Landing on planets in the Type 10 must be what Hell is like
- Thread starter Unshackled AI
- Start date
The fact remains that the issue is very readily apparent simply by trying to land a few times on any planet anywhere. It is easily reproducible because it pretty much is always an issue. QA asking for evidence is fine, but a half hour of game time is all any dev would need to quickly see what's going on. How this got missed before release kind of mystifies me....
THANK YOU!
Nobody said it wasn't reproducible, but the reality is that they might, or might not be able to reproduce it. QA asked for a video, obviously to help them in some way, so one should provide it if possible - it's not a big deal, really.
Heh. It's so awesome that you have a half-hour to blow at work. I know I don't.
Unfortunately, this happens. It's a reality of testing; it might not have occurred at all for the tester; and was then marked off as complete and everyone moved on.
There have been posts from Cmdr's saying they've never had a problem. Hell, the second post on this thread states just that.
Last edited:
Landing my T-10 at planetary bases was a slow and graceful affair for me. She's very forgiving for a big ship.
She's docked for now as I have no idea what to with the 'Sunbeam' (so named cause I had the Nirvana song in my head for days).
Gona spend some time earning back the CR I spent on her.
She's docked for now as I have no idea what to with the 'Sunbeam' (so named cause I had the Nirvana song in my head for days).
Gona spend some time earning back the CR I spent on her.
Nobody said it wasn't reproducible, but the reality is that they might, or might not be able to reproduce it. QA asked for a video, obviously to help them in some way, so one should provide it if possible - it's not a big deal, really.
Heh. It's so awesome that you have a half-hour to blow at work. I know I don't.
Unfortunately, this happens. It's a reality of testing; it might not have occurred at all for the tester; and was then marked off as complete and everyone moved on.
There have been posts from Cmdr's saying they've never had a problem. Hell, the second post on this thread states just that.
And I find that incredibly hard to believe considering how the T-10's landing mechanics have been since day one. Either these people who are not seeing a problem have never actually owned another large ship in which to compare? (Night and Day landing efficiency between anything Conda and larger and the T-10 - This includes the Type-9)
Or... Their attention to detail leaves a lot to be desired.
Deleted member 38366
D
IMHO QA has been tasked to request Video footage for these benign reasons :
- Authenticator/Validator function
There's always the issue of false Positives in the BugTraq machination.
Reports of Bugs that aren't Bugs, sometimes plain old "User error".
A Video is very convinient to quickly weed many of those out.
- Detail/Environment/Parameters
As a byproduct, Video footage typically includes alot of additional Telemetry and misc. Data that can be helpful for a speedy Analysis. Never a bad thing.
- simply saves QA tons of time
Caveats :
- not every Player is a Streamer or has a Youtube Account, so Video isn't recorded normally
- asking for Video "proof" easily comes around as "we don't believe your written Reports"
With a likely large backlog, I can't blame QA for going that route though.
- Authenticator/Validator function
There's always the issue of false Positives in the BugTraq machination.
Reports of Bugs that aren't Bugs, sometimes plain old "User error".
A Video is very convinient to quickly weed many of those out.
- Detail/Environment/Parameters
As a byproduct, Video footage typically includes alot of additional Telemetry and misc. Data that can be helpful for a speedy Analysis. Never a bad thing.
- simply saves QA tons of time
Caveats :
- not every Player is a Streamer or has a Youtube Account, so Video isn't recorded normally
- asking for Video "proof" easily comes around as "we don't believe your written Reports"
With a likely large backlog, I can't blame QA for going that route though.
Last edited by a moderator:
I mean, its not like there's a huge amount of things you can do in a ship. That this is even a thing surely suggests not one person while creating the t10 thought it might be an idea to test one of the main actions of any ship in the game for it (landing one).
It is absolutely as bare bones, essential a mechanic as taking off or deploying hardpoints or going into sc.
It is absolutely as bare bones, essential a mechanic as taking off or deploying hardpoints or going into sc.
This is what confuses me too. I mean I noticed it within two hours of buying the T10, and that includes time outfitting it and playing around while flying around stuff. Literally the first time I landed on a planet with the T10 I was like “welp, this doesn’t seem right”. Then I tried a few other spots on the planet and it clearly still wasn’t correct, so I thought it might be a problem with the planet and I tried some other planets, and nope it’s the T10. It even has trouble on super flat terrain that any Anaconda could easily land on. So next I got my T9 back out and tried landing that in the same place I had just tried to land the T10 on and nope the T9 landed easily, no fuss at all. Even when leaving the pad from any station you immediately notice how the proximity radar stays active MUCH longer in the T10 than in any other ship, like it’s landing hit box is much larger or something, it’s just very different.
It was clear to me within hours of flying the T10 that something was wrong with the way it lands, and I find it strange (and worrisome) that no one at Frontier QA noticed this at all. Did no one at Frontier try to land the T10 on a planet surface? So yeah I’ll try to compile some pics and maybe I’ll even cobble a crappy video together to help the cause, but it’s not like this is a difficult to notice bug, it’s a quality of the ship that is very different than any other ship in the game and its readily noticeable with just a little bit of stick time in it, and it’s super frustrating. My fear is that we’ll have to live with this until the Q1 update at the end of March. That makes me very sad, especially when half an hour in the QA department before release could have prevented this from ever happening.
Uhuh,
You sometimes find bugs where a particular set of circumstances converge to provoke a bug and you can say "Okay, it's understandable that beta-testers might not have encountered that particular combination of factors" but this is something a bit more fundamental.
I, literally, bought my T10 at Jameson Memorial 20 minutes after it became available, took it straight to Lori Jameson to get a couple of mod's done, launched off the pad, flew about 1km away from her base, landed on the surface to take a couple of selfies and, after dismissing and recalling the ship, made a thread about the strange behaviour.
I keep saying the same thing but, TBH, I don't have much of a problem landing the T10 and I actually like the idea of big ships being difficult to land on uneven terrain (I hate to say it but I think I'd prefer it if they tried to make all the big ships more like the T10 to land - to some extent, at least) to create a reason to choose smaller ships instead.
Even so, there clearly ARE problems with the way the T10 acts during surface landings, which need fixing.
Also, speaking as somebody who's wayyyy out in the black, currently, in a T10, I'd be rather upset if FDev botch any kind of fix they apply to it. [where is it]
landing issues aside, the first thing i noticed was (what i assume is) the spoiler endlessly getting caught when leaving a station. as ships get bigger the old mailslots seem to become less fit for purpose as time goes by.
Which makes those comments from the "Apologists" who amazingly enough are attempting to dismiss this obvious bug as being normal behavior, is more than over the top insane!
My ignore list has been filling up rather rapidly of late, as I scoop up all those fact denying irritants and add them to the pile of the "Too dumb to even bother with" collection.
Last edited:
Hah, honestly I whacked the spoiler against the top of the slot the first time I flew her out too! Haven’t done it since, although I did get caught up with an over eager NPC Orca in the cage around the slot a few days ago. It zoomed in while I was flying out (the sun was in my eyes!) and we wedged ourselves in there. I thought for sure the station was going to blow us both up, but with some thruster work and a boost I broke free. I lost half my shields, he lost half his hull. The Orca’s lucky that’s all it lost!!!
I got a hint from observing the Docking Computer's technique when flying a StarPort approach with the T-10. Under DC control, the ship basically skims the bottom of the slot within what looks like inches from physical contact.
I adopted this same orientation when I manually leave stations and I have not gotten "hung up" since.
I adopted this same orientation when I manually leave stations and I have not gotten "hung up" since.
Last edited:
My friend had this issue earlier, he had to go scan a ground base for an assassination mission and he couldn't find a spot to land causing him to fail the mission.
i even saw the terrain he was trying to land on and it should have been fine to land on.
i even saw the terrain he was trying to land on and it should have been fine to land on.
The last straw for me was after flying over 260,000ls out to a planet to pick up some salvage in the HIP 5700 system with the T-10. Despite the planet in question being basically "Billiard Ball Smooth", the stupid thing refused to land after over a dozen attempts as well as actual quit outs and rebooting of the game.
It takes over 30 minutes to get out to this remote end of the 5700 system. I WAS NOT happy with having to leave and come back with another ship in order to complete this mission. My Federal Corvette completed the mission, landing perfectly fine the first time.
This happened only a few days after the T-10 was released. Back when there were still plenty of deniers out there claiming that this landing behavior was normal. [rolleyes]
Sometimes, they truly do remove all doubt.
Last edited:
Yep. I’d like to take my T10 on an extended surface salvage operation but I’m going to bring a different ship instead, probably my T9 lol. I love the T10 for combat and mining work, but until the landing bug is fixed I won’t be taking it on any flights where I need to land on a planet surface. The ship is very broken in that aspect.
The last straw for me was after flying over 260,000ls out to a planet to pick up some salvage in the HIP 5700 system with the T-10. Despite the planet in question being basically "Billiard Ball Smooth", the stupid thing refused to land after over a dozen attempts as well as actual quit outs and rebooting of the game.
It takes over 30 minutes to get out to this remote end of the 5700 system. I WAS NOT happy with having to leave and come back with another ship in order to complete this mission. My Federal Corvette completed the mission, landing perfectly fine the first time.
This happened only a few days after the T-10 was released. Back when there were still plenty of deniers out there claiming that this landing behavior was normal. [rolleyes]
Sometimes, they truly do remove all doubt.
I really dont think FD have even flown the ship, the amount of obvious issues it has is annoying.
Considering how over the top this problem is, one has to seriously consider that possibility. Disturbing if true to say the least!