More intelligent navigation

[ffutures]

Basically, the current implementation of fewest number of jumps versus fastest possible route needs a little tweaking - quite often a route that's only a tiny bit faster gets selected, even if it's going to require a couple of extra fuel stops. I've come across one case where the direct route was two jumps without refuelling necessary for a total of 35 hours - the route suggested went around a circle of ten or twelve smaller jumps including several anarchies, would have needed two refuelling stops, and saved a massive 45 minutes - if you ignore the time needed to fly into the system and refuel, no misjumps, no time spent fighting, etc.

What's needed, I think, is some sort of hybrid mode that gives you the fastest route up to a point, but has a slight bias against adding too many extra jumps. Say it only adds an extra jump if it saves more than a given percentage of the estimated journey time.

Any chance?

[Cody]

I often tweak a route as I go, occasionly trading time for fewer jumps - and in-role, hoping to outwit the assassins by so doing.

[ffutures]

So do I, but you lose a little of the simplicity the route planner should give you.

[Layne]

I actually like having to adjust your route on-the-fly, rather than just plunking down one long route and leaving it. I find I often miss opportunities if I don't stop every system to look at the chart and see what's nearby, not just what's on my programmed route. I suddenly notice, 'hey, there's a system with an RRS station less than 2 ly away, I can pop in and see about a mission', or 'there's a casino in that system, maybe I deserve to take a break and kick back with some games'. Obviously those are all OXP dependent, but you get my meaning, anyhow. If I just let the computer run a pre-programmed route I tend to have fewer chances to see what there is to do in my vicinity.

[Diziet Sma]

Basically, the current implementation of fewest number of jumps versus fastest possible route needs a little tweaking - quite often a route that's only a tiny bit faster gets selected, even if it's going to require a couple of extra fuel stops. I've come across one case where the direct route was two jumps without refuelling necessary for a total of 35 hours - the route suggested went around a circle of ten or twelve smaller jumps including several anarchies, would have needed two refuelling stops, and saved a massive 45 minutes - if you ignore the time needed to fly into the system and refuel, no misjumps, no time spent fighting, etc.

Like Layne, I tend to adjust my route on-the-fly.. It only takes a second to eyeball the route and decide, "no, I don't want to visit those particular systems.. I think I'll take a detour via Xxxx when I get to that point."

[Cody]

I tend to adjust my route on-the-fly.. It only takes a second to eyeball the route and decide, "no, I don't want to visit those particular systems.. I think I'll take a detour via Xxxx when I get to that point."

<nods> Aye!

[immersion mode] 'Assasins will likely be waiting in that system, so I'll go the shorter way, and trade minutes for fuel.' [/immersion mode]

I've always loved charts, of any sort, anyway - and tinkering with a planned route is cool.

[ffutures]

While I generally do that, it's a pain in the arse to remember when you need to switch from maximum speed to minimum number of jumps, or vice versa, and once you've started on the wrong route it's sometimes difficult to get on a more useful route without losing time.

Maybe what this really needs is the equivalent of satnav waypoints - a way to set a journey from A to B via C, D, E, F etc. Most of these problems wouldn't occur if you could do that.

[Diziet Sma]

Maybe what this really needs is the equivalent of satnav waypoints - a way to set a journey from A to B via C, D, E, F etc. Most of these problems wouldn't occur if you could do that.

I'll back this idea.. I've requested before that we be able to set waypoints on the chart.