When we choose a location for carrier to jump we should be able to pick where EXACTLY it will go to

[Washinout]

I keep jumping my carrier at the same location in hope of it landing closer to where I want it. If im gonna be going for a specific planetary port I want the carrier to be on the side where to place is so I dont waste time flying to the other side all the time
Same goes for space ports when you are loading or unloading your carrier whether its a space port or colonization ship

When we choose a location on the system map we should get a map that shows potential locations, slots. And it should also show the stations and such on the map too so we can choose the proper location

Because we can't do that I bet lots of people also jump their carrier on the same location bunch of times, this causes unnecessary queue on carrier jumps and waste everyones time

We already have planetary maps that pop out when you zoom into them in system map. Have that and put orbital ports on that and potential spots where carriers can land.

 

[varonica]

I keep jumping my carrier at the same location in hope of it landing closer to where I want it. If im gonna be going for a specific planetary port I want the carrier to be on the side where to place is so I dont waste time flying to the other side all the time

Ok, all I am going to say is, what the heck?

Look, Fleet Carriers orbit the planet, you know, orbit, like other space stations, the ISS, and the moon, it doesn't matter where you start it, it will eventually end up round the other side of the planet, then eventually it will come back to the side you want it on, this is a fact of life, orbits mean they move away from where they start.

 

[GroG79]

Insert exceptions.....

 

[Ameeleean2]

Because we can't do that I bet lots of people also jump their carrier on the same location bunch of times, this causes unnecessary queue on carrier jumps and waste everyones time

I never did that. I just select target and see where it gets me then act accordingly to situation I'm in. Geosync orbit would be nice but it would also make landing a bit longer since I would have to fix angle of approach every time. My old cutter doesn't even have SCO drive yet but since it is not optimized for it I do not bother installing it- when I'm using boost in my T8 and if I'm not careful enough I'm often "overshooting" target and arrive at my target later than without it which also means it would be worse for my cutter (which is not as agile as other ships in supercruise mode).
Best scenario I had so far was when my carrier was under 1Mm distance from settlement which meant I could exit supercruise mode right after entering it after take off but that happens rarely, usually on really small moons.
I have also found out that using autodocking computer from the start is not optimal solution. I'm using it only when landing through "mailslot" since it handles this very well and finds landing pad faster than me. In other cases what I like to do is to aproach manualy then cut throtle to 0 above target landing pad which is when autodocking computer takes over.

 

[Cmdr. Numa]

It's often more efficient to jump the carrier to somewhere in the system with no gravity well. I like asteroid belts for that. Although SCO has taken out some of the tedium involved with circling around a planet in snail speed.

 

[HRDiagram]

Ok, all I am going to say is, what the heck?

Look, Fleet Carriers orbit the planet, you know, orbit, like other space stations, the ISS, and the moon, it doesn't matter where you start it, it will eventually end up round the other side of the planet, then eventually it will come back to the side you want it on, this is a fact of life, orbits mean they move away from where they start.

In my experience, Fleet Carriers do not orbit: they are placed in a specific location above a planet and sit there idle.

It is very evident when the FC is located far from the equatorial plane of a planet (easier to tell if the planet has rings), especially near a pole.
I have noticed that it never moves: it's always sitting above the pole, or you always get the same view of the rings, which is impossible if the FC was actually orbiting.
I have had long sessions just to test this, as one of the things I was looking forward to was sitting on the carrier as it crossed the rings' plane: it doesn't happen.


The one thing I have not investigated is what set of coordinates is used to place a carrier. I imagine it's system related, possibly linked to the planet's revolution around its parent body, but not the rotation, as I have experienced the rotation of the surface below, but at rates more compatible with the planet's natural period than what I would expect from a body orbiting it, which is instead pretty evident when sitting around a station or an outpost.

All in all, I am under the impression that it was a deliberate choice to not assign orbital elements to FCs, in order not to overburden the engine. They don't even show an orbit line, after all.
But that's just my assumption.
Never checked megaships, though.

edit: (some) grammar

 

[varonica]

In my experience, Fleet Carriers do not orbit: they are placed in a specific location above a planet and sit there idle.

And even in that case, with the planet rotating, the spot under you will go away and will end up on the other side of the planet from that spot. haven't tested the orbit part personally, but if they are like every other orbital, which they should be since that's what they are, they should orbit.

 

[HRDiagram]

And even in that case, with the planet rotating, the spot under you will go away and will end up on the other side of the planet from that spot. haven't tested the orbit part personally, but if they are like every other orbital, which they should be since that's what they are, they should orbit.

Again, in my experience, the drift appears to be more related to a difference between synodal and sidereal day (based on the FC's location) rather than the FC moving along a path that defies the laws of physics. But then again, I haven't tested it properly, and I wouldn't even exclude that some weird trajectories have been implemented, but definitely nothing to do with orbital mechanics as we know them.

 

[Factabulous]

They could probably change the sysmap so that we can select a station and it gives us 'the closest free slot' to that station. That shouldn't be a big problem as the client already knows about orbits etc, so it would just be a question of the client asking 'slot 5 please'.

ofc as others say FC would then move as they orbit - or else not have any slots very close to the station. I'm not bothered much about placement when targeting orbital stations as it is often fun to try and complete xfers while the FC gets closer to a station, but (as others have said) the FC tend to just 'sit' over the planet surface so getting a good slot for planetary xfers can be less fun. But still - the game is not supposed to play itself - players need to solve some problems for themselves rather than expecting the devs to make it play itself

 

[varonica]

Again, in my experience, the drift appears to be more related to a difference between synodal and sidereal day (based on the FC's location) rather than the FC moving along a path that defies the laws of physics. But then again, I haven't tested it properly, and I wouldn't even exclude that some weird trajectories have been implemented, but definitely nothing to do with orbital mechanics as we know them.

There are certainly times when I have experienced changes in the location of Fleet Carriers to planetary surface bases, when loading land mines quite a while back sometimes the surface port was nearly under the FC and other times I had to fly partly around the planet, but whether or not FC's actually move in relation to their arrival location is really easy to check, I mean how easy would it be to land on an FC, check the distance to the nearest FC around the planet and see if the distance changes. If as claimed the FC's don't move at all then that distance should remain constant, but of they are in orbit and at different distances from the surface or they move on any sort of weird path then that distance should change over time.