Should be able to move modules in cargo.

[War Eagle]

Their game, their rules.
Not sure you understand how accurate the game is with respect to the galaxy, they used all data from all space agencies to create it. So keeping some "Rules" as to what is possible and what is not seems to be a way to keep some integrity to the game and work put into it.

 

[Ezren]

But I'm not ignoring it. I'm saying "change it." That's not ignoring. Are you suggesting that nothing should be changed? I suspect you are.

What's happening here is as plain as the nose on your face. Whenever you come up with a new idea - even something as trivial as a minor change to a computer game - the first thing you have to learn to handle is the inevitable chorus of "that's impossible". The reasons come afterwards, it can take a few moments to think them up.

Over and out. You've worn me down.

You haven't come up with any reasons.

Even for something so "trivial", you failed to provide any reasons to support this "minor change". You failed to "think them up".

 

[Robert Maynard]

But I'm not ignoring it. I'm saying "change it." That's not ignoring. Are you suggesting that nothing should be changed? I suspect you are.

What's happening here is as plain as the nose on your face. Whenever you come up with a new idea - even something as trivial as a minor change to a computer game - the first thing you have to learn to handle is the inevitable chorus of "that's impossible". The reasons come afterwards, it can take a few moments to think them up.

Over and out. You've worn me down.

Not saying "don't change it" at all.

Simply pointing out reasons why some of the desired changes don't seem to be able to be implemented believably, i.e. fitting a D-rated Sidewinder in a Class 5 cargo rack - as a Sidewinder is 14.9m x 21.4m x 5.4m and a rack for 32x 2m x 1m x 1m cargo canisters - through a 5m x 5m cargo hatch.

 

[UmbraRex]

There's no stuff to take on destroying another CMDR - player ships drop neither materials nor cargo when destroyed.

Ah, but the tears, err salt generated...

I can hear it now: I was moving my g5*whatever* and some ganker blowed me up and now I don't have my module I was moving!

Ummm, if for NO other reason that that right there: No.

 

[DKay]

I'm not much of a forum poster but from the outside looking in, the people in favor of the status quo seem willfully obtuse for the most part. Quite infuriating to read actually.

I have a specific scenario in mind to offer you:

What if, in my ship's loadout, instead of equipping an 8 class 256T cargo bay, I simply... remove my optional and leave an empty module there?

I could, for example, put an 8 class shield there. Or a 7-class fighter bay, or a whole host of other huge implements there that don't fit within a standard 1T "rack", because I just removed the racks.

Imagine now that I would like to engineer a 2-class shield module. I can't "equip" it on my huge ship, because its mass far exceeds the capabilities of the shield. That's fine, I perfectly understand why it wouldn't work. But why can't it just be there, deactivated, but there.

In fact, as many explorers know, it's quite possible to strip down your ship enough to accommodate lower and lower class modules (both core and optionals). The constraint is either mass, or distributor draw, or raw power, but never space.

To add another layer of absurdity, when equipping empty cargo racks, the other modules behave as though those racks were full (so as to allow your ship to operate with a full cargo hold, makes sense), but it will sometimes disqualify you from equipping lower class thrusters, or shields. Shields that I could equip 5 minutes ago when I didn't have cargo racks on my ship. Now that I added cargo racks, I need bigger shields.

You can't tell me the problem, in this specific instance, is space. The problem is that my overall mass could potentially tip over the edge of what my shield can support to remain functional. Except I might not care to have a functional shield in the first place. I might just be trying to transport it from A to B.

The list goes on and on. I can put any kind of optional in any slot I want, but I can't equip 2 shields (for balancing reasons I assume, since having 2 shields, even if only one remains active, could lead to some module activation shenanigans). Couldn't I simply choose an "active" shield and treat the other one like dead weight for the duration of a flight? Are you telling me that a 1D shield couldn't fit in an empty 8 class optional slot?

All the arguments I've been reading from the status quo side seem like they were cooked up after the fact to dismiss a lack of features rather than an intuitive, logical explanation that would make sense in-game.

 

[Masta Squidge]

What open end? How do they live given the lack of life support on cargo racks? How do they fit (1 ton of slaves in a m^3 space is tiny).

We had this discussion years ago and came to the conclusion:

"The storage pod for a slave contains life support systems so it weighs a ton now please stop asking".

Kinda how an ejected pilot in his or her pod fits into a cargo rack too.

 

[Werewolf13]

Then we have gold sellers manufacturing modules and selling them to people who buy them.

Yeah...

So?

 

[Shinji Ikari]

We had this discussion years ago and came to the conclusion:

"The storage pod for a slave contains life support systems so it weighs a ton now please stop asking".

Kinda how an ejected pilot in his or her pod fits into a cargo rack too.

Wouldn't that mean that all 1 ton canisters don't really transport 1 ton of such commodity?

Edit: Actually, if the life support really weights that much, then you only carry very little of each commodity per canister, roughly the weight of a person.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

Read the thread.

Reasons have been listed and there's no shortage, but he focused on one, single thing, because apparently we must examine every single reason why it's a bad idea, one at a time, while waiting for a reason why modules-in-cargo is a "good" idea.

M00ka clearly thought about non-players since he specifically called out NPCs (again, you seem to have issues reading before you respond) and there are plenty of reasons why it's a bad idea beyond the supremely narrow reason you decided to pounce on. And you think that destroyed ships drop their cargo, which is... well, if you were trying to show how clever you were, that was not productive.

Modules in cargo is a bad idea because of physics (mass=/=volume=/=dimensions), the size of the cargo hatch, bypassing engineers, the incredible exploitability of such a mechanic, the raw issue of resources to implement such a poorly-thought-out idea, the idea that you can carry an infinite number of Fuel Scoops in a Sidewinder, and last but not least it's got no purpose, no reason to exist, and everyone who's been in favor of it has all the forethought of one (1) Flaming Hot Cheeto.

Feel free to make any argument or reason why it's a good idea. And remember, your opinion is not a reason.

That's a flat out lie, also, realism isn't an argument when you can easily pick up internal inconsistencies within the universe and flat out impossible things.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

I assumed that the containers were uniform size, but they are varying amounts of “full” depending on what is in it.

for example, the canister may be completely full of water with 1 ton of mass, but the canister of gold has a block suspended in the middle by... bubble wrap?

standard containers for ease of shipping

LOL, why do you need bubble wrap to haul gold? Mind you, we are talking about gold as a resource, not as a form of jewelery.

 

[Ezren]

I'm not much of a forum poster but from the outside looking in, the people in favor of the status quo seem willfully obtuse for the most part. Quite infuriating to read actually.

I have a specific scenario in mind to offer you:

What if, in my ship's loadout, instead of equipping an 8 class 256T cargo bay, I simply... remove my optional and leave an empty module there?

I could, for example, put an 8 class shield there. Or a 7-class fighter bay, or a whole host of other huge implements there that don't fit within a standard 1T "rack", because I just removed the racks.

Imagine now that I would like to engineer a 2-class shield module. I can't "equip" it on my huge ship, because its mass far exceeds the capabilities of the shield. That's fine, I perfectly understand why it wouldn't work. But why can't it just be there, deactivated, but there.

In fact, as many explorers know, it's quite possible to strip down your ship enough to accommodate lower and lower class modules (both core and optionals). The constraint is either mass, or distributor draw, or raw power, but never space.

To add another layer of absurdity, when equipping empty cargo racks, the other modules behave as though those racks were full (so as to allow your ship to operate with a full cargo hold, makes sense), but it will sometimes disqualify you from equipping lower class thrusters, or shields. Shields that I could equip 5 minutes ago when I didn't have cargo racks on my ship. Now that I added cargo racks, I need bigger shields.

You can't tell me the problem, in this specific instance, is space. The problem is that my overall mass could potentially tip over the edge of what my shield can support to remain functional. Except I might not care to have a functional shield in the first place. I might just be trying to transport it from A to B.

The list goes on and on. I can put any kind of optional in any slot I want, but I can't equip 2 shields (for balancing reasons I assume, since having 2 shields, even if only one remains active, could lead to some module activation shenanigans). Couldn't I simply choose an "active" shield and treat the other one like dead weight for the duration of a flight? Are you telling me that a 1D shield couldn't fit in an empty 8 class optional slot?

All the arguments I've been reading from the status quo side seem like they were cooked up after the fact to dismiss a lack of features rather than an intuitive, logical explanation that would make sense in-game.

Oh boy let's address a couple things right out of the gate. "Willfully obtuse" is the opposite of the problem people who are trying to explain common sense are having. And "status quo" as you call it is, let's be gentle here, trying to argue against an incredibly shortsighted idea.

It was bold of you to call others "willfully obtuse" when you seem to have not actually understood the subject of conversation. You're arguing to equip multiples of unique, inactive modules; this thread is literally titled "You should be able to move modules in cargo".

The arguments have been about the issues of moving modules in cargo, acting as cargo, measured as cargo, and being treated as cargo. Because, again, that's what this thread is about.

You're talking about making modules inactive for transport. Which is a wholly and totally different conversation. But you came in declaring people are being "willfully obtuse" because they aren't talking about an entirely different topic than what's being discussed in the thread.

So when you said:

All the arguments I've been reading from the status quo side seem like they were cooked up after the fact to dismiss a lack of features rather than an intuitive, logical explanation that would make sense in-game.

Are you sure you read this thread? At all? Your post shows pretty clearly that you either did not read it, or did not comprehend it.

 

[DKay]

Cargo doesn't mean cargo racks. You didn't answer any of my questions Ezren. Can you imagine a world where a 1D shield fits in a 8 class empty optional module slot? Could it feasably be transported as cargo, without the use of cargo racks? (As in, non-stackable)

 

[Teh Smoo]

There's no stuff to take on destroying another CMDR - player ships drop neither materials nor cargo when destroyed.

Hatch breaker limpets and destroyed cargo hatches.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Hatch breaker limpets and destroyed cargo hatches.

.... before the ship goes "pop", not after.