FDEV please, T6 should be a small pad ship and T7 medium.

[bigity]

I'd like to see the Clipper fit on a medium if for no other reason than to give the Python a competitor in the multi-purpose/mission runner ship category.

 

[CMDR Corlas]

I love the full T-ship range and, while I'm happy with them as they are (Except for the missing small hardpoint on the T-7! Give me my 5th small hardpoint!), I wouldn't argue if Lakon issued a recall to shorten their legs a bit so they could fit on their proper sized landing pads. Heck, maybe station lifts could just undergo a refit to give them an extra meter of clearance, and leave the T-ships alone.

Not quite as on point here, but I feel like I must mention this every time T-ships are talked about: Give me Keelback-ized T-7's and T-9's, Lakon! Upgrade or add some hardpoints, improve the shield modifier, shuffle those internals a bit so the distributors and power plants get bigger! I will throw SO MANY CREDITS AT YOU. (and open my wallet for paintjobs like the sucker I am)

 

[Jenner]

I'd like to see the Clipper fit on a medium if for no other reason than to give the Python a competitor in the multi-purpose/mission runner ship category.

It's come up a few times for sure. I think if it weren't for the engine nacelles it would...

I agree with you in principle.

 

[MadDogMurdock]

The Panamax principle would mean that there would be cargo ships that maximize their capacity for each landing pad size.

Making the T6 and T7 the small and medium ships that meet this principle just makes sense.
Having them unable to fit by small margins doesn't.

 

[Iskariot]

Couldn't have said it better myself, but I felt this thought needed to be raised as a thread in it's own right.

The boxy shapes of the T6 and T7 are just like what would be churned out to just barely fit on regulation landing pads. And the only limiter here is the height of both ships, which are within a meter or two of hangar limits. Surely the hangar spaces can be stretched just a little, or the T6 and T7 shrunk just a bit so that they fit on the landing pads they were clearly designed for.

The ships are what they are.

Many would like the Imperial Clipper to be medium, others want the T7 to be medium...
I would like the Imperial Cutter to be small and the Eagle to be huge.

 

[bigity]

It's come up a few times for sure. I think if it weren't for the engine nacelles it would...

I agree with you in principle.

Yea, I also understand why it can't be easily changed. Maybe another ship would work (always up for more ships).

 

[dognosh]

Python only just fits on med pads, clipper is 25% longer and 85% wider so no chance unless they totally redesign it.

 

[Deleted member 115407]

I wholeheartedly agree with the OP, however, there needs to be a couple additions for it to *really* work.

- there also needs to be small-pad-only outposts/bases. That gives some purpose to the dedicated trade vessels at all levels throughout the game.
- Introduce "Industrial" slots in the same vein as the "Military" slots that the various combat ships have, which allow Cargo Racks, Refineries, Prospector and Collector Limpets to be fitted.
- Apply Industrial slots to the Hauler, Keelback, T6, T7, T9. When applying them, have the net result be a boost to cargo capacity which makes a fully decked out T9 for hauling >= Anaconda, T7 >= Python. T6 is actually fine with it's current capacity. Future "Panther Clipper" >= cutter/corvette.

This way, multipurpose ships still maintain their multipurpose nature... Python, Anaconda and Vette/Cutter can still be haulers which are on-par with the hauling variants, but can be refit for combat, while the purpose-haulers can't fit combat effectively, but the base ship is a fraction of the cost.

I'm with jmanis.

 

[Just Call Me Dave]

But ships are not a good comparison. Aircraft are better, and they just require a runway that is long enough and wide enough for them to land on. With spacecraft, it's even easier - they just need a landing pad large enough for the spacecraft. Suggesting that a spacecraft should be designed to the size of a landing pad makes no sense (except that a large enough pad must exist). Why would any spaceship designer want to be limited to three specific sizes?!

What makes you think that aircraft are not subject to design considerations on their size? Aircraft intended for use on aircraft carriers have specific size requirements completely distinct from the length and width of the runway space required. The Lockheed constellation got its distinctive triple tail and hunched back due to size limitations of hangars available at the time (a traditional single tail would have been too tall to fit, exactly the issue that should have been taken into account in the design of the T6 and T7)

 

[IndigoWyrd]

T6 cant be a small pad its just too big.

but lore wise, think about it. who ever designed the T7 needs a smack to the head (i am not talking about the real world designer).... its like 0.5m too tall to fit in the medium hangar..... now, as a heavy trade ship, it is obvious that being able to land at outposts would be a huge selling point to potential customers, so you can bet your left nut, even if it was a squeeze, one way or another it would fit in.

my suggestion would be something to do with the landing gear, which would semi retract on landing to hunker down, and then could lift up to let out the srv on planets - kind of like those gangster cars the Americans seem to love so much with the awful adjustable suspension.

As an American, I can assure you we do not love adjustable suspension (also known as hydrolics, or hydrolic suspension), in fact we often laugh at them, as they are almost never used for the purpose for which they were designed. Don't lump us all in with certain fractions of the population, and we'll stop assuming all Brits have bad teeth and drink Earl Grey every day at 4:00 pm.

 

[Slyk_MWz]

1. Not retracting wings... folding, ala aircraft on today's sea-going carriers. Folding to the standard height of the overall ship or it's matching bay height limits;

2. Optional shuttles that could be on a controller to allow large pad ships to participate in CGs delivering to outposts/stations with no large pads. The owner needs to decide if buying a controller and shuttle are worth the time/money/effort to use his T9 on runs vs. digging out/buying a T6 etc. for the same task. You haul more (minus the slots for the controller/shuttle) and take longer to off-load.

I like the idea of more ships to fit niche needs. Chubby smalls/mediums that max out the dimensional specs of their corresponding bays.

 

[Crank Larson]

What makes you think that aircraft are not subject to design considerations on their size? Aircraft intended for use on aircraft carriers have specific size requirements completely distinct from the length and width of the runway space required. The Lockheed constellation got its distinctive triple tail and hunched back due to size limitations of hangars available at the time (a traditional single tail would have been too tall to fit, exactly the issue that should have been taken into account in the design of the T6 and T7)

It's a fair point, both are bad examples.

A ship's design doesn't necessarily have to take the size of the landing area into account. When Boeing and Airbus made their big planes, their sole aim was to make as big an aircraft as possible. In many cases, runways needed to be extended for them to be able to land. In your aircraft carrier example, the design absolutely has to take in the size of the runway and also storage space (the smaller the aircraft, the more the carrier can store).

It's quite reasonable to assume that ships were developed before landing pads, and landing pads were designed to accommodate ships. They worked out that all the ships would be able to land if using just three sizes of landing pad, and so that is the most efficient way of designing space stations.

If ships were designed to fit pads, then the best design for a trade ship would be an oblong the exact size of the landing pad, and as tall as possible.

 

[Ozram]

A worthless superpower at the moment, given that interdictions have been made so easy that there might as well be a pop up window asking "Would you like to win this interdiction? Click yes/no"

There's no indication that this mechanic will ever be fixed or improved, so I'm gonna request a different superpower for the T7 since every ship has it now.

So you don't play in open? It isn't worthless when getting through a pack of hostile players.

 

[insanephoton]

Depending on how cargo is supposed to be handled, one potential solution used in some current large transport aircraft would be 'kneeling' landing gear. The only issue might be if cargo handling goes through the current cargobay door.

 

[Deleted member 115407]

It's come up a few times for sure. I think if it weren't for the engine nacelles it would...

I agree with you in principle.

Vin Delanos learned a new word today.

 

[Ozram]

Because ships can only travel on one plane (not aeroplane ). Aircraft can change plane, as can spacecraft. Though incidentally, ships come in all shapes and sizes - the standardisation is in the transportation of the goods themselves (their containers), not the ships - the equivalent of this in E: D is the cargo canisters.

It's not the pad size that dictates how much a ship can carry (meaning spaceship, this time). It is the ship. All the pad needs to be is large enough for the ship to land on.

Discussion here is about logistics, not flight characteristics. If anything, they'd be like submarines but for the intent of this discussion, they may as well be trucks. Pad size would dictate ship size in the world of logistics. There's no way around it. One would be made with the other in mind. That's just how things work, regardless of the mode of transport, where there is a simple limitation, design will be dictated by that limitation. The size of pallets are designed to fit evenly within a crate. The size of crates are designed to fit on truck beds and be stacked on ships etc etc. That looseness you are suggesting simply does not exist in the world of big business logistics.

 

[Mrat13]

Part of me smiles at the fact this thread exists because of a thread I made, which someone commented on and that comment was used as a starter for the thread.

That other thread, for those that don't know, was to talk about the trader/multipurpose medium pad ship gap between the Asp explorer and the Python. So, for all those asking "why make this thread at all?" I point to the above as an explanation, becuase a ship needs to fill that gap, either by redesigning a ship to fit the bill, or by making a new ship that fills the gap. This discussion seems to talk more about the former.

 

[CMDR IPL Victim]

The Clipper is a different matter entirely, there's no (practical) way it can be made a medium. Best to design a new imperial ship.

The pad size issue could be resolved in the clipper mk 2 with retractable engine pylons as with FE2 iCourier and iTrader.

 

[Archvillain]

The pad size issue could be resolved in the clipper mk 2 with retractable engine pylons as with FE2 iCourier and iTrader.

Clipper2 would have to be far more expensive, or weaker than the clipper in some other respect, because as it stands, the pad size limitation is an important piece of keeping the clipper great - but not unbalanced - for its current low low price (20M next to the python's 80M for example).
(The other piece balancing the clipper is that part of the clipper's price is naval rank, but a clipper2 as super-fast and powerful and big and versatile and cheap as the clipper, and also able to land at every destination... not good )

 

[Ozram]

Clipper2 would have to be far more expensive, or weaker than the clipper in some other respect, because as it stands, the pad size limitation is an important piece of keeping the clipper great - but not unbalanced - for its current low low price (20M next to the python's 80M for example).
(The other piece balancing the clipper is that part of the clipper's price is naval rank, but a clipper2 as super-fast and powerful and big and versatile and cheap as the clipper, and also able to land at every destination... not good )

I'd like an independent competitor to come out of the alliance.