Give hauler ships an innate cargohold to make them actual haulers

[Greasetrap42]

I am familer with them we even have some automated systems we also have a crew that monitors the automated system I dont get why your so hung up on forklift honestly when dealing with cargo you only use forklifts after the cargo is off the ship. ie your moving the canisters off the dock to a new location.

Strange you are arguing the possibility of something existing in a futuristic video game that currently exists in the current world. Regarding forklift trucks... uh, well... it seems you might be basing your ideas from a ship container dock which is not directly comparable to ED ports. ED does not have ships equivalent to modern day container ships. And the stations are not designed like container docks. The ED ships are more comparable to transport trucks at distribution wharehouses and manufacturing facilities.

 

[Darkeyed]

Strange you are arguing the possibility of something existing in a futuristic video game that currently exists in the current world. Regarding forklift trucks... uh, well... it seems you might be basing your ideas from a ship container dock which is not directly comparable to ED ports

im not arguing against it what i'm arguing is that the robots already have a handler because they need to have a handler its the human element that makes sure everything is running smoothly its a postion that will never go away because role is oversight. you dont blindly let a super heavy piece of machinerly like that run around unless you have a way to kill it before it causes massive damage.

your assuming that the cargo scoop/hatch is the primary way of loading and unloading the ship. which honestly does not makes sense when you look at the the bigger ships. its far to small to be practically used it would take forever to actually move cargo thought that, ie cargo has to be loaded and unloaded a different way. with the cargo hatch to be used for situational things like small cargo additions.

= "pretty much unattended. "

pretty much is not unattended also at their tec demo they had a slight issue of the robot damaging product. btw the 4-5 people are exactly what ime talking about the dock is not gonna get rid of its people. they will still have people sitting their and making sure the robots are doing the job right guess what thats exactly what i said. the captain would not have anything to do with loading his ship their still would be a load master and the captain would still have to pay to have his ship loaded. I don't think you grasp the issues which what happens when things to wrong people die and lawsuits start flying. oversight has to be maintained to protect the company from facing backlash. this is something that will never be able to be removed not becuase it adds efficiency but because it adds protection to the owners of the port/dock/ terminal.

 

[Greasetrap42]

I wonder why its called a cargo hatch?

I'm gonna guess you don't have much experience with large automation. Or with ASRS systems. The ships are portable ASRS. I have personally worked in many automated distribution wharehouses which have ASRS systems larger than the town I live in. And several miles of conveyor running throughout the facility to/from the ASRS. And most of these use loosy-goosy wooden pallets. They run 24/7.

Nobody is saying there aren't people operating the station, coordinating activities, and maintenance crews. But the ships load/unload automatically. There is nothing to suggest otherwise.

If you read my previous posts you will see that I suggest cargo ships could be differentiated from other ships by having large cargo rooms (no ASRS racking system) allowing the xfer of large volume items, big doors that open up, ability to dock at dedicated cargo locations, and faster load/unload compared to other non-cargo ships.

 

[Maggie_Oz]

btw the 4-5 people are exactly what ime talking about the dock is not gonna get rid of its people.

Read it again. The 4 to 5 ppl maintain the robots. They've got 1300 years to work out how to replace them too.

 

[Maggie_Oz]

To automate this procedure, ABB (Zurich, Switzerland; www.abb.com) has built an automated baggage-loading system (ABLS) and formed a new company, Onero (Mannheim, Germany; www.onero.com), to deploy the system at Switzerland's Zurich airport.

ABB uses laser scanners connected to a network of PC-based systems to automatically load passenger bags onto conveyor belts, into containers, and then on-board the aircraft.Click here to enlarge image

"Although the automated system uses robots to sort and load bags," says Gunar Baier, Onero managing director, "bag-analysis and loading sequences must be planned before the bag is handled." To accomplish this, the automated system collects information on each bag's weight, size, shape, and destination. In the first step, a laser barcode scanner reads the tags on the bags and compares the captured data to known flight data. Bags are then weighed on a conveyor belt moving at 2 m/s. Next, bag geometry is scanned using a pair of LMS 200 laser scanners from Sick (Minneapolis, MN; www.sick.com) that provide resolutions of ±20 mm at up to 8 m. These scanners are linked to the system's computers over 500-Kbit/s, RS-485 interfaces.

After the various bag parameters have been established, the order in which the bags are loaded into the aircraft is determined. Data from the airport flight-information system also reveal if the passenger has already checked in and if the bag can be loaded. Software modules track the current baggage space available on the aircraft.

The system also generates a loading list, which contains the accurate weight of each bag and details of each bag's location. Two configurations are used to implement automatic bag loading. Either the baggage-loading robot can remain in one position or the robot can travel along a track. Size, layout, and intensity of passenger traffic in the airport help determine which configuration is selected for a particular aircraft. Other software tools direct the robot to pick and transfer the bags from the conveyor belt.

To perform bag-analysis calculations, load management, and feedback control, PCs linked via TCP/IP Ethernet and running Windows NT are used. According to Baier, Windows NT software and the TCP/IP network reduce the interval between bag analysis and loading to 0.5 s. All the conveyor belts in the system are governed by a programmable logic controller (PLC) networked with Profibus. While the use of an industrial embedded PC was possible, the engineers opted for the simpler PLC design. Most existing conveyer systems in airports are already automated with PLCs.

 

[Greasetrap42]

a) Traditional Forklift Unloading

b) Example Automated Loading/Unloading

• Note that there are similarities to the automated loading dock concept and the loading/unloading stations on an ASRS. Pallets get loaded onto the shuttle crane in a similar manner. Of course we have no idea what the racking system is like inside our ships but I imagine the interface point would have a similar handoff.
• Some mfg facilities have dedicated trucks with racking systems built into them. Shown below is just standard truck with pallets. The pallets used are higher quality than the typical cheepo crumby pallets. Some systems do require an operator to ensure it is initially lined-up. Others are more automatic.
• As the truck is unloaded product codes will be read. The pallets will be automatically routed. Some times they might go to a robotic depalletizing station.

c) Example ASRS System

• In a warehouse this will typically run fully automatic 24/7. Storage and retrieval locations are handled automatically based on warehouse management software (WMS).
• If the racking system in our ED ships is similar concept it would allow unloading only the necessary cargo. Also cargo can be shifted internally automatically if necessary. (this actually happens in real ASRS systems too).
• In sytems like the one shown below it is common for an automatic pallet check station prior loading into the ASRS. It checks size, weight, overhang, broken pallet detect and ID code. Upon reject it would get redirected to a reject loop. It doesn't just stop the loading of the ASRS.

These images I grabbed from a basic google search. I can't release pics from projects or facilities I have worked in.

 

[Masta Squidge]

While this may be true, it's mostly irrelevant. If you were to build a comparable Python to a T7, this is what it would look like:

Python Basic Trader: $244 mil
272T hauling
267m/s straight line with 348m/s boost
13LY laden jump
32 degree/s pitch rate with pips in engines
Medium ship; can land anywhere

T7 Basic Trader: $81 mil
276T hauling
197m/s straight line with 329m/s boost
15LY laden jump
22 degree/s pitch rate with pips in engines
Large ship; cannot land on outposts


So the price difference between these two is about 200mil, right? Except a Cobra MkIII's small 16T hauling capacity would bring 25mil per run deep core mining, so in 10 runs (about 5 hours) you'd have the Python.

At that point, why would you fly the T7? You can't land on outposts, you have a much worse pitch rate for when you get interdicted, much worse straight line speeds and you only gain 2 LY jump range. Armor and shields are comparable between the two.

The moment you get past your first month in the game, the T7 becomes pointless. It's just a stepping stone on your way to the real ship, the Python or (if you are determined to remain in the large ships) the Big 3. My suggestion is to actual give these ships a valid lifespan beyond just the first month of the game. If the T7 was actually able to haul a sizeable amount more than the Python, being able to run 334T compared to the pythons 272T, it might actually be worth buying for someone who isn't having to penny pinch early on.

How dare you ask for reasonable ship balance.

 

[Darkeyed]

The 4 to 5 ppl maintain the robots. They've got 1300 years to work out how to replace them too.

I DID READ IT YOUR NOT READING WHAT IM SAY THERE ARE STILL PEOPLE THERE OVERSEEING THE WORK

b) Example Automated Loading/Unloading

in wearhouse work which is not the same thing as mass shipping which would be more accurate to look at a actual port were guess what automation is not prevelant you keep trying to move the goalpost here. we already have a universal cargo pod ie or mega container ship. which also have "cargo pods" funny enough. no port is 100% automated thier is always a human present to watch and oversee the process. WHICH IS WHAT I KEEP SAYING even if you automate the system THE PORT IS STILL GONNA HAVE A HUMAN OVERWATCH THE ENTER PROCESS.
I dont get why both you and mag keep trying to ignore that im saying that the process can be automated BUT the port is still gonna hire a human to double check the work for safety. the point of this being in elite when the captain orders 100 units to be loaded onto there ship there is still gonna be a "loadmaster" there watching and making sure that the right cargo is being loaded. I dont get why you to refuse to accpet this I have never said the process cant be automated yet you keep trying to argue with me that yes it can and at no point have i said it cant be done. I have been saying that even if it was automated the port is still gonna have a human there for legal liablity.

btw about the automated werehouses you to chuckle heads keep trying to use as gotchas. this is the part you fail to understand or grasp. the people that own the werehouse are also the people that own the trucks or atleast have a contract with the company that owns the truck.ie they are responsable for both the truck and the werehouse so if the robot comes in and damages product then it does not matter because the company that owns the robot also owns the goods. that not the same as a port. in a port you have 3 actors you have the captain and the company that actually owns the boat. you have the port and you have the owners of the cargo containers ie the company that chartered passage. do you see now why there why we have oversight because we dont want to be blamed for what we did not do.

 

[Exeider]

So how is this going to work? Are we going to magically find even more module space down the back of the couch, or are we going to cripple the versatility of ships by saying "This has 'Explorer' in the name, so you can't use it for anything else"?

I'm flying an AspX around the Bubble without fuelscoop, SRV hangar, or limpet controllers - the absolute last thing I need to put into it is a fuel tank.

Yeah... I have to agree with Drew here, at first I was down with the whole "purpose based" module slots to encourage people to use ships what they are designed for, but you can do that with the stats of the ship rather then a hard gimp on the slots.

I'm glad Fdev is moving away from dedicated slots.

 

[Ganogati]

Yeah... I have to agree with Drew here, at first I was down with the whole "purpose based" module slots to encourage people to use ships what they are designed for, but you can do that with the stats of the ship rather then a hard gimp on the slots.

I'm glad Fdev is moving away from dedicated slots.

Honestly, the back of the couch approach seems fine to me. At the end of the day, the number of internal slots don't actually have even a relatively basis on the physical size/configuration of the ship, so stuff a couple more here and there wouldn't really change much.

For me, the idea wouldn't be to nerf current ships by saying "Ok, this class 4 you're used to having? It's now a class 4 military slot", rather it should be additional slots. At the moment we have a situation where multi-role ships like the Python and Krait MkII can outclass most "specialist" ships around them simply due to the fact that all their extra optionals mean they can do pretty much anything with ease. But we can't really buff the other "specialist" ships or they'd just become more multiroles. So the concept of specialized slots could fix that. You could now buff something like the T7 by adding more optionals that are limited only to industrial usage, which means that it won't suddenly become a better combat ship due to those optionals but instead just a better hauler/miner/whatever.

This is why I like the idea of specialized slots- it gives you versatility to buff ships where there currently is no ability do so. If you see a ship is weak in one area, you can't actually do anything about it because giving that ship more optional slots means you could accidentally turn it into a combat powerhouse when you didn't intend to, or vice versa. But limiting the new slots would solve that problem. Because the current approach of just not buffing ships and letting them rot in obscurity where no one uses them kinda sucks, IMO.

 

[Greasetrap42]

we already have a universal cargo pod ie or mega container ship. which also have "cargo pods" funny enough. no port is 100% automated thier is always a human present to watch and oversee the process. WHICH IS WHAT I KEEP SAYING even if you automate the system THE PORT IS STILL GONNA HAVE A HUMAN OVERWATCH THE ENTER PROCESS.

You seem to have a really tough time understanding the nature of shipping as it is currently presented in ED. The station ports in ED are not container docks. Product is transported in the interior of the ships. Ships do not have big doors that open up. There are no overhead cranes. There are no stacks of shipping containers lying around the docks.

This is what you were arguing against:

It means a captain does not need to hire and pay a loadmaster, to supervise cargo loading/unloading, so that massy containers are loaded in the correct way. It means at any random destination, any container can be unloaded, without having to re-arrange several of the remaining containers.
It means you don't have to adjust the thrusters to take account of the fact that some idiot loaded the gold in the aft compartments and the feather pillows in the forward compartments.

Arguing and switching your tune and as you realize your statements don't make sense is silly. We can still read your posts.

 

[Exeider]

Honestly, the back of the couch approach seems fine to me. At the end of the day, the number of internal slots don't actually have even a relatively basis on the physical size/configuration of the ship, so stuff a couple more here and there wouldn't really change much.

For me, the idea wouldn't be to nerf current ships by saying "Ok, this class 4 you're used to having? It's now a class 4 military slot", rather it should be additional slots. At the moment we have a situation where multi-role ships like the Python and Krait MkII can outclass most "specialist" ships around them simply due to the fact that all their extra optionals mean they can do pretty much anything with ease. But we can't really buff the other "specialist" ships or they'd just become more multiroles. So the concept of specialized slots could fix that. You could now buff something like the T7 by adding more optionals that are limited only to industrial usage, which means that it won't suddenly become a better combat ship due to those optionals but instead just a better hauler/miner/whatever.

This is why I like the idea of specialized slots- it gives you versatility to buff ships where there currently is no ability do so. If you see a ship is weak in one area, you can't actually do anything about it because giving that ship more optional slots means you could accidentally turn it into a combat powerhouse when you didn't intend to, or vice versa. But limiting the new slots would solve that problem. Because the current approach of just not buffing ships and letting them rot in obscurity where no one uses them kinda sucks, IMO.

As someone who owns a T7, the best buff you could give it, is enable it to land on medium pads.

 

[Darkeyed]

You seem to have a really tough time understanding the nature of shipping as it is currently presented in ED. The station ports in ED are not container docks. Product is transported in the interior of the ships. Ships do not have big doors that open up. There are no overhead cranes. There are no stacks of shipping containers lying around the docks.

This is what you were arguing against:


Arguing and switching your tune and as you realize your statements don't make sense is silly. We can still read your posts.

and you seem to not understand that im applying how shipping works in the real world and im not switching my tune your the one that keeps trying to move the goal posts my stance has always been that there will always be a human on the dock to oversee loading the loading will be automated but it will always be overseen by a human. why because the ship owner does not own the port and the port does not want to be blamed for improper loading and face legal lawsuits.
your first claimed was that I was not familiar with the automated systems except that i am. it tends to be the trucks which have been switched over to an automated cargo truck that that is loaded with the crane. I heard that one place had tried to automate the crane but that was hurting productivity because the bot does not know how to work with momentum there is and art to craning. I know some ports use a remote controlled crane though but again all of these are overseen by a human which has been my point since the first post.
the person I had first replied to had talked about how the captain could have the cargo loaded and not have to pay to have it loaded or pay for a "loadmaster". do you want to know why this is and incorrect statement first of the loadmaster it the term for air cargo, but even then the loadmaster serves the airline not the plane. now this is the part you fail to grasp the companies own or rent part of the airport which is why they get to oversee their loading and unloading. at a terminal none of the ships own the port and the longshoremen are being paid by a different company than the company that owns the boat. do you grasp why automation will not get rid of "loadmasters" the cargo is being handled by third party.

It is far more likely that in the far flung future its fare more likely that stations will work like a seaport and not like an airport

 

[Ganogati]

As someone who owns a T7, the best buff you could give it, is enable it to land on medium pads.

100% agree.

 

[Greasetrap42]

and you seem to not understand that im applying how shipping works in the real world and im not switching my tune your the one that keeps trying to move the goal posts my stance has always been that there will always be a human on the dock to over see loading the loading will be automated but it will always be overseen by a human. why because the ship owner does port and the port does not want to be blamed for improper loading and face legale lawsuits.
your first claimed was not familiar with the automated systems except that i am it tends to be the trucks which have been switched over to and automated cargo truck that we loaded with the crane. I heard that one place had tried to automate the crane but that was hurting productivity because the bot does not know how to work with momentum there is and art to craning. I know some ports use a remote controlled crane though but again all of these are overseen by a human which has been my point sense the first post.
the person I had frist replied to had talked about how the captain could have is cargo loaded and not have to pay to have it loaded or pay for a "loadmaster". this is just untrue even in the far flung future the port will load and unload the ship and the ship captain or more likely the company that owns the ship will be charged for doing this even when its automated and there will still be a "loadmaster" to oversee it.

both you and mag tried to shift the goalposts and bring up werehouse automation which is completely diffrent than port work and even then you still shot yourselves in the foot because they are still overseen by humans.

You write like an 8yo. Okee dokee pokee. Good luck with stuff. In general.

 

[Darkeyed]

You write like an 8yo. Okee dokee pokee. Good luck with stuff. In general.

yea I have dysgrapha good gotcha you prig.

 

[Greasetrap42]

a) Learn to spell fancy words like dysgraphia before using them. And use spell check features when possible.
b) Basic formatting really helps.
c) Proof read your messages before pressing "Post".

Otherwise people may have a tough time understanding you. You will get your point across better.

 

[Iskariot]

Was talking about this in another thread and wanted to toss up a suggestion thread about it.

Essentially: hauler ships have nothing that separate them as haulers right now. Because of the way that optional slots work, and the need for combat ships to have good optionals, you end up in situations where certain haulers are on such close footing with their warship counterparts that it's not worth buying the hauler just for that task, or they are totally outclassed by their warship counterparts (looking at you poor T-7).

Give T ships an innate cargo hold, a base cargo space in tonnage that exists regardless of whether you put a cargo rack on or not. This would guarantee that haulers will always have an advantage when it comes to hauling over other ships. For example, choosing to give the hauler class ships a % of their maximum reasonable carrying weight (running all cargo racks except for lowest possible t slot shield).

T6: 98T max, 20T innate. Max tonnage able to be hauled: 118T.
Keelback: 82T max, 16T innate. Max tonnage able to be hauled: 98T.
T7: 278T max, 56T innate. Max tonnage able to be hauled: 334T.
T9: 758T max, 152T innate. Max tonnage able to be hauled: 910T
T10: 470T max, 94T innate. Max tonnage able to be hauled: 564T.

Anyhow, I think that this would help create a proper hauling niche to some of the ships, without actually needing to risk overpowering them in any other way by adding even more options to them (since guardian modules could allow them be modified in more clever ways using those slots).

Fdev tried halfheartedly to implement specialization with military slots. It failed... mostly.... because, like so many features, they did not really think it through.
Many very interesting proposals where made on the forums to make this a success. Nothing happened.

Personally I think you are right in general. I think FDev should implement specialized cargo slots that offer an advantage when you use them for the task they specialize in.
I think this would make the offering of ships much more interesting, and also assist in preventing ships becoming totally obsolete.
But... whatever... nothing will change.

 

[Darkeyed]

Otherwise people may have a tough time understanding you. You will get your point across better.

or how about you stop trying to move the goalposts and change what i was saying I have not changed the point the whole time. I dont think you understand dysgraphia but that doesn't get you off of the fact that you pulled a personal attack as a gotcha.

 

[Greasetrap42]

Your difficulty in successfully expressing yourself is not a fault in others reading your messages. If you post stuff without ensuring it can be easily understood AND sufficiently conveys your thoughts AND is relevent to the surrounding posts you are going to have a miserable time on forums.

Proof your posts before pressing the "post" button.