Would you like to see some asymmetrical ships in Elite: Dangerous?

[bubbabenali]

I'd like to see the equivalent of modular ships - even if they're NPC ones and some equivalent of road-train ... ship pulling large containers behind it - again NPC? Would add flavour

Like a mega hauler that stores the containers outside of the hull?
Could become a way to explain ship and module transfers.

 

[Ca$hback]

God no, even the FDL with its slightly off center pilot seat does my head in. It's the reason I can't fly it.

Even just thinking about it makes my skin crawl. OCD much? maybe!

I can live with asymetry. I don't mind the Cobra or Python cockpits. Everything about where you sit in an FDL just sucks, no "OCD" about it. It just looks needlessly awkward, metal bar in the way, depth perception that's just "off", everything else is nice and streamlined, making your seat a glaring error of design. The way it looks just makes my stomach hurt. It's usable and capable but there's the constant irritation of "this isn't right". Maybe it's an intended nerf.

 

[CMDR Pugwash]

It's an Ellte thing. The original Elite was written to ruin in 32k of memory and the symmetric design was a clever way to reduce the amount of code required to generate the ship. Essentially your ship is one half mirrored with some stuff stuck on.

Should it stay that way? Well, I like it that Elite's heritage is still visible in the modern game.

I vote maybe.



Edit : David Braben and Ian Bell really are geniuses. When you think of the coding they achieved it makes my head hurt.

 

[bubbabenali]

I can live with asymetry. I don't mind the Cobra or Python cockpits. Everything about where you sit in an FDL just sucks, no "OCD" about it. It just looks needlessly awkward, metal bar in the way, depth perception that's just "off", everything else is nice and streamlined, making your seat a glaring error of design. The way it looks just makes my stomach hurt. It's usable and capable but there's the constant irritation of "this isn't right". Maybe it's an intended nerf.

Indeed, feels kinda strange for a 100% combat ship.
What's even stranger is that all HUD elements are configured as if you still at the center of the ship.

 

[Bran Tse Mallory]

Why not?

As long
a) the center of mass
b) the thrusters and
c) the cockpit
all lie on one line.

You definitely don't want your ship to swing and your cockpit make different circles when turning left or right - or circles at all!

Then why do we not see conventional aircraft being built this way? I know it's been done though but there has never been a design that has been used in large numbers outside of the military as far as I know.

I will explain, when manufacturing it is cheaper to make symmetrical parts in most cases plus the design is far easier to make aerodynamic and therefore fuel efficient. Lets also not forget the human element - did you know we are predisposed to trust people with symmetrical features? Apparently we do, that's why I can fully understand Agonies stance on this topic.

 

[Shaamaan]

Would I like to see some asymmetrical ships? Yes.

Do I need them? No.

Honestly, FD have a style in which they create ships, and if they want to stick to it it's OK. Again, I wouldn't mind a new ship manufacturer ("Scrapyard Inc." ) which creates asymmetrical ships, but that'd be a really low priority thing, really.

 

[Apos]

Designing an asymmetric vessel is a major feat in terms of physics knowledge.

And a major fail in terms of engineering application of that knowledge. Because you have just created something that might be just as functional in its pristine form, but behaves much worse when problems arise. And problems will arise due to the natural state of things that everything will deteriorate. And on top of that, it's also very likely to be more expensive to produce as well.

Being fancy costs, both financially and functionally. I'd be all for people getting their asymmetrical ships if they don't come here complaining "Why does this cost so many more credits than the Cobra and still can't even compete with it?"

 

[[VR] Deggial]

Bran, I don't disagree with you.

However, we are talking on two different levels:
You (rightfully) adduce financial and psychological arguments.
I was writing about physics and physiology.

Both argumentations are not mutual exclusive.

 

[Snarfbuckle]

Assymetrical ships could work, at least when it comes to cockpit position but not vertical ships.

It would be rather easy to move thruster placements to handle the mass distribution. And it would only be slightly different than having a cockpit on top of a ship or very low as to having it on one side of the ship.

 

[veryinky]

I'd be all for people getting their asymmetrical ships if they don't come here complaining

I'd be all for complaints about asymmetrical ships if they weren't just thinly veiled "in my opinion I hate them", there's just opinions in what you wrote, no facts.

At best one could argue they'd require the thrust vectoring to be aimed through the center of mass. But then the same can be said of symmetrical craft and nobody complains about the Anaconda's thrust not lining up with it's center of mass. There are only two ships in the entire game that shouldn't be completely disabled if they lose one of their primary thrusters, the Imperial Cutter and Asp Scout, both have one main thruster right in line with their center of mass.

As an aside, most real world spacecraft are asymmetrical because it's cheaper and lighter to use only 1 of something instead of trying to create USELESS symmetry. Simply align the thrust so it goes through the center of mass. You don't slap on a second RTG or magnetic boom or dish or radiator just because so the ship "looks pretty". No. Real engineers want it to be as light and as cheap as possible. And that means asymmetry because spaceships don't need to deal with atmospheric drag. Try it if you have access to kerbal space program.

 

[Apos]

I'd be all for complaints about asymmetrical ships if they weren't just thinly veiled "in my opinion I hate them", there's just opinions in what you wrote, no facts.

At best one could argue they'd require the thrust vectoring to be aimed through the center of mass. But then the same can be said of symmetrical craft and nobody complains about the Anaconda's thrust not lining up with it's center of mass. There are only two ships in the entire game that shouldn't be completely disabled if they lose one of their primary thrusters, the Imperial Cutter and Asp Scout, both have one main thruster right in line with their center of mass.

As an aside, most real world spacecraft are asymmetrical because it's cheaper and lighter to use only 1 of something instead of trying to create symmetry. Simply align the thrust so it goes through the center of mass. Try it if you have access to kerbal space program.
http://i.imgur.com/tKGA70y.jpg

Probes don't fly all the way to space on their own.

Our ships are supposed to come down to the atmosphere later on as well.

Also, how can you claim that the Anaconda does not has its force of thrust in its centre of mass when you don't know how that mass is distributed? That's silly, we don't have the details.

Also, symmetric doesn't mean that the thrusters are dead on in the middle or only have 1 truster. By your logic, the F-22 is impractical because if 1 thruster fails it's screwed?

For someone who accused someone of providing opinions instead of facts, you sure had some definitions convoluted as hell.

 

[cptdavep]

Maybe Alliance ships could be asymmetrical, would be a cool way of making them feel different from the Feds/Empire.

 

[Robert Maynard]

No. Real engineers want it to be as light and as cheap as possible. And that means asymmetry because spaceships don't need to deal with atmospheric drag. Try it if you have access to kerbal space program.

Real engineers want to design it to satisfy the performance specification - which does not necessarily mean that it would be either light or cheap.

While unmanned deep space probes that barely use their engines (in comparison to the lifetime of the craft) and do not require to land (much less enter an atmosphere) may benefit from the minimalist approach, manned craft that are required to land, are powered for most of their lifetime and are required to provide a habitable environment for the pilot and crew cannot necessarily adopt the same approach.

 

[Scruffman]

Maybe Alliance ships could be asymmetrical, would be a cool way of making them feel different from the Feds/Empire.

That'd be neat. AFAIK the Alliance don't have dedicated ship manufacturers, so it would make sense for their ships to have a rugged, slapped-together kind of aesthetic as if they just jury-rigged a bunch of scrap together to make a ship. This could also tie into the lore of (what I believe) Elite: Dangerous is heading towards as the appearance of a "big bad" could spur the Alliance into making a fleet for themselves to help fend it off.

Or the Thargoid ships could be asymmetrical. Why would they need to conform to human safety standards?

 

[PiLhEaD]

Yes to more ships. Pretty please.

Yes to more ships larger than an Asp but smaller than an Anaconda. Aka in the Python bracket.

Yes to ships with clearly defined roles, at which they excel, with clear distinctions to other ship types e.g. liners should have great range (and huge fuel tanks), very good speed and dreadful handling. Small haulers should be as tough as old boots, slow and ungainly, with one or two unusually big internal slots and only a couple of tiny ones... and so on...

Asymmetric ships? I couldn't care less either way, and only if they are functional and make sense.

 

[Bran Tse Mallory]

Bran, I don't disagree with you.

However, we are talking on two different levels:
You (rightfully) adduce financial and psychological arguments.
I was writing about physics and physiology.

Both argumentations are not mutual exclusive.

And as I said they have been made and flown at various points in the last 100 years or so however non of the designs has ever found commercial success. I think the reasons for this are all or at least part of those we have discussed.

If we look at Elite and it's 30 year history the ships are symmetrical (as far as I know there are no asymmetrical ships in any of the previous games). When you start making the sequel to a game/film/TV show there is an expectation from the fans that it will follow the ethos of the previous release. Granted back in '84 Braben and Bell were constrained by the abilities of the BBC but in later years that could of been changed however it was not. In just the same way that we expect to see X-Wings in star wars many of us expect to see symmetrical ships in Elite just for continuity of the franchise and the ethos created around it.

 

[Apos]

That'd be neat. AFAIK the Alliance don't have dedicated ship manufacturers, so it would make sense for their ships to have a rugged, slapped-together kind of aesthetic as if they just jury-rigged a bunch of scrap together to make a ship. This could also tie into the lore of (what I believe) Elite: Dangerous is heading towards as the appearance of a "big bad" could spur the Alliance into making a fleet for themselves to help fend it off.

Or the Thargoid ships could be asymmetrical. Why would they need to conform to human safety standards?

Dedicated and governmentally sponsored manufacturers like Core Dynamics and Gutamaya, no. But they are supposed to have the best shipyards in the Galaxy in Alioth. I don't think "best" refers to "worst designs". Faulcon Delacy also operates within Alliance territory.

The Alliance is no longer a force of rebels. No jury rigging.

 

[veryinky]

Also, how can you claim that the Anaconda does not has its force of thrust in its centre of mass when you don't know how that mass is distributed? That's silly, we don't have the details.

We do know exactly where every component is placed on the Anaconda. Try using the sub-target menu (it's on the console to your left) next time you're fighting a ship. All of the anaconda's heavy components are above the line of thrust.

Also, symmetric doesn't mean that the thrusters are dead on in the middle or only have 1 truster. By your logic, the F-22 is impractical because if 1 thruster fails it's screwed?

No, that's not even close to what I wrote. I wrote that the ships in Elite Dangerous would be screwed if they lost a thruster. That you would try to apply Elite Dangerous' design flaws to real world airplanes, without even bothering to consider what is involved, is your "logic", not mine. No. I do not consider the F-22 to be asymmetric. That doesn't even make sense.

Please avoid using strawman arguments; "you think this stupid thing ha ha your argument is stupid" to other people.

 

[Scruffman]

In just the same way that we expect to see X-Wings in star wars many of us expect to see symmetrical ships in Elite just for continuity of the franchise.

But in each new iteration of Star Wars, we've been introduced to new ships.

One of which flies in a asymmetrical manner when it enters its' combat mode.

 

[Apos]

We do know exactly where every component is placed on the Anaconda. Try using the sub-target menu (it's on the console to your left) next time you're fighting a ship. All of the anaconda's heavy components are above the line of thrust.


No, that's not even close to what I wrote. I wrote that the ships in Elite Dangerous would be screwed if they lost a thruster. That you would try to apply Elite Dangerous' design flaws to real world airplanes, without even bothering to consider what is involved, is your "logic", not mine. No. I do not consider the F-22 to be asymmetric. That doesn't even make sense.

Please avoid using strawman arguments; "you think this stupid thing ha ha your argument is stupid" to other people.

Then that means that the majority of the rest of the ship is at the bottom. Since the hull itself weights 400T and all the heavy components double that, it seems quite well balanced out. If we assume those 400T to include crucial electronics then they could balance it out at the bottom.

Also, the thrusters themselves do have mass, as you might well know.

And yes, they would be screwed if they lost a thruster. It would also be easier to counter such a problem than when compared to an asymmetrical vessel. Ships have side thrusters as well. Those would go crazy calculating the counter forces on an asymmetrical vessel, whereas a symmetrical you need a steady force to counter-balance the damage.