Spitballing - Emergency Fuel Leaks

[NeilF]

So, would emergency fuel leaks be a useful/interesting addition?


First and foremost, they would not be useful/interesting while out exploring - So this eventuality would have to be prevented by some mechanics/hand wavium.

But during regular flying (eg: After having leaving a station, if a leak is going to happen, it will happen within the first 4-5 jumps or so)?

Or at least as the side effect of damage from combat? Some what akin to a canopy breach but to varying degrees?

 

[shadragon]

Not a big fan of random "accidents."

Reminds me of Monty Pythons, "You've got a nice Army base here colonel. Be a shame if something 'appened to it."

 

[Robert Maynard]

So, would emergency fuel leaks be a useful/interesting addition?


First and foremost, they would not be useful/interesting while out exploring - So this eventuality would have to be prevented by some mechanics/hand wavium.

But during regular flying (eg: After having leaving a station, if a leak is going to happen, it will happen within the first 4-5 jumps or so)?

Or at least as the side effect of damage from combat? Some what akin to a canopy breach but to varying degrees?

.... or would they just require ships to carry a fuel scoop?

 

[777Driver]

So, would emergency fuel leaks be a useful/interesting addition?


First and foremost, they would not be useful/interesting while out exploring - So this eventuality would have to be prevented by some mechanics/hand wavium.

But during regular flying (eg: After having leaving a station, if a leak is going to happen, it will happen within the first 4-5 jumps or so)?

Or at least as the side effect of damage from combat? Some what akin to a canopy breach but to varying degrees?

It was supposed to be implemented when failures were introduced. No idea why they dropped that idea, they kept most of the other failures from the initial design. At the moment ships only receive malfunctions due to damage, would be much more realistic if they had expanded on wear & tear, poorly maintained ship's malfunctioning, even the remote chance of a well maintained ship developing a fault.

You can see the devs wanted to make it more of a sim, unfortunately they never got around to implementing everything

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/7454-Hasta-la-vista-baby-Ship-Damage-in-Elite-Dangerous

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...here-for-the-gasoline-Fuel-in-Elite-Dangerous


FUEL TANK MALFUNCTIONS

The Fuel Tank is like any other module in the ship (although it’s usually built into the superstructure and is thus typically not upgradable) in that it can suffer damage and malfunctions. These malfunctions are listed below:

Minor malfunctions:
Faulty fuel line - temporarily starves the power plant of fuel thus reducing available power gradually until no power is available (modules turn off in priority order) until the fault fixes itself (variable time limit for the malfunction)

AFR fuel leak - temporarily drains more fuel from the AFR than normal as fuel is effectively leaking from the reservoir until resealed automatically (variable time limit for the malfunction)

AFR refill fault - temporarily stops the refill process when the AFR is empty resulting in starving the system as in a faulty fuel line malfunction above but can only happen when refilling the AFR (variable time limit to the malfunction)

Major malfunctions:
Main Tank leak - temporarily drains fuel from the main tank over a long period of time before automatically resealing. Whilst draining the Main Tank is considered to have one less whole unit of fuel as what it once had as that unit of fuel is slowly drains away. If that unit of fuel completely drains another whole unit is sacrificed to the malfunction. Once the malfunction is over any partial units of fuel left in the Main Tank will automatically top up the AFR if possible and any further leftovers are lost

Main Tank fire - the Main Tank ruptures and ignites in a dangerous inferno completely destroying all units of fuel in the Main Tank (AFR and Reserve Tanks are unaffected). The fire is a separate ship wide malfunction described in another document and this malfunction is really just augmenting it by also having all the fuel in the Main Tank lost to the fire

 

[NeilF]

It was supposed to be implemented when failures were introduced. No idea why they dropped that idea, they kept most of the other failures from the initial design. At the moment ships only receive malfunctions due to damage, would be much more realistic if they had expanded on wear & tear, poorly maintained ship's malfunctioning, even the remote chance of a well maintained ship developing a fault.

You can see the devs wanted to make it more of a sim, unfortunately they never got around to implementing everything

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/7454-Hasta-la-vista-baby-Ship-Damage-in-Elite-Dangerous

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...here-for-the-gasoline-Fuel-in-Elite-Dangerous


FUEL TANK MALFUNCTIONS

The Fuel Tank is like any other module in the ship (although it’s usually built into the superstructure and is thus typically not upgradable) in that it can suffer damage and malfunctions. These malfunctions are listed below:

Minor malfunctions:
Faulty fuel line - temporarily starves the power plant of fuel thus reducing available power gradually until no power is available (modules turn off in priority order) until the fault fixes itself (variable time limit for the malfunction)

AFR fuel leak - temporarily drains more fuel from the AFR than normal as fuel is effectively leaking from the reservoir until resealed automatically (variable time limit for the malfunction)

AFR refill fault - temporarily stops the refill process when the AFR is empty resulting in starving the system as in a faulty fuel line malfunction above but can only happen when refilling the AFR (variable time limit to the malfunction)

Major malfunctions:
Main Tank leak - temporarily drains fuel from the main tank over a long period of time before automatically resealing. Whilst draining the Main Tank is considered to have one less whole unit of fuel as what it once had as that unit of fuel is slowly drains away. If that unit of fuel completely drains another whole unit is sacrificed to the malfunction. Once the malfunction is over any partial units of fuel left in the Main Tank will automatically top up the AFR if possible and any further leftovers are lost

Main Tank fire - the Main Tank ruptures and ignites in a dangerous inferno completely destroying all units of fuel in the Main Tank (AFR and Reserve Tanks are unaffected). The fire is a separate ship wide malfunction described in another document and this malfunction is really just augmenting it by also having all the fuel in the Main Tank lost to the fire

Interesting! Ta!

 

[Lobstris]

It was supposed to be implemented when failures were introduced. No idea why they dropped that idea,

Aside from the time element, I presume it's because random failures (and tying them to good ship maintenance or fuel quality) would really get the backs up of some people. "Nooo! RNG stuff is poor gameplay design!" "I lost 200 tonnes of slaves because of this stooped mechanism! Fix it Devs!" etc. It could also be because there wouldn't be a reliable in-game mechanism for recovery if stranded, other than suicide. Yeah, we've got the great guys of The Fuel Rats, but how does the solo player fare?

Shame really, nursing sick things home is half the fun of flight sims. And investing in an NPC engineer could assist with on-the-fly repair times... gah!

I'd love to see partial sensor/HUD damage too due to combat (e.g. intermittent glitches, some parts of the panels becoming inoperable etc.)

 

[Deleted member 115407]

Aside from the time element, I presume it's because random failures (and tying them to good ship maintenance or fuel quality) would really get the backs up of some people. "Nooo! RNG stuff is poor gameplay design!" "I lost 200 tonnes of slaves because of this stooped mechanism! Fix it Devs!" etc. It could also be because there wouldn't be a reliable in-game mechanism for recovery if stranded, other than suicide. Yeah, we've got the great guys of The Fuel Rats, but how does the solo player fare?

Shame really, nursing sick things home is half the fun of flight sims. And investing in an NPC engineer could assist with on-the-fly repair times... gah!

I'd love to see partial sensor/HUD damage too due to combat (e.g. intermittent glitches, some parts of the panels becoming inoperable etc.)

I'm a big proponent of random module failures. I'm talking flying through space and suddenly you have a core module failure that you have to adapt to and limp her to the nearest docking bay. Unfortunately, I think I might be in the minority on that.

 

[Eros]

It depends on gameplay, Firstly you have to figure as to how a leak would develop... then you have to factor what is actually leaking and you realize that the chances would be very low without some kind of combat situation.

Why? Well firstly the fuel we use is basically Hydrogen. It would be in liquid form thus cryogenic. Cryogenic systems in order to provide efficient storage have to be vacuum jacketed. This means all of your LH2 systems are double steel walled at a minimum. The likelyhood of randomly springing a leak in a system like that is, quite low.

Now only part where you might spring a leak is if something is pressure and temperature cycled over and over... so... this becomes a question of servicing. If you didn't service or maintain your systems, yeah maybe you get a leak, but not a leak in the conventional since, but lets say in combat you lost your vacuum systems... boom you are venting hydrogen and there isn't much you can do about it without going to dock. Not only that but hydrogen is VERY dangerous should it be mixed with O2...

So, should it be set in a half realistic manner... sure... randomly? no, no way, because it just doesn''t make sense. As much as people might disagree with me, even the RNG for the engineers can make sense if you think of it in terms of tollerances and material quality... anyway... cheers!

 

[Deleted member 115407]

It depends on gameplay, Firstly...

Well that was a thoughtful reply.

What about heat, though? Shouldn't that be a huge risk to some of our subsystems? Also, what about shock? Shouldn't many of our subsystems be shock-sensitive and? Would that give new meaning to impulse and thermal weapons?

And smashing into stuff? fugetaboutit...

 

[Ian Skippy]

Failures in general should be more dangerous. Flying in space should be dangerous.

 

[Kyle Nix]

Hell no.

The devs already put in enough artificial inconvenience. You want this sort of stuff implemented? The devs need to take some of the already in, out.

EXAMPLE: I HATE that I have to use FANSITES to find parts. I should ALWAYS find the right parts in High Tech and/or Rich systems.

Another example- Engineers. Just... Engineers

 

[777Driver]

Failures in general should be more dangerous. Flying in space should be dangerous.

Agreed, quite a few things could be added to make operating the ships more of a challenge. On the flip side some seem to struggle just moving pips around :/

 

[Deleted member 115407]

Hell no.

The devs already put in enough artificial inconvenience. You want this sort of stuff implemented? The devs need to take some of the already in, out.

EXAMPLE: I HATE that I have to use FANSITES to find parts. I should ALWAYS find the right parts in High Tech and/or Rich systems.

Another example- Engineers. Just... Engineers

I wholeheartedly disagree. I like the fact that you have to look for stuff... and even if you use external sites, it adds complexity to the game when modules aren't available. Was outfitting a miner last night, but couldn't get a decent Shield Gen or FSD, which made it a pain in the ass to hop in my T7 and go get the shields. But I did... and went back... and mined... and came home packed to the gills with precious metals. It was a good time.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Agreed, quite a few things could be added to make operating the ships more of a challenge. On the flip side some seem to struggle just moving pips around :/

^^That's the issue. I don't think making things more risky would be well received.

 

[Eros]

didnt really get the jist of what i was saying really did you? If you read it you would see that i was offering a hand waving... maybe... but not randomly, it should be caused by something... Geez guys...

btw i work with cryogenic systems on a day to day basis... some of this stuff is ridiculously over engineered... short of direct penetration with a forklift its rocksolid

 

[OLd_Sarg]

we need more RNG?

I think the RNG engineers already in this patch is plenty, so no I don't trust RNG to make the game fun.

however it could just be more interesting cause and effect module damage from combat or "dropping to close" event.

 

[Lobstris]

Hell no.

The devs already put in enough artificial inconvenience. You want this sort of stuff implemented? The devs need to take some of the already in, out.

EXAMPLE: I HATE that I have to use FANSITES to find parts. I should ALWAYS find the right parts in High Tech and/or Rich systems.

Another example- Engineers. Just... Engineers

One man's inconvenience, is the starting scenario for another's 'intense simulation fun'. Simulating potential failures of systems would potentially lead to more interesting gameplay, and 'things to do/tasks to juggle' whilst supercruising. Yes I agree that it shouldn't be wholly random, but rather given a probability of occurrence based on a function of system maintenance history, combat damage, excessive loading on the craft (I should really stop tying to 'red out' by diving at the end of orbital glides... ) etc.

And yes, failures should give some prior warnings (HUD messages, additional sound effects etc.) to give a player a chance to rectify things, before catastrophic or cascading failure.

One of the things I don't like about E: D as it stands is I don't really feel like I'm looking after my ship, other than cosmetically. Nor do I feel that there's a lot of danger in space outside of combat and accidentally hitting things.

 

[Deleted member 115407]

didnt really get the jist of what i was saying really did you? If you read it you would see that i was offering a hand waving... maybe... but not randomly, it should be caused by something... Geez guys...

btw i work with cryogenic systems on a day to day basis... some of this stuff is ridiculously over engineered... short of direct penetration with a forklift its rocksolid

No, I was focused more on your discussion of the cryo stuff than I was your combat/gameplay comments.

My point is that on combat and shipping vehicles, crap breaks all the time. Lines burst, seals wear, chips and boards overheat, rubber shock mounts degrade, electrical contacts go bad, bearings seize up, batteries die (in tanks, especially).

There's a lot more that can go wrong with a ship than just a fuel leak.

 

[Phord Prefect]

The possibilities...

Like a Crazy Ivan
Edit: Embed post doesn't stick to starting at 1m18s. So, fast forward it manually I suppose.

[video=youtube_share;J3rX0T2XNxs]https://youtu.be/J3rX0T2XNxs?t=1m18s[/video]

 

[Deleted member 115407]

One man's inconvenience, is the starting scenario for another's 'intense simulation fun'. Simulating potential failures of systems would potentially lead to more interesting gameplay, and 'things to do/tasks to juggle' whilst supercruising. Yes I agree that it shouldn't be wholly random, but rather given a probability of occurrence based on a function of system maintenance history, combat damage, excessive loading on the craft (I should really stop tying to 'red out' by diving at the end of orbital glides... ) etc.

And yes, failures should give some prior warnings (HUD messages, additional sound effects etc.) to give a player a chance to rectify things, before catastrophic or cascading failure.

One of the things I don't like about E: D as it stands is I don't really feel like I'm looking after my ship, other than cosmetically. Nor do I feel that there's a lot of danger in space outside of combat and accidentally hitting things.

Yeah, the best scenario... "Module Failure. Power Plant Capacity Exceeded". Leaving you with just enough power to turn off unneeded subsystems and limp that thing to any ol' repair ship you can find?

That sounds like a blast to me

 

[Kyle Nix]

didnt really get the jist of what i was saying really did you? If you read it you would see that i was offering a hand waving... maybe... but not randomly, it should be caused by something... Geez guys...

btw i work with cryogenic systems on a day to day basis... some of this stuff is ridiculously over engineered... short of direct penetration with a forklift its rocksolid

See, the thing is that the Devs wouldn't follow your "organic system".

They'd plug in more RNG and maybe add yet another convoluted system to stick it to us.