Guest 161958
G
Oh we have a philosopher here.
Self entitle yourself with rightfulness as much as you like.
Random failures
- Thread starter oscarmr
- Start date
Oh we have a philosopher here.
Self entitle yourself with rightfulness as much as you like.
Ok, I got it, but we aren't traveling at several times the speed of light: super cruise is an improved Alcubierre drive, it distorts space time (actually, compress and dilate). You remain inside a special spacetime bubble, traveling at normal speed, so your time frame of reference remain constant (that's where the name "frameshift" come from).
Semi-Random malfunction will provide fun!
No philosophy involved, just proper usage of vocabulary. Un = not, known meaning something that is understood, knowable is something that can be learned.
Your expressed position is that you want random damage from things that "just happen", meaning that there is no way to learn to avoid them. That is literally an unknowable source of damage because there is no reason for it to occur except that you feel it will enhance game play (Act of God).
I, on the other hand, believe that such things need reasons, as I expressed above. Those reasons can be over-stressing the hull, putting the ship into conditions it is not designed for, etc, but handwavium is not one of them.
As to your self entitlement statement, I have never understood the worship of ignorance.
Guest 161958
G
Oh, so aristocratic. My eyes are full of devotion, excuse my ignorance monsieur.
I did not prove any of your points and ignorance stems from self entitlement that you are right and others are not.
I am describing my tastes which are different from yours it seems.
I see no point in proceeding with your frivolous and callous rationalization of my tastes except as to create tension.
You like playing a game in a different way than mine. I understand that and respect that.
If it happens once to you, you know it might happen. There is no handwavium. If a machine breaks, it may tell you beforehand because design was clever or not. That is not act of God, it is a consequence of the act of man's perfectible engineering and a limit to what is known out in the black.
Also, I did not dwelve into the mechanics of the malfunctions, I just said I like the OP idea, something which catches you unprepared like the goids hyperdiction.
Anything better than the actual situation where the biggest danger is falling asleep.
Would be nice to have some clues as it might happen, like analysis from fss or visual cues in space or inside the cockpit.
A bit like when you are driving a car and you check sometimes if the tires are ok or not for example.
That would definitely add up as you suggest.
A pilot just does not know when and how. That creates suspense, feeling of expertise and fun.
Last edited by a moderator:
I think there are intentionally few situations that could lead to module failure, mostly because there was a dedicated group of players exploring the galaxy from the start. If ED was released with the feature set we have right now, I would not be opposed to gradual damage, although slower than ship integrity. Other games like No Man's Sky are build on resource sinks, which became an option in ED with materials and synthesis later and there is no evidence that Frontier wants to punish some players for understandable requests of others. It remains a Spaceship game with the choice to not return to a starport as long as chance and skill allows it.
I can tell you for a fact that complex machines can fail despite operating well within specified tolerances. Random failures can occur despite doing everything possible to avoid them (Yes things do just happen) hence why we have things like dual/triple redundancy on autopilots, hydraulics, electrical, pneumatics etc etc.. In reality the training and knowledge from past experiences is what enables crew to deal with faults correctly.
It sounds like the most complex machine you have had access to is the family car.
Last edited:
I think this could make things more interesting and challenging. But I do understand people who want safe and predictable. As a compromise, perhaps random malfunctions and failures should, as suggested, happen when taking certain risks (environmental hazards and such). Perhaps also purely by chance with highly engineered modules - when you're pushing the limits of the equipment, bad things can happen.
Yes, I suppose engineered modules are already beyond the limits of approved modules, and they were previously more or less unique. Makes sense that they are not tested the same way and problems might show up after some time.
yeah but just imagine what would happen if your FSD didn't decompress the space around your ship properly, shredding the FSD from an emergency drop. Or when approaching a gravitational field faster than the FSD can compensate causes it to heat up and melt down.
and I totally agree
No, things don't "just happen". "Random failures" are always attributable to something. That something may be defective manufacturing, but things don't just go boom unless the foundational theory behind it is flawed. As an example, the hard drive industry makes drives with three platters. If, during testing, one or two of those platters fail, the drive is programmed not to use them and the drive is sold as a smaller size. The reason for all of that, however, is that the platter in question was flawed, not some handwavium occurrence.
As to training, you are mixing your circumstances. I completely agree with your statement about RESPONDING to a situation that has ALREADY arisen, but that has nothing to do with the current conversation which is damage happening at random from unknowable circumstances "to enhance gameplay".
Making up scenarios to justify your position, especially when they are provably wrong by going back up the thread, is a really poor way to argue. Leaving aside the DCPO statement and what it implies, my car has 17 computers in the engine compartment, computer controlled fuel injection and traction control, etc. It is not some early 20th century hand crank to start the engine piece of equipment.
As to your implication that I am just an operator, I've replaced alternators, starters, wiring harnesses, radiators and the head gasket in various vehicles.
Please note that I am mentioning specific parts, not generalizing with pseudo-technical terms like electrical and pneumatics which are functionally meaningless because they refer to how equipment is driven, not to equipment in their own right. Certainly, redundant systems are put into place in case of equipment failures, but that is not a valid argument for why the equipment fails.
Again, the post is arguing that random damage "because the RNG says so" should be happening in game. If component manufacturing is so routinely borked that this mechanism were to be implemented, you wouldn't have an interstellar society because routine functions such as trade and people moving wouldn't be willing to risk routine catastrophic failures.
Mate, stick to changing gaskets. OP is simply talking about random glitches that occur in reality, I agree with him, if done right these could add a little extra depth.
To give you a very basic example: The EEC's controlling a CFM56-7 engine, they can throw out faults when the engine is actually operating perfectly, however the computers will advise a shutdown, or limit available thrust.. Or what about HOT starts and high EGT's? the engine isn't actually faulty, the software monitoring is fine, you can apply safeguards (for example not starting the engine with a heavy tailwind.. Still it is acceptable that these faults just occur, you deal with them appropriately and carry on.
Have no idea how it works for modern spacecraft (or ships) but in aviation you have something called a MEL (Minimum equipment list) This is essentially a massive book that tells you what is and isn't acceptable to depart with. The reason for this is because complex machines are always glitching out.
The above is 0.00001% of things that can 'Just go wrong' without any abuse of the machine, it could be straight out of the factory..
Am personally not suggesting the devs go to extreme levels when it comes to realism, however adding some random glitches with basic fault diagnosis would at least raise the bar a bit above arcade level.
Cars are very reliable because they are extremely simple machines.
Technology is never static, boundaries are always being pushed. Next time you fly somewhere on holiday, keep in mind it is probably Leap X Engines strapped to the wings, all with their own quirks, new and old.
Last edited:
I dunno... I've had a few random failures as I've played Elite. Module failure just as I was docking, ship running out of oxygen as a result. Managed to get that one fixed. Another module failure while climbing out of a high gravity world. That one didn't end well. 
But, yea, a few more challenges with the ability to fix them would add to the games sense of adventure.
But, yea, a few more challenges with the ability to fix them would add to the games sense of adventure.
Misrepresenting something to make your point certainly doesn't lend itself toward believability. Anyone involved in "aviation" really should be able to differentiate between safety procedures/risk mitigation and maintenance standards, but, hey, what do I know, I am just someone that had to obtain military certifications to maintain equipment.
As to "that can 'Just go wrong' without any abuse of the machine, it could be straight out of the factory", again, that is faulty manufacture, not circumstances unknowable as the OP desires.
The discussion has been adding depth by RNG damaging from the start, not that the ASP-X has quirks that you need to be aware of AND can mitigate.
Comparing a a glass of water and a otherwise empty swimming pool full of water and saying, "Look, more depth", is certainly accurate, but they are both still just water.
I am starting to think it would be easier discussing this with the neighbours cat. What military equipment? And what does it have to do with this discussion?
None of these machines are built perfectly.
So since you are now an expert let me give you a minor example for you to figure out. Below is a common example of the pneumatic bleed air system fault we would see out in the Middle East on the A320-314, nothing to do with poor maintenance, the manufacturer and operator would laugh if a grounding was suggested, easily solvable as described below.
Second example is a simple reboot, resolves a spurious PACK fault.
Once again, what are you working on? You have also completely misunderstood my comments regarding the MEL (no surprise there)
Example 1 - Bleed air fault (A spurious fault that goes back as far as I can remember) Solved by using 1+F on the ground.
On the A330, my mob recommends that during transit stops the slats remain in CONFIG 1 after landing, when the OAT is greater than +30c.
On the A319,320,321 the above procedure results in significantly reduced clearances from the flaps and the flap fairings in particular. This may impede fuel bowsers from driving underneath or from out under the wing. There is also an increased risk of damage to the aircraft and/or personnel if flaps/slats remain extended during transit. We are advised to minimise the possibility of the aircraft being damaged by fully retracting the flaps/slats on the A320 family as normal after landing. If an 'AIR L(R) WING LEAK 'caution has occurred then after liaising with the ground crew the 'Y ELEC 'pump may be used to pressurise the hydraulics and the flaps selected to '1+F'
On the A319,320,321 the above procedure results in significantly reduced clearances from the flaps and the flap fairings in particular. This may impede fuel bowsers from driving underneath or from out under the wing. There is also an increased risk of damage to the aircraft and/or personnel if flaps/slats remain extended during transit. We are advised to minimise the possibility of the aircraft being damaged by fully retracting the flaps/slats on the A320 family as normal after landing. If an 'AIR L(R) WING LEAK 'caution has occurred then after liaising with the ground crew the 'Y ELEC 'pump may be used to pressurise the hydraulics and the flaps selected to '1+F'
Example 2 - A perfect example of using the MEL as part of the trouble shooting procedure.
Now even if you put Hot Air On(it will not open) you are no longer able to control FWD and AFT cabin Temperature and all trim valves were completely closed the Temperature on cruise page was as follows 25 18 18 no further ECAM actions and No Further Paper work checklist.No blankets on the aircraft enough for the all passengers and the passengers start to feel cold.
For the next 60 minutes we were actually making a brain storming on how to solve such a problem or what to do, and all of a sudden a pilot who came up with an idea and said: what about closing Pack 2 it may let the computer senses that there is no longer a problem in the regulator and the computer may allow the hot air valve to open again) we discussed the solution and noticed that we are able to operate on one pack at that altitude.ok let’s give it a try ..pack 2 off …pingo Hot Air Valve is a life again , we continue as this for the rest of the flight with some fuel management (X-Feed) and during descent we put pack 2 on again, at destination maintenance were not able to solve the failure and as it is a minor failure and is not a no go item we departed back to other destination with 5 hours flying. when we arrived and start boarding again, now ECAM came up with pack the following:
PACK 1 FAULT …. And the rest of the actions. Now we lost both packs and we can’t depart in such a situation. passengers sent to the gate again and after 1:30 hours of Engineer Trying to fix the problem no progress happened. and all of a sudden we call our chef pilot who suggested a complete disconnection of the power, evern the battery and leave the aircraft for 2-3 minutes to make a reset to all systems. again Pingo every thing is back no Faults and the two packs are working normal+HOT AIR valve and every thing.
I learned about Airbus from that:
1-we can always use our minds to think and not to surrender to the computer all the time,remember you are the boss.
2-never be a shy to take advice of people who has little experience,be open minded, do a brain storming, discuss, evaluate and test if within safety limits.
3- A good understanding of the system helps a lot so don’t be boared from keep studying as they say here in my country say: (studying is the soul of science and knowledge).
For the next 60 minutes we were actually making a brain storming on how to solve such a problem or what to do, and all of a sudden a pilot who came up with an idea and said: what about closing Pack 2 it may let the computer senses that there is no longer a problem in the regulator and the computer may allow the hot air valve to open again) we discussed the solution and noticed that we are able to operate on one pack at that altitude.ok let’s give it a try ..pack 2 off …pingo Hot Air Valve is a life again , we continue as this for the rest of the flight with some fuel management (X-Feed) and during descent we put pack 2 on again, at destination maintenance were not able to solve the failure and as it is a minor failure and is not a no go item we departed back to other destination with 5 hours flying. when we arrived and start boarding again, now ECAM came up with pack the following:
PACK 1 FAULT …. And the rest of the actions. Now we lost both packs and we can’t depart in such a situation. passengers sent to the gate again and after 1:30 hours of Engineer Trying to fix the problem no progress happened. and all of a sudden we call our chef pilot who suggested a complete disconnection of the power, evern the battery and leave the aircraft for 2-3 minutes to make a reset to all systems. again Pingo every thing is back no Faults and the two packs are working normal+HOT AIR valve and every thing.
I learned about Airbus from that:
1-we can always use our minds to think and not to surrender to the computer all the time,remember you are the boss.
2-never be a shy to take advice of people who has little experience,be open minded, do a brain storming, discuss, evaluate and test if within safety limits.
3- A good understanding of the system helps a lot so don’t be boared from keep studying as they say here in my country say: (studying is the soul of science and knowledge).
Last edited:
Rather than it being random...
Why not actually utilise what's shown in the module compartment with the 100% status, and that each usage of the components are worn down like the paintwork on your ship exterior is? It doesn't need to be something that's going to randomly stop your ship from working, but say if you allow your thrusters module to reach 40% health, then it offers the chance to randomly malfunction while flying which requires a reboot/repair function activating in order to reach the next station to repair it. Alternatively the shield generator could fail and drop a layer of shields, or all of the shields.
All it requires is the use of the module health field that's already in game, and not just use it through combat, but actual wear and tear.
Why not actually utilise what's shown in the module compartment with the 100% status, and that each usage of the components are worn down like the paintwork on your ship exterior is? It doesn't need to be something that's going to randomly stop your ship from working, but say if you allow your thrusters module to reach 40% health, then it offers the chance to randomly malfunction while flying which requires a reboot/repair function activating in order to reach the next station to repair it. Alternatively the shield generator could fail and drop a layer of shields, or all of the shields.
All it requires is the use of the module health field that's already in game, and not just use it through combat, but actual wear and tear.
Lestat
Banned
I have to say this is not a feature for right now. I not saying it a bad idea.
But when they let Atompheric landing and walking on ships. I could see this feature being used. I looking at your driving your SRV or walking on the Planet and unknown to you bring in a unknown Loach or Trumble (Classic Elite). Which could cause ship failure either by eating Wires or electronics or Multiplying as they did in 1984 game?
It could be something for Long distance exploration. Something that really doesn't damage the ship. But keep the Pilot and Crew on their toes.
But when they let Atompheric landing and walking on ships. I could see this feature being used. I looking at your driving your SRV or walking on the Planet and unknown to you bring in a unknown Loach or Trumble (Classic Elite). Which could cause ship failure either by eating Wires or electronics or Multiplying as they did in 1984 game?
It could be something for Long distance exploration. Something that really doesn't damage the ship. But keep the Pilot and Crew on their toes.
This is already in game, below 80% integrity thrusters will malfunction, the lower the percentage the higher the chance of a malfunction. When a malfunction occurs you'll receive a warning in the top right display, thruster stabilization goes offline (feels like flight assist off) You'll also get maneuvering thrusters randomly engaging.
Reboot won't fix it, you have to return to dock or use the AFMU to get integrity back above 80%
Yes, but this failure of the jump motor produced by continued overloads in neutron stars or white dwarfs is understood and only affects that module.
What I am referring to is a random failure of a module that does not have to leave it at 0% or totally unused.
For example the heatsinks (to say something) or simply the fact of synthesizing many. Then the synthesis fails giving you less units or defective units (randomly). Or the legs can show visual defects and functioning, if for example the ship has 4 legs, that only let you take out 3, being the leg 4 a little "lazy", obviously damage.
Being the engines, both the propellers and the jump motor, machines that are constantly on, obviously are built to be more durable, but after 65,000 Ly or more, some defect (the engine is clogged - not inside the cone of a star to not irritate people) or is not able to achieve 100% propulsion.
But hey, that was just a suggestion.
I understand that users want to see his ship as a combat tank.
RNG and PVP don't mix very well, so having random malfunctions in the middle of a battle might not be such a good idea.
Especially with the amount of weapon special effects and module damage these days that can already cause a lot of trouble for your ship internals, adding more would simply make it very annoying to do combat.
Especially with the amount of weapon special effects and module damage these days that can already cause a lot of trouble for your ship internals, adding more would simply make it very annoying to do combat.