Flexible Optional Internal compartments.

I can’t believe this hasn’t been suggested before. It’s an idea that I kicked around in my head a few years ago but now I’m back to play Odyssey, I have the idea fully formed and present it here. If you think it is a good idea then please ‘Like’ and hopefully one day soon we can see it implemented in game. It would also be really nice if this was implemented BEFORE ship interiors so they can't turn around once we do have these saying "it's now too complicated to do".

Fundamentally the concept is that of flexible (optional) interior spaces on ships. So let’s say that my ship has a class 3 compartment. For the usage I am trying to set the ship up for, I don’t need a class 3 module but if I fit a class 2 in that space why should the other half of the class 3 compartment just be wasted space? (that space still exists). What should happen is if I put a class 2 module in the class 3 space the ship ‘outfitting system’ should automatically generate an empty class 2 space, that I could then put a second class 2 module in if I choose to.

For those that haven’t realised, as each compartment class goes up the space is doubled. So a class 2 is twice the space of a class 1, a class 3 is twice the space of a class 2, a class 4 is twice the space of a class 3 and so on . . . So when you fit a smaller module into a larger slot you instantly waste half the storage (or more if you put an even smaller module in). Why should this space be wasted.

As far I can see this should be a really easy system to implement (program). A proviso could be that you can only install a module 1 size lower in any given slot. This would then generate an ‘empty’ slot of the same size as the smaller module. This also means that the smaller modules could be ‘nested’. E.g. You fit a class 4 module into a class 5 slot, generating an empty class 4 slot. You then fit a class 3 module into the new empty class 4 slot, generating an empty class 3 slot. You then fit a class 2 module into the new empty class 3 slot, generating an empty class 2 slot. The base limit obviously is that you can fit two class 1 modules into a class 2 slot. If you don’t want to use the bigger ‘generated’ slots then you could just pad them out with storage modules.

Why is this a good idea? It gives us, the Cmdr’s, the ultimate flexibility in outfitting our ships. It comes into its own when moving from small ships to medium or larger ships where you often are limited by the number of optional slots available NOT the actual space available, as it should be (so it feels like even though you have a hugely bigger ship, you are still limited by the space available)! It will give one a lot more choice of ship when trying to kit out a passenger vessel or especially a mining one where currently there are only a couple of viable choices and even these you end up having to compromise because of the limitations on the number of optional slots.

Ultimately it gives the commander more choices - This can only be a good thing for the game.
Once I can get back in the game I will take a couple of screenshots and try and do a 'mock-up' of what it should/could look like in practice.
 
First, it has been suggested numerous times.

Second, if you mount something, you have to, well, mount it, meaning that not all of the space would be reclaimed.

Third, what really ought to be happening is volume based design where, with the exception of hardpoints, the ship is a set volume of space that you populate to suit your desires. Hardpoints are excluded because they are structure elements designed to support the unusual stresses caused by weapons' fire. It should be possible to reclaim the space taken up by hardpoints, but it should be a permanent sacrifice.

The game should not tell you whether it is a good design, merely whether there is enough life support, enough thrust to lift and enough power plant to charge the FSD.
 
I did a search, couldn't obviously see anything. Maybe I should have opened with "This must have been suggested before, BUT . . .". Jees, you guys.
 
Search: split compartments

 
I recall in old Frontieer First Encounters there was no such thing like compartments, just module weight so it was possible to equip jumpdrive (FSD here) and having very little space left to fuel. It feels like the system we have now works well... just think what would happen if FSD would happily claim 3/4th of cargo space available:)
 
I recall in old Frontieer First Encounters there was no such thing like compartments, just module weight so it was possible to equip jumpdrive (FSD here) and having very little space left to fuel. It feels like the system we have now works well... just think what would happen if FSD would happily claim 3/4th of cargo space available:)
You mean, people would actually learn to build working ships?

Let me run the scenario the (current) other way:
All of the below is not capable of being reclaimed, meaning that there are great big holes in the ship. I have taken the heaviest item available in each category as that is the biggest thing that can be fitted. I am using an Exploraconda for my example.
  • 20T for a Military Compartment, that doesn't allow anything my Exploraconda needs
  • 16T Huge hardpoint, cannot reclaim volume, not carrying weapons
  • 3* 8T Large hardpoint, cannot reclaim volume, not carrying weapons
  • 2* 4T Medium hardpoint, cannot reclaim volume, not carrying weapons
  • 2* 2T Small hardpoint, cannot reclaim volume, not carrying weapons
  • 8* 3.5T Utility mount, cannot reclaim volume, not carrying tools
100T of volume that is not usable because it has specific designations that I am not using. Please note, I have not done the math for unused space in Core Internals, all the space I filled with AFMUs in the Internals, etc.

The point I am attempting to prove is that the ship building only makes sense from a lazy programming perspective because it forces the player into a controlled interface. You don't get ships designed to a purpose, you get ships that sigh, shoehorn themselves into the Compartments, and say, This is the best I can do with the limitations I am stuck with.

P.S. I actually want a gas can with wings, but the current system won't let me build it effectively.
 
There are a lot of simplified issues like:
1. 1t of gold=1t of water in volume
That makes flying cutter with full cargo hold of water and gold the same but gold is really heavy and I should be able to fit a lot more of it into cargo hold that water even if both are stored in containers.

2. Ship Thrusters class and grade doesn't affect high or extreme G planetary landing (at last in Horizons). Attempting to land on 9G world with anaconda equipped with minimalistic D rated thrusters should end up in ship turning into powerfull kinetic weapon with one-way ticket to the ground and rebuy screen- but we have simplified system here, I think it is possible to land cutter with cargo hold full on such world now.

3. Compartment class
I think this is done to simulate weight AND volume of modules. Usage of more realistic method would introduce many problems with module dimensions, weight and interface used. Just think of problems RL truck drivers have when loading cargo: cargo placement, weight and volume matters. That would require ship internals structure to be designed and given access to a player- as far as I know Odyssey focuses on planetary landing not space walking in suits or even walking inside of the ship- and it would be really nice being able to move inside/outside ship to fix it or just to explore it while autopilot were handling flight to destination.

Ability to fit one optional class I compartments into class II feels logical only when You consider that each compartment has only one interface to connect module. So flexible compartment idea would require some kind of interface multiplication system - and that might be simply done by introducing internal module called "Multiple interface compartment extension", adding more weight to ship at the same time.

P.S. I'm not considering ED a space flight simulator game, with so many simplifications in flight, cargo, compartments etc it is just a game in space for me... with a great asset of huge Milky Way number of systems I have access to which I enjoy the most.
 
I can’t believe this hasn’t been suggested before. It’s an idea that I kicked around in my head a few years ago but now I’m back to play Odyssey, I have the idea fully formed and present it here. If you think it is a good idea then please ‘Like’ and hopefully one day soon we can see it implemented in game. It would also be really nice if this was implemented BEFORE ship interiors so they can't turn around once we do have these saying "it's now too complicated to do".

Fundamentally the concept is that of flexible (optional) interior spaces on ships. So let’s say that my ship has a class 3 compartment. For the usage I am trying to set the ship up for, I don’t need a class 3 module but if I fit a class 2 in that space why should the other half of the class 3 compartment just be wasted space? (that space still exists). What should happen is if I put a class 2 module in the class 3 space the ship ‘outfitting system’ should automatically generate an empty class 2 space, that I could then put a second class 2 module in if I choose to.

For those that haven’t realised, as each compartment class goes up the space is doubled. So a class 2 is twice the space of a class 1, a class 3 is twice the space of a class 2, a class 4 is twice the space of a class 3 and so on . . . So when you fit a smaller module into a larger slot you instantly waste half the storage (or more if you put an even smaller module in). Why should this space be wasted.

As far I can see this should be a really easy system to implement (program). A proviso could be that you can only install a module 1 size lower in any given slot. This would then generate an ‘empty’ slot of the same size as the smaller module. This also means that the smaller modules could be ‘nested’. E.g. You fit a class 4 module into a class 5 slot, generating an empty class 4 slot. You then fit a class 3 module into the new empty class 4 slot, generating an empty class 3 slot. You then fit a class 2 module into the new empty class 3 slot, generating an empty class 2 slot. The base limit obviously is that you can fit two class 1 modules into a class 2 slot. If you don’t want to use the bigger ‘generated’ slots then you could just pad them out with storage modules.

Why is this a good idea? It gives us, the Cmdr’s, the ultimate flexibility in outfitting our ships. It comes into its own when moving from small ships to medium or larger ships where you often are limited by the number of optional slots available NOT the actual space available, as it should be (so it feels like even though you have a hugely bigger ship, you are still limited by the space available)! It will give one a lot more choice of ship when trying to kit out a passenger vessel or especially a mining one where currently there are only a couple of viable choices and even these you end up having to compromise because of the limitations on the number of optional slots.

Ultimately it gives the commander more choices - This can only be a good thing for the game.
Once I can get back in the game I will take a couple of screenshots and try and do a 'mock-up' of what it should/could look like in practice.

No, people would fill the xtras with HRP/MRP
Even the extra size 1 slot that all medium and large ships got in september 2019 increased the bullet sponges.
And small ships got 2x size 1 internals, which well... you got the idea

Limiting the internals is part of certain ship balance.

sure, some ships could do with some extra internals - like t10 an extra size 7 or clipper an extra size 5...
but a generic internals increase? nah
 
You can't fill your optionals with fuel tanks?
It is a reference back to Hunt for Red October.

As I pointed out, the 'Conda I am flying is stripped to essentials for range. Having spent a portion of my life designing ships for various games only emphasizes what an... ineffectual system Elite uses, especially when there are PFM solutions such as Fleet Carriers, Megaships and Jacques.

The FSD limitations make no sense except in terms of game balance, IE, money progression.
 
Last edited:
For those that haven’t realised, as each compartment class goes up the space is doubled.
The idea of splitting modules makes very good practical "realistic" sense, especially for large modules. Placing a Size-5 module in a Size-6 slot is a massive waste of space. An enitire 5-slot of space wasted! It seems realistic that this empty space should be usable.

For gameplay reasons I understand why it is not allowed. Game balance issues as @Northpin pointed out.

A alternative could be allowing unused space to be used for storage racks. This might go down the path of a complicated UI for ship outfitting. If it could be implemented without being overly complicated that would be really great. 😃 Of course prepare for complaints that only storage racks can be used to fill unused space... sigh.🙁
 
The point I am attempting to prove is that the ship building only makes sense from a lazy programming perspective because it forces the player into a controlled interface. You don't get ships designed to a purpose, you get ships that sigh, shoehorn themselves into the Compartments, and say, This is the best I can do with the limitations I am stuck with.

I don't know about "Lazy Programming", but overall yes. The game is designed to be accessible to a reasonable sized audience, technically possible in the form of an MMO, and with budget/time constraints. The level of ship design available for players has big impact on these things.

Spectrum ranging from Easy --> Complicated
ED Design Spectrum.png
 
No, people would fill the xtras with HRP/MRP
Even the extra size 1 slot that all medium and large ships got in september 2019 increased the bullet sponges.
And small ships got 2x size 1 internals, which well... you got the idea

Limiting the internals is part of certain ship balance.

sure, some ships could do with some extra internals - like t10 an extra size 7 or clipper an extra size 5...
but a generic internals increase? nah
I am no expert on Hull Reinforcement or Module Reinforcement but if allowing more 'smaller' slots by splitting larger slots would 'break' ship balance then these modules could just be 'hard' limited.
Are 'bullet sponges' necessarily bad? If people choose protection over flexibility that is their choice. As I have always said MORE choice is almost always a good gameplay thing.
You state that 'some' ships could use extra internals and I would argue that virtually all of the smaller ships (Asp Explorer) down could do with 'extra' internals depending on what you are trying to build. As far as I can see the only smaller ship that actually works as a mining vessel for instance is the Cobra mk IV.
However this is NOT giving you 'extra' internal space, it is just allowing you to use your internal space how YOU choose, giving most of the smaller ships vastly more flexibility in what roles they can be used.
I'm not sure if there is a breakdown anywhere of what ships cmdr's actually and mostly fly but I bet a lot of ships are NOT used much (if at all) because of many of the module size limitations.
I would say to anyone suggesting more and different ships or new and exciting modules to consider supporting this (Flexible Optional Internals) suggestion first. It would breath new life into many or the old or unused existing ship designs, possibly obviate the need for new ones (in the short term) and actually (possibly?) make room for any new modules that you are suggesting.
 
The whole lore behind the ships in the game is that all the internals are exactly the same for modulation, invented by Faulcon deLacy. The exact same Thrusters for an anaconda could be put inside a cutter (realistically thats a stretch but thats what we have). I don't see how you could fit a cargo rack in a volume outfitted for a hardpoint. They should have no way to just... snap them in like lego bricks.

However, I can see potential for engineering to handle this, where you just ask one to cut out the hardpoint bay for example and replace it with the equal size module compartment. Sounds like a fun idea that would further expand ships' capabilities.
 
The whole lore behind the ships in the game is that all the internals are exactly the same for modulation, invented by Faulcon deLacy. The exact same Thrusters for an anaconda could be put inside a cutter (realistically thats a stretch but thats what we have). I don't see how you could fit a cargo rack in a volume outfitted for a hardpoint. They should have no way to just... snap them in like lego bricks.

However, I can see potential for engineering to handle this, where you just ask one to cut out the hardpoint bay for example and replace it with the equal size module compartment. Sounds like a fun idea that would further expand ships' capabilities.
To add I would say this is a good explanation as to why you couldn't just fit a 4 into two 3s. The housings are different and would require more expensive shop work.
 
The whole lore behind the ships in the game is that all the internals are exactly the same for modulation, invented by Faulcon deLacy. The exact same Thrusters for an anaconda could be put inside a cutter (realistically thats a stretch but thats what we have). I don't see how you could fit a cargo rack in a volume outfitted for a hardpoint. They should have no way to just... snap them in like lego bricks.

However, I can see potential for engineering to handle this, where you just ask one to cut out the hardpoint bay for example and replace it with the equal size module compartment. Sounds like a fun idea that would further expand ships' capabilities.
Erm, nobody mentioned 'Hard Points' (just you). I am NOT suggesting any change to hardpoints just optional internals. . .
 
No. This would severely hamper ship diversity. Every ship has it's strengths and limitations. Embrace it.
Personally I think it would increase 'diversity'. More ships would be able to be used for more purposes, whether that is mining, exploring, combat or whatever. I feel at the moment the whole idea of using 'different' ships for 'different' purposes is not really explored as most just go 'bigger' until they get to the 'Large' ship stage where the whole problem is masked by the sheer size and number of compartments.
 
Back
Top Bottom