Engineers Cargo rack engineer?

[b101uk]

As I see it it is a dead weight limit, not space that cargo occupies. Ships to move require thrust. If thrust > weight then ship moves. If thrust < weight then ship don't move. Simple. Rolling for upgraded cargo racks (I mercifully skip the part when you want to fit 5 beers into one glass issue) would mean total weight increase. So... it shouldn't be cargo racks that provide extra space - it would be power plant output. More mass requires more engine.

But there is volume problem. 1 tonne is universal in mass. But 1 tonne of beer would take far less space than 1 tonne of clothing. Hell, even clothing can vary in volume. 1 tonne of heavy leather coats would be smaller (in volume) than 1 tonne of bikinis. I just like to think we have space for some standardized cargo containers. It's a bit misleading with cargo being measured in tonnes tho. More appropriate would be container. But this would make engineering modding impossible.

we already have an abundance of thrust, significantly more thrust than we need for most of the inhabited worlds, and there is nothing wrong with a bit of maths being thrown into cargo hauling and some extra danger if you get it wrong and are greedy with the amount of platinum you try to deliver to a high-g world.

but as a comparison, you can put more weight in an aircraft than it can safely get of the ground with, and the weight that an aircraft can carry changes with density altitude cause by heat/pressure, likewise, many commercial aircraft have MTOW much higher than their maximum landing weight, meaning you cannot land until you have burnt off or dumped fuel so you are below the maximum landing weight.

 

[Skip Rockbounder]

As far as ship design goes, I think that it's just a set of generally convenient numbers wrapped up in a pretty (or not so pretty) shell to allow the ship to obey certain ED galactic rules,
and to be honest NO I can't see ED releasing a game extending toolbox as such, or even allowing players to customise their environment in any (with the exception of colour HUD) way without paying for official content.

If the 10 year plan didn't include a tool box and I've never seen David Braben talk of one, then, no we ain't gonna get one...

That doesn't mean it's a bad idea, for it would make a great talent recruitment tool for ED, it could drum up ideas, watch trends of downloads for future official content and make a few quid into the bargain,

Added to the fact that while I might pay* £30-40 for a tool box to pretty my game I'll not shell out for the packs of paraphernalia currently for sale, much of which I wouldn't end up using anyway,
Ship colours... well, well if I could pick my own colours and apply them to my ship then I would consider that... But not the standard "this is the yellow /green / blue... one"

This is my view and how I play my game affects that view... your view will no doubt be very different because you're not me! (but you already know that... don't you?)



*Obviously it would depend on ease of use and what was available to change

 

[Bunkerkind Anni]

As I see it it is a dead weight limit, not space that cargo occupies. Ships to move require thrust. If thrust > weight then ship moves. If thrust < weight then ship don't move. Simple. Rolling for upgraded cargo racks (I mercifully skip the part when you want to fit 5 beers into one glass issue) would mean total weight increase. So... it shouldn't be cargo racks that provide extra space - it would be power plant output. More mass requires more engine.

But there is volume problem. 1 tonne is universal in mass. But 1 tonne of beer would take far less space than 1 tonne of clothing. Hell, even clothing can vary in volume. 1 tonne of heavy leather coats would be smaller (in volume) than 1 tonne of bikinis. I just like to think we have space for some standardized cargo containers. It's a bit misleading with cargo being measured in tonnes tho. More appropriate would be container. But this would make engineering modding impossible.

in other words,
what elite lacks, is a densitiy assigned to each type of cargo. the market ingame doesn't really work, because the market prices are are in reality per volume, not mass.
i would love to see ships cargo space beeing limited by volume, and the mass assigned via a density.
The jump range of a hauler ship would then be dependant on WHAT it has in its cargo, not on how much.

I'd like to see an Engineer be able to divide cargo racks, such that you can split them into multiple racks something a long the lines of the following, with a balancing loss of 1 class per subdivision thus...

Class 3 --> 2 x Class 1
Class 4 --> Class 2 + Class 1
Class 5 --> 2 x Class 2 / Class 3 + Class 1 / 3 x Class 1
Class 6 --> Class 3 + Class 2 / Class 4 + Class 1 / 2 x Class 1 + Class 2
Class 7 --> Class 5 + Class 1 / Class 4 + Class 2 / 2 x Class 2 + Class 1 / 2 x Class 1 + Class 3
Class 8 --> Class 6 + Class 1 / Class 5 + Class 2 / Class 4 + Class 3 / 3 x Class 2 / 2 x Class 1 + Class 4 / 4 x Class 1

...may be the balancing penalty should be 2 Classes per division and only one division allowed but you get the general idea.

whats the point of dividing cargo racks? (except for beeing able to stack up 400 tonnes of corrosive restant cargo slots in a T9)
the only thing that would make sense, would be dividing module slots into smaller one,
but then you have to balance out things like shield cells, limpet controler, and more importantly the MRP and HRP's % based resist bonuses since they would stack incredibly high.

we would end up with those modules beeing limited in how many you could fit into a ship...

 

[Requiem Mortis]

in other words,
....

whats the point of dividing cargo racks? (except for beeing able to stack up 400 tonnes of corrosive restant cargo slots in a T9)
the only thing that would make sense, would be dividing module slots into smaller one,
but then you have to balance out things like shield cells, limpet controler, and more importantly the MRP and HRP's % based resist bonuses since they would stack incredibly high.

we would end up with those modules beeing limited in how many you could fit into a ship...

Your quite right I meant modules and apologise to OP for my confusion of the thread, I stand corrected by your observation.....wrt balance of module type again valid observations that would need to be borne in mind. Perhaps fitting of shield cells could be restricted to military slot(s), limpet controllers and scanners I wouldn't personally restrict.

 

[TFB Daerist]

We must not Hijack this thread it's not fair...

Yes please stop going off topic.

Cmdr Jamieson would not be amused.

 

[Ralph Vargr]

we already have an abundance of thrust, significantly more thrust than we need for most of the inhabited worlds, and there is nothing wrong with a bit of maths being thrown into cargo hauling and some extra danger if you get it wrong and are greedy with the amount of platinum you try to deliver to a high-g world.

but as a comparison, you can put more weight in an aircraft than it can safely get of the ground with, and the weight that an aircraft can carry changes with density altitude cause by heat/pressure, likewise, many commercial aircraft have MTOW much higher than their maximum landing weight, meaning you cannot land until you have burnt off or dumped fuel so you are below the maximum landing weight.

Correct. Often, we would tank up after takeoff.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Correct. Often, we would tank up after takeoff.

Were there different operational limits in place when "overloaded"?

 

[Skip Rockbounder]

Were there different operational limits in place when "overloaded"?

Yeah... especially where that extra tonnage from refueling affects your jump range

 

[Mephane]

Just think of the number of HRPs that could be installed into an optimally subdivided Class 8 module bay....

That is because HRP numbers are bogus. So now my class 3 and 2 compartments (used for ADS and DSS) are held hostage by these bogus numbers on some entirely unrelated module that I don't even have equipped. Yeah, thanks FD...

 

[Ralph Vargr]

Were there different operational limits in place when "overloaded"?

Oh yes, by mission profile, loadout, and geography. Overloads on surface attacks, then a refuel over the North Sea, was a common event. Oceanic transitions had several tankings (avg mission time, block-to-block was 1.6 hours, for normal fixed base ops) Carrying 2 wing 360's, and a centerline tank, plus 2 AIM-9L's on the rails.

Las Vegas, to East Anglia. No. Stops. No. Bathrooms. And, a Cat 3 IFR approach at the end of it. Mach 0.82 most of the way. I can at least *see* our surface ports in this game. Yes, Sir, Yes Sir, 2 piddle packs, full!

Even a Sidewinder to Colonia is better.