SRV: Extremely long landing gear for small ships? Just... weird.
- Thread starter Viajero
- Start date
I will be rather frustrated if I see this issue being redone before the majority of the bugs is getting fixed..
LOL Anti-theft protection in 3301?
Got to agree with the OP here, I think it looks really odd and awkward, really makes it look odd. I'm sure there are plenty of other solutions like auto hover as already mentioned or maybe the SRV needs the ability to go super low profile to get under the normal landing gear, whatever, but that Eagle just looks wrong.
It wouldn't fit out of the current man-sized doors they have there now, and would require a redesign of every ship exterior as well as redesigns of any internal schematics they may have started. Have you seen how long it takes them to add fins and spoilers? Besides, many ships don't have room for a rear ramp and engines.
Last edited:
The picture says it all really. Looks like a very awkward and non aesthetic at all way of making the SRV fit below small ships when deployed. See here for the regular landing gear.
Why not have the ship stay hovering at a few meters above landing ground level in autopilot while the SRV is dropped below it? Once dropped the ship AI just lands it right away as per normal.
http://i.imgur.com/olNGMB2.png
I wholeheartedly agree, it looks bad. As if someone with no artistic sense of proportion designed the landing gear. On the iEagle image, it even appears as if the model of the top half of the gear has simply been stretched. I do wonder where the Eagle even stows this long landing gear now.
Also: look at the iEagle's front landing gear, which doubles as a ramp. Have fun walking up that steep slope now...
While I am not so worried about the Python, as it already is rather high (with appropriately designed landing gear a priori, not afterwards hastily stretched), I am especially worried about two of my other favourite ships: the FDL, which is my main ride alongside the Python, and the Adder, with which I wanted to go to Sag A* eventually, and bring an SRV of course. I am not sure whether I would even want to do that if it ends up on stilts.
Last edited:
Auto hover means fuel consumption, maybe higher fuel consumption on higher gravity worlds to hover if I had to guess, but we will have to find out when we get our hands on it I guess.
I'm fine with the extended landing gear.
They could do it for update 2.1.
It's not got to hover indefinitely has it? 30 seconds at most, if you're that short on fuel I'm sure the fuel rats will be pleased to help
Deleted member 38366
D
Hehe, hearing about ground clearance issues, I instantly had the same idea.
Just let the Ship drop the SRV from hover with sufficient Ground Clearance and make it land on a more suitable spot afterwards.
The SRV can easily take a 5m drop it seems.
Even a hovering pickup would be possible to evacuate the SRV in un-landable spots that way. Ship is on autopilot anyway and there's your backup for a departure from the Planet with rough terrain right away...
Nothing wrong with the Ship picking up a stationary SRV by having the Ship "docking on top" in case of bad terrain.
Might not be the "goldilocks" solution - but it would simply work. Ship technically does not have to touch down right at a fixed spot, given its autopilot hover abilities.
I could imagine similar issues will undoubtedly arise once landings on volcanic activity are possible - there, neither the Ship nor the SRV are expected to have sweet spots everywhere.
Just let the Ship drop the SRV from hover with sufficient Ground Clearance and make it land on a more suitable spot afterwards.
The SRV can easily take a 5m drop it seems.
Even a hovering pickup would be possible to evacuate the SRV in un-landable spots that way. Ship is on autopilot anyway and there's your backup for a departure from the Planet with rough terrain right away...
Nothing wrong with the Ship picking up a stationary SRV by having the Ship "docking on top" in case of bad terrain.
Might not be the "goldilocks" solution - but it would simply work. Ship technically does not have to touch down right at a fixed spot, given its autopilot hover abilities.
I could imagine similar issues will undoubtedly arise once landings on volcanic activity are possible - there, neither the Ship nor the SRV are expected to have sweet spots everywhere.
Last edited by a moderator:
This almost feels like a mini repeat of the bulbous Cutter hate.
Burn
I always thought most of these ramps are for a small elevator. All of the ones that don't have stairs like the fancy Cutter ramp does.
Last edited:
I wholeheartedly agree, it looks bad. As if someone with no artistic sense of proportion designed the landing gear. On the iEagle image, it even appears as if the model of the top half of the gear has simply been stretched. I do wonder where the Eagle even stows this long landing gear now.
Also: look at the iEagle's front landing gear, which doubles as a ramp. Have fun walking up that steep slope now...
While I am not so worried about the Python, as it already is rather high (with appropriately designed landing gear a priori, not afterwards hastily stretched), I am especially worried about two of my other favourite ships: the FDL, which is my main ride alongside the Python, and the Adder, with which I wanted to go to Sag A* eventually, and bring an SRV of course. I am not sure whether I would even want to do that if it ends up on stilts.
I think the front ramp is what demonstrates that this is a temporary placeholder. Especially once we get FPS mode. But there are lots of semi-permanent placeholders in the game already. And I hope this just becomes one of the shorter lived ones.
They'll need to be "hydrologic" and lower again once the SRV clears the ship.
Last edited:
Dem legs.......It's the Speagle (Spider Eagle) lol
Burn
I always thought most of these ramps are for a small elevator. Like all of the ones that don't have stairs like the fancy Cutter ramp does.
It wasn't meant as a burn. FD have clearly been working hard, and the fins and spoilers are all they had time to add while pumping out horizons. Adding a redesign to accommodate rear egress in an SRV would take several months, especially with all of the other material I'm sure they'll be working on for 2016.
I've had a good look at it and, I've got to be honest, no matter how long I look, I think it looks fine.
It's a tiny ship (compared to the medium and large ships). It makes sense to have landing gear that looks comparatively long, in relation to its height, in order to allow ample clearance for the SRV.
This won't be an issue with medium or larger ships.
I'm not a fan of a hover option. Those look like sensible landing gear. They do the job just fine.
It's a tiny ship (compared to the medium and large ships). It makes sense to have landing gear that looks comparatively long, in relation to its height, in order to allow ample clearance for the SRV.
This won't be an issue with medium or larger ships.
I'm not a fan of a hover option. Those look like sensible landing gear. They do the job just fine.
Last edited:
Meant it as a burn against the seeming assumption that any improvements/changes to this issue would be quick and easy work
I appreciate all the spoilers very much.