Page 3 of 5
Re: Oolite scales (no, honest, read it!)
Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 3:47 am
by CommonSenseOTB
Selezen wrote:Smugglers or the like would, in a "mutable" environment, probably use a lot of the free space for cargo too. In my design there's a doorway between the cargo area and the cockpit. Unscrupulous pilots might widen that doorway and fit cargo canisters into the main living area too. The back wall of the cargo bay could be taken down and the extra space behind it used for cargo (and this is how NPC Adders can fit 5 TCs in their ships).
I'll go one step further. Using scripted cargo, perhaps like from Svengali's oxp currently in development, the adder as a smuggler's ship could be given purpose even without being able to haul officially sanctioned cargo packed in standard cargo containers. Perhaps these scripted cargoes would be bought for a song on the surface of one planet and have only one(or a few) place(s) that will buy it for a huge profit. The fun of these "missions" once generated by buying the cargo, is to not get caught and run around blockades of police and make it to the planet's surface. Then to complete the mission successfully without an instant jump to fugitive you must get a certain distance from the planet and hyper out before they can scan your ship. Having a clean rating will almost be a necessity to even make it through the police blockade and cleaning your record before the next Kessel run could be made interesting as well. The smugglers career choice may now be well on the way to being a reality using scripted cargo and the listed 2 TC cargo capacity for the adder would only be for "official" cargo containers, keeping the ship "legal" to use in GalCop's eyes, whilst all along, Outworld Workshops designed the adder for smuggling. <wink, wink...nudge, nudge....say no more, say no more>
Re: Oolite scales (no, honest, read it!)
Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 1:36 pm
by Micha
Selezen wrote:It has to be borne in mind that these ships are generally a "commander's" home, where they are going to spend 90% of their time.
I personally think that that may certainly be true for some of the ships (eg, FDL, Cobra3, definitely the bigger freighters) but almost as certainly not for others (Krait, Adder, Mamba, and the other small craft which are primarily fighter support). Differences between short-haul/long-haul freighters and/or purpose-built support craft. Also keep in mind most planet-hops are short-time (a few days at most), not weeks or months, so I think the comparison with long haul truckers is more appropriate than ocean shipping.
Everybody has their own interpretations - and why not?
Re: Oolite scales (no, honest, read it!)
Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 2:05 pm
by ClymAngus
Ok bit of an aside but one which I've never really gotten my head round. Why 5 sided cargo pods? They are horrible for stacking and waste a huge amount of space. I realise that changing the design is out of the question, but why not hexagonal or square?
Like I said bit of an aside but yeah. Anyway this is an interesting discussion. Is there any way to say break down the essential inter related elements of the entire size thing? Say wiki it and see if we can get an actual look at the "sponginess" of the problem.
(My physics teacher at school liked the term "spongy problem" in relation to the relative effects that result from a localised cause. Meaning "push it here; it pops up over there and there.")
Re: Oolite scales (no, honest, read it!)
Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 2:11 pm
by DaddyHoggy
Erm, cargo pods ARE 6-sided! I don't know why Selezen drew a 5-side one - a moment of madness perhaps?
http://wiki.alioth.net/index.php/Cargo_ ... 8Oolite%29
Re: Oolite scales (no, honest, read it!)
Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 2:20 pm
by Zieman
Nope, (IIRC) the original ELITE ones were 5-sided, and so ar vanilla Oolite ones.
I just checked the
barrel.dat BTW:
Re: Oolite scales (no, honest, read it!)
Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 2:37 pm
by Cody
I notice in the Elite manual that the capacity of a cargo pod is said to be one Gal Tonne.
Re: Oolite scales (no, honest, read it!)
Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 2:42 pm
by DaddyHoggy
Zieman wrote:
Nope, (IIRC) the original ELITE ones were 5-sided, and so ar vanilla Oolite ones.
I just checked the
barrel.dat BTW:
Obviously been a while since I played with normal pods (actually it's been a while since I played full stop!)
Re: Oolite scales (no, honest, read it!)
Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 4:01 pm
by Selezen
What exactly are the "interrelated elements of the whole size thing"?
Ship size is one thing, and the only thing I'm really addressing with this "thesis". It ties in closely with cargo pod size, escape pod size and relative size of ships to each other. It also ties in with space station size. Planet size and relative distances between planet and star is a totally different "scale" issue and one that is up to people far more versed in astrophysics than I am to address.
Pentagonal sections are not great for stacking, I agree. They are, however, more stable than hexagons and less inclined to "roll" than hexagonal boxes. The best shape for stacking is still the cuboid though. Hexagonal stacking has its own problems, especially when it's possible that a hexagon stacked on top of two other hexagons will exert pressure and force in the diagonal rather than the vertical.
In an artificial gravity environment, that pressure would "force" the containers apart, and any bumping and jostling (like in combat) would eventually push them apart of there was any space to each side. Unless they're stacked vertically...
It makes me wonder what the actual designed method (the Galactic Standard, if you like) is for the storage and transportation of cargo in Tonne Canisters. They're obviously not designed for stacking. Are they designed to be laid on one long edge (as in the Adder plans) and opened like a chest? Are they designed to be transported and stored standing on the pentagonal face? How are the items inside kept from moving around inside the container? All this has an effect on how cargo bays are designed on the ships that are meant to be carrying them, and that has a big knock-on effect on the size of that cargo bay (especially when considering how to get the cargo pods in and out).
DaddyHoggy: I love the fact that your link goes to a page that shows a picture of a five-sided cargo container...
I have to be honest, until I started playing Oolite I was convinced that the container was six sided too - I think it came from the Amiga version.
Re: Oolite scales (no, honest, read it!)
Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 5:00 pm
by DaddyHoggy
In my defence - some of the images in that link are of six sided pods... (And I also played the Amiga version at least as much as my C64 version)
Re: Oolite scales (no, honest, read it!)
Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 5:17 pm
by ClymAngus
Selezen wrote:What exactly are the "interrelated elements of the whole size thing"?
Ship size is one thing, and the only thing I'm really addressing with this "thesis". It ties in closely with cargo pod size, escape pod size and relative size of ships to each other. It also ties in with space station size. Planet size and relative distances between planet and star is a totally different "scale" issue and one that is up to people far more versed in astrophysics than I am to address.
well; ship size, planet size, orbit size, station size, speed. If you'll pardon the dumb saying ship size doesn't occur in a vacuum, ship size goes up, stations get smaller, planets get smaller and the 1001 associated problems that go along with it. I'm not saying we are ever going to have a Einstein moment over this (as we play in a world where standard models of physics appear not to apply).
Also it might help stop this kind of thing popping up, if there is one arena that contains the ongoing fight for scale. Meh, just a suggestion. All the brain nuggets can't be golden, the odd lead one slips out too.
Re: Oolite scales (no, honest, read it!)
Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 5:55 pm
by Thargoid
Selezen wrote:Pentagonal sections are not great for stacking, I agree. They are, however, more stable than hexagons and less inclined to "roll" than hexagonal boxes. The best shape for stacking is still the cuboid though. Hexagonal stacking has its own problems, especially when it's possible that a hexagon stacked on top of two other hexagons will exert pressure and force in the diagonal rather than the vertical.
Which you'll also get if you try and stack pentagonal ones as well, with the added issue that there will be the gap between them so that the top one (the second layer) will also rock and would in reality exert even more pressure on the lower layer as it'll bash into it.
Re: Oolite scales (no, honest, read it!)
Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 6:38 pm
by ClymAngus
You'd probably need some sort of maglock system. (remember to properly shield your computer equipment!).
Re: Oolite scales (no, honest, read it!)
Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 7:33 pm
by CommonSenseOTB
The original hexagonal cargo container.
Hexagonal Cargo Container by
CommonSenseOTB, on Flickr
Re: Oolite scales (no, honest, read it!)
Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 7:52 pm
by Zieman
Ah, the Anaconda cargo hold ("artist's impression") from ELITE manual.
Here's another shot (game screen) 2 couple of pages later:
Re: Oolite scales (no, honest, read it!)
Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 10:48 pm
by Selezen
Thargoid wrote:Which you'll also get if you try and stack pentagonal ones as well, with the added issue that there will be the gap between them so that the top one (the second layer) will also rock and would in reality exert even more pressure on the lower layer as it'll bash into it.
I wouldn't recommend stacking pentagons. The Anaconda picture is the mental image I have of most larger ship cargo bays - a big space with the canisters mounted in separate "slots" on the walls or floor. there would be a floor space with a certain amount of canisters on it but others could be hoisted to the roof or walls as necessary. The "pentagon" shape wouldn't allow containers to be stacked on top of other containers. There would need to be a sizeable space in the bay for the equivalent of a pallet lifter or fork lift to be able to move the canisters into and out of the docking bay.
i envision the canisters being secured either by magnetism or by gravity - since ships are depicted as having artificial gravity systems, it could well be possible to theorise a localised alteration to the gravitational forces to keep them in place. Electromagnetism is probably more energy efficient though.
Incidentally, I broke Wings3D trying to build a route from cargo scoop egress to cargo bay.
i had to rebuild the entire internal wall structure of the model. I'm now using separate wall sections in case it happens again.
