unskilled pilots and grant convenience to skilled pilots in exchange for slower docking/launching and an internal slot.

Nobody is faulting FD for making it imperfect at the beginning, but that is NOT a good argument against asking them to improve it after the fact.

 

[Winterwalker]

It SHOULDN'T be about realism, but you pitched it that way.

And / or.

The ADC exists specifically to aid unskilled pilots and grant convenience to skilled pilots in exchange for slower docking/launching and an internal slot.

If you're flying a Cutter you can hardly be considered an unskilled pilot. My experience is that the larger the ship, the more likely you are to have a problem with the ADC. Small ships are much less likely to path into obstacles.

In your OP you're taking a very big ship into a pretty tight space. I can understand using ADC through the slot maybe but did you need it to maneuvre onto the pad?

 

[DiabolusUrsus]

And / or.

This is really far to left-field, and I doubt we'll get anywhere until you recognize that.

If you're flying a Cutter you can hardly be considered an unskilled pilot.

"And grant convenience to skilled pilots." I don't understand how you are struggling with this distinction.

In your OP you're taking a very big ship into a pretty tight space.

"My" OP? If you can't even keep track of who makes which arguments, your credibility when responding is incredibly suspect.

I can understand using ADC through the slot maybe but did you need it to maneuvre onto the pad?

Yikes. Now you're editorializing how other players choose to play, which has LITERALLY NOTHING to do with requesting better pathing for the ADC. The ADC is an official feature; whether other players choose to use it or need/don't need it is none of your business.

Are you trolling?

 

[Greasetrap42]

The OP thinks the ADC is dangerous and should be fixed 100% or not used. (OP said not going to use it until fixed)

By this argument Pirates are dangerous and should be removed from the game too by the authorities. Or at the very least we should get a big red travel advisory warning pop-up cautioning commanders from entering dangerous systems. WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! PIRATES MIGHT BE PRESENT!

Its a game. Most of the space ports are designed poorly with stuff in the way, traffic entering/exiting through the same access location, station civilians openly at risk of being smashed into. IRL most of the stations would have been destroyed in the first year of ED release by careless and inept commanders. If spaceship docking was made realistic (and safe) this would be Elite Boring. Fellow commanders, lets not play the "realistic" argument in discussions like this.


Edit: I do like the game to be realistic. But arguing something is unrealistic because it is unsafe and should be changed... nah.

 

[GJ51]

I use the SDC on every ship because I don't enjoy doing mindless repetitive things. That's why I use the SDC in conjunction with Voice Attack and EDDI.

On approach in SC I use the blue circles to approach so that the docking port is lined up when I exit to normal space. at 7.5km out "Request Docking" by voice performs the docking request and initiates the approach. On landing, Voice Attack automatically puts me in the Hangar, Opens Starport Services and then does Refuel, Repair, and Restock. It then places the cursor on the "Exit" button of the Starport Services screen ready to open the left hand menu choices.

After the first few thousand hours of ED, being able to automate the things you've mastered after thousands of repetitions is about the only thing that allows you to maintain interest in ED. If it wasn't for the ability to continue to refine my setup, i.e. the controllers and automation setup, I'd have quit playing long ago.

Being able to add better Joysticks, Throttles, and Rudder Pedals and refining the assignments and adding/integrating voice control and automation into an efficient and highly enjoyable game play experience is what allows me to continue to be engaged with ED.

HTH

It's literally been years since I've had a problem of any kind with the SDC. If you're properly aligned you can just go for coffee. Additionally, if you want to take over and get into dock faster, just add throttle and the SDC goes into standby until you zero the throttle again. After thousands of landings, I can't think of anything I would ask for the SDC. It works as intended and does everything I want it do. If that's not your experience...

You just need more experience

 

[DiabolusUrsus]

If that's not your experience...You just need more experience

It is also my experience that the DC and ADC are perfectly safe in the vast majority of cases. If not for this thread, I never would have imagined them failing. I fully agree with your perspective that they are important convenience tools, but you still haven't really addressed why the DC/ADC (just gonna use ADC to mean both now) should be left entirely as-is.

1. It's true that applying throttle overrides the ADC, but better overrides would be useful. For example, applying throttle is exactly the opposite of what you'd want to do if the ADC starts boosting your ship onto a collision course. Vertical/lateral thrusters and manual steering should also override the ADC.

2. The fact that the ADC performs so well most of the time can lull inexperienced pilots into a false sense of security. When I first started using it, I watched the process carefully multiple times to see how it worked. After watching it work perfectly every time (even when originally far out of alignment at the very edge of docking permission range) I learned it was reliable enough to, as you say, go for coffee.

A simple "WARNING: Watch for docking errors" notice under the "Auto-dock in-progress" message would help with that.

Further improvements to pathfinding for large ships would also only benefit the game; while they might not be a top-priority critical issue demanding immediate attention and implementation, they'd still be nice to have.

Would you disagree?

 

[GJ51]

It is also my experience that the DC and ADC are perfectly safe in the vast majority of cases. If not for this thread, I never would have imagined them failing. I fully agree with your perspective that they are important convenience tools, but you still haven't really addressed why the DC/ADC (just gonna use ADC to mean both now) should be left entirely as-is.

1. It's true that applying throttle overrides the ADC, but better overrides would be useful. For example, applying throttle is exactly the opposite of what you'd want to do if the ADC starts boosting your ship onto a collision course. Vertical/lateral thrusters and manual steering should also override the ADC.

2. The fact that the ADC performs so well most of the time can lull inexperienced pilots into a false sense of security. When I first started using it, I watched the process carefully multiple times to see how it worked. After watching it work perfectly every time (even when originally far out of alignment at the very edge of docking permission range) I learned it was reliable enough to, as you say, go for coffee.

A simple "WARNING: Watch for docking errors" notice under the "Auto-dock in-progress" message would help with that.

Further improvements to pathfinding for large ships would also only benefit the game; while they might not be a top-priority critical issue demanding immediate attention and implementation, they'd still be nice to have.

Would you disagree?

1. It will also disengage on application of any reverse throttle. I often hit boost when I drop from SC and then apply reverse thrust to slow down before letting the DC take over. I'm not opposed to adding directional thrusters into the mix, but It's not a big thing to me one way or the other.

2. I primarily dislike the ADC as it only adds the take-off assist to the DC and my experience is that it is slow and has put me into the rafters a few times. I do not trust the take-off function.

I'm not sure what you mean by the "pathfinding" function for large ships. On approach I'm usually facing the port centered on the entrance before I engage the DC. Occasionally, if it's having an issue with traffic, I will override the DC as explained and get it through the rack manually. If I don't override, it may take a bit longer, but it still gets landed.

I'm not opposed to changes, but for me the SDC works really well and I'm in the "If it ain't broke..." camp, especially when we're talking FD. It does what I want it to do and does it really well. YMMV

 

[Greasetrap42]

Would you disagree?

I don't think anybody on this thread has been against changes or improvements. But a common reaction to the OP is that the ADC works pretty good. Personally I think it works amazingly well considering what it is doing. That's probably because I appreciate the complexity of what its doing. I also find it is very consistent in its results. If it works flawlessly at a given station 20 times, it will work another 200 times. But on another station your ship gets caught in the mail slot (TolaGarf's Junkyard) it might do it again in the future, and you gotta pay attention.

This whole thread is based on a commander that used the ADC at a base he was unfamiliar with, located in a planetary canyon, in complete darkness, flying blind, with no shields.

 

[DiabolusUrsus]

It will also disengage on application of any reverse throttle.

I know, but on many ships the reverse thrusters aren't strong enough to quickly prevent collision, and on forward-throttle HOTAS setups (rather than full range) it can be tricky to intervene effectively.

I primarily dislike the ADC as it only adds the take-off assist to the DC and my experience is that it is slow and has put me into the rafters a few times. I do not trust the take-off function.

I also dislike the launch being slow, but the "has put me into the rafters" bit is a good example of how "better pathfinding" could benefit the computer.

I'm not sure what you mean by the "pathfinding" function for large ships. On approach I'm usually facing the port centered on the entrance before I engage the DC. Occasionally, if it's having an issue with traffic, I will override the DC as explained and get it through the rack manually. If I don't override, it may take a bit longer, but it still gets landed.

In this case, the priority would be refinements to its docking path to prevent it from flying players into bridges or other world geometry like the OP described. The gist of the OP is that it would be nice not to have to worry about a docking computer blowing your ship up for you. I realize that it may be impossible or overly difficult for FD to pull that off (in which case they should say so and add some warnings), but if they can manage it I don't see any way in which it would hurt.

I'm not opposed to changes, but for me the SDC works really well and I'm in the "If it ain't broke..." camp, especially when we're talking FD. It does what I want it to do and does it really well. YMMV

The issue being that while it ain't broke bad, it is a little bit broke in some rare cases. If FD is already committed to bug-fixing, I think NOW would be the time to address issues like this.

I don't think anybody on this thread has been against changes or improvements.

That's a complete lie. Multiple people have put forward inane arguments against making improvements like "it would help cheaters" or "improving it would make it less realistic."

But a common reaction to the OP is that the ADC works pretty good. Personally I think it works amazingly well considering what it is doing. That's probably because I appreciate the complexity of what its doing. I also find it is very consistent in its results.

And I agree that it does a good job most of the time, which is a big part of why it's so ridiculous when people try to use that as a counter-argument. That it does a mostly-good job already is commonly-accepted fact, but that doesn't explain why it would be bad for it to get better.

But on another station your ship gets caught in the mail slot (TolaGarf's Junkyard) it might do it again in the future, and you gotta pay attention.

Yes, with how the computer currently performs this is true. But why does it need to be? What would be wrong with tweaking the pathing to prevent ships from getting stuck in the mail slot? That adds nothing but irritation to a completely mundane activity; I don't think that makes for a good game.

This whole thread is based on a commander that used the ADC at a base he was unfamiliar with, located in a planetary canyon, in complete darkness, flying blind, with no shields.

Because that commander was trusting the docking computer, which for all intents and purposes would have proven itself trustworthy in almost 100% of prior uses. You can ridicule the OP's decisions all you like, but that doesn't mean their suggestion is a bad idea or inappropriate.

Ad hominem is not a valid counter-argument.

 

[Atol]

I think it funny Frontier made the Posts on Docking computers on Wiki. So people could read and understand they had fault like the cars of today have and explain you have to pay attention. I don't understand why some people are ignoring it.

 

[M00ka]

I think it funny Frontier made the Posts on Docking computers on Wiki. So people could read and understand they had fault like the cars of today have and explain you have to pay attention. I don't understand why some people are ignoring it.

Simples, if someone can blame the tool - in this case the DC/ADC, and pass that blame onto FD then they the player can't be held accountable for any mishap they encounter. So by blaming everyone/everything else it absolves them from admitting they screwed up by not paying attention, being lazy or whatever.

 

[Para Handy]

I think it funny Frontier made the Posts on Docking computers on Wiki. .........

The Wiki is player-created, it isn't a Frontier site.

 

[Greasetrap42]

Ad hominem is not a valid counter-argument.

Learn what Ad hominum is before throwing it around. The OP is claiming the ADC should work 100% and that it should be safe allowing the commander to fly blind in complete darkness in unfamiliar territory with unknown obstacles safely without shields. This is not personal attack or ridiculing the OP. The ADC is flight assist. Not auto pilot.

If you have decent suggestions fine.

 

[Atol]

The Wiki is player-created, it isn't a Frontier site.

It might not be Frontier Site anymore. But that data was on Frontier site at one time or another. So that data legit.

Learn what Ad hominum is before throwing it around. The OP is claiming the ADC should work 100% and that it should be safe allowing the commander to fly blind in complete darkness in unfamiliar territory with unknown obstacles safely without shields. This is not personal attack or ridiculing the OP. The ADC is flight assist. Not auto pilot.

If you have decent suggestions fine.

I have to agree with you on this.

 

[DiabolusUrsus]

Learn what Ad hominum is before throwing it around.

I know exactly what ad hominem is, while you clearly don't.

The OP's argument is "The docking computer should not crash my ship."

This argument is reasonable, and applies to EVERY build for EVERY ship as long as a docking computer is used.

The reason posters like you keep bringing up the OP's ship build and other choices is to suggest that they are BAD choices, and that the OP therefore has no one else to blame. The implication being that the OP is unskilled, ignorant, or just plain stupid, and therefore their suggestion is a bad idea. That is TEXTBOOK ad hominem.

It's fine to say that you disagree with the OP's suggestion, or that you don't want it. You are welcome to your OPINION. However, in order to have a valid POINT, you would need to show why the docking computer should crash ships.

The ADC is flight assist. Not auto pilot.

No, it is described inaccurately. It behaves exactly like an autopilot once engaged, and the game refers to it as automated in most places.

On-screen message: "Auto-dock Engaged."

Station comms while docking:
"Use of automated docking procedures approved."
"You may now HAND OVER the controls."
Etc.

True "assists" are not automated. For example, the classic Flight Assist makes flying easier, but still requires direct user input.

If you have decent suggestions fine. Otherwise stop trolling.

I have given detailed suggestions already. Disagreeing with people when they spout obvious nonsense is not trolling; commenting in a public forum invites response.

EDIT: removed typo.

 

[Just Paul]

The ADC is software, and software is never 100% bug free. At least I never saw or used a piece of software which was bug free.
Autopilots in airplanes can fly automatically the whole route between airports with certain equipment without any input from the pilots. But we still put pilots in the plane to watch over it and take over if it fails or any other reason.

Should ship path-finding be improved in ED? Yes to this, after many other more important bugs are fixed. At some busy stations it's just silly to watch the traffic. But I would never expect the ADC to be unfailable, especially at unique bases like certain engineers or the asteroid bases.

 

[DiabolusUrsus]

The ADC is software, and software is never 100% bug free. At least I never saw or used a piece of software which was bug free.
Autopilots in airplanes can fly automatically the whole route between airports with certain equipment without any input from the pilots. But we still put pilots in the plane to watch over it and take over if it fails or any other reason.

This is fair.

A video game is a much more controllable environment than real life, and Elite falls into the sci-fi genre, so I don't think the ADC is directly comparable to real life autopilots. However, if FD's position is that SOME degree of failure is intended or that they can't feasibly push its reliability any closer to 100%, I think that warrants better in-game safety information for players.

Real-life has tons of safety labeling requirements and regulations precisely because tools are unreliable. Real life pilots are also trained, certified, career professionals. In Elite, it is perfectly possible to have a completely untrained person in the cockpit (and the game doesn't really offer training on the ADC anwyay).

Should ship path-finding be improved in ED? Yes to this, after many other more important bugs are fixed.

I completely agree that pathfinding isn't a top-priority issue and that more critical issues should be addressed first.

But I would never expect the ADC to be unfailable, especially at unique bases like certain engineers or the asteroid bases.

If anything, it should be easier to get more precise pathing for unique locations; there are fewer of them to worry about.

If there are any cases where pathing is too difficult to implement, just make the ADC unsupported at those locations and prevent players from engaging the computer in the first place.