Docking Clamps!

[Ithirahad]

isn't that why they designed the server.cfg so you could turn off docking requirements? so, if you wanted to use 1 block you can ,no matter the size of the ship? I must say though, a docking magnet/clamp type block does sound pretty interesting.

...The docking requirement option is not only non-universal, but it allows for clipping, and doesn't resolve the 1/2 block gap issue.

 

[mrsinister]

...The docking requirement option is not only non-universal, but it allows for clipping, and doesn't resolve the 1/2 block gap issue.

right, but aside from the gap isn't saying "make docking clamps" a bit moot? since we already have a form of that? and wouldnt the clamp need a gap as well? then we'd be back full circle again. don't get me wrong, I like the idea of clamps, its pretty damn kool, it's just you have to think of how they would accomplish the task. And so far what they have shown is a gap form of docking and turret creation, which is pretty much the same thing but you get to rotate. Give us docking clamps and they would put the gap in there as well, since the game structure is anything that can detach will have a gap, otherwise its part of the main ship and cant be detached.... ya?

 

[Ithirahad]

right, but aside from the gap isn't saying "make docking clamps" a bit moot? since we already have a form of that? and wouldnt the clamp need a gap as well? then we'd be back full circle again. don't get me wrong, I like the idea of clamps, its pretty damn kool, it's just you have to think of how they would accomplish the task. And so far what they have shown is a gap form of docking and turret creation, which is pretty much the same thing but you get to rotate. Give us docking clamps and they would put the gap in there as well, since the game structure is anything that can detach will have a gap, otherwise its part of the main ship and cant be detached.... ya?

One, I don't think either one needs a gap, and two, it would prevent clipping into other objects (Which current unlimited docking doesn't do; you can accidentally get ships stuck in things by docking them where they can't fit) without imposing a stupid and, well, limiting artificial limit like the boxdims and enhancers of the current system.

 

[mrsinister]

One, I don't think either one needs a gap, and two, it would prevent clipping into other objects (Which current unlimited docking doesn't do; you can accidentally get ships stuck in things by docking them where they can't fit) without imposing a stupid and, well, limiting artificial limit like the boxdims and enhancers of the current system.

right, and also, I know it doesn't need a gap, but the game seems engineered to have one, otherwise it wouldn't detach cause it would think it's "glued" together. Also, not to be an arse, but "you can accidentally get ships stuck in things by docking them where they can't fit" this would be whoever designed that area's fault and the person trying to dock there, a little common sense goes a long way.
again, I mean no disrespect or flame, it's just a pilot should know if he will be able to fit, and the person who made it should put a label or something near it /or built it with a large ship in mind.
On my stations I have areas designated for small ,medium ,large ,and just a bow with a dock block on the end away from everything else and at a different direction just in case a huge ship comes along. There is that case though, even though I have done that, it will still get stuck or clip. There are only 2 titans on my server and they dont bother docking, instead they park close and take a shuttle over.

 

[Ithirahad]

right, and also, I know it doesn't need a gap, but the game seems engineered to have one, otherwise it wouldn't detach cause it would think it's "glued" together.

Nope. Even if their locations put their furthest blocks adjacent to one another, they're still separate entities, separate grids of blocks. The one thing that COULD happen is physics lag due to constantly-colliding entities, but that isn't that hard to fix, and judging from turret behavior (ability to clip through their mother entity), I think that that's already been resolved.

Also, not to be an arse, but "you can accidentally get ships stuck in things by docking them where they can't fit" this would be whoever designed that area's fault and the person trying to dock there, a little common sense goes a long way.
again, I mean no disrespect or flame, it's just a pilot should know if he will be able to fit, and the person who made it should put a label or something near it /or built it with a large ship in mind.

Again, nope. People sometimes make 'universal' docks for things other than their own designated ships, and sometimes it isn't that obvious that that one little front spire on your transport ship is going to clip into the wall and create issues when you try to undock.

On my stations I have areas designated for small ,medium ,large ,and just a bow with a dock block on the end away from everything else and at a different direction just in case a huge ship comes along. There is that case though, even though I have done that, it will still get stuck or clip. There are only 2 titans on my server and they dont bother docking, instead they park close and take a shuttle over.

Yeah, that's decent... But wouldn't it be better to just be able to fly over to the side of the station and connect to a docking tube?

 

[mrsinister]

Nope. Even if their locations put their furthest blocks adjacent to one another, they're still separate entities, separate grids of blocks. The one thing that COULD happen is physics lag due to constantly-colliding entities, but that isn't that hard to fix, and judging from turret behavior (ability to clip through their mother entity), I think that that's already been resolved.

Again, nope. People sometimes make 'universal' docks for things other than their own designated ships, and sometimes it isn't that obvious that that one little front spire on your transport ship is going to clip into the wall and create issues when you try to undock.

Yeah, that's decent... But wouldn't it be better to just be able to fly over to the side of the station and connect to a docking tube?

Still, lets not detract from the pilot knowing his ship. and yeah it would be quite awesome to dock to a tube. I am all for that. And yeah, I really do apologize for my other comment, it's just I fly a lot and drive a lot....and it's driver / pilot responsibility to know his craft, plus you can hold left shift scroll out, then hold in right shift and look around the outside of your ship. lol either way, that's why you make shuttles! so you can dock at a station. But I can see your point, but saying nope to mine isnt quite justified, I try and give as much forethought into a build as much as I can, so you can't really rule out either pilot or designer. a good rule of thumb could be 10 - 200 ,then 200 - 500 ,etc ,you get my meaning and every pilot should know his dimensions of the ship he is flying and where his core is located. And I do make universal ones. I usually have 2 or 3 bays of each with the dock at the front 1/4 ,the mid and the last 1/4, sooo.... depending on where your core is located you should know which one you will fit in.

 

[Lecic]

isn't that why they designed the server.cfg so you could turn off docking requirements? so, if you wanted to use 1 block you can ,no matter the size of the ship? I must say though, a docking magnet/clamp type block does sound pretty interesting.

There's a lot of issues with that, though, like it being centered over the core, for example.

 

[Ithirahad]

There's a lot of issues with that, though, like it being centered over the core, for example.

Oh, yeah, and there's that too... Plus, shooting a beam and suddenly teleporting into place looks really silly.

 

[lio_oVo_oil]

I agree with Ithirahad. Magnets! But to do this, have a boolean value for each side of the blocks, and if it finds another clamp within a 1-2 block range that is not on the same ship, then it connects, assuming the angle is not too irregular, and the speeds are not too high. Each clamp could have a "strength" sort of value, enabling the clamp to read the value of the mass of the object it is connecting to, comparing it to the strength value, and determining whether or not the link is strong enough to hold.

 

[psteiner]

Great Idea, but what if its a mistake, how about that only happens when the "docking button" is pressed.

 

[Jonj57]

This is would be sooooo much better than the current system. As it stands now the current system is very limited and really doesn't work effectively for bigger ships or for docking hubs. Sure you can make a large docking space that can fit anything, but what if just a shuttle is sitting there? You're wasting a capital ship size of space on a shuttle when clamps could easily allow tons of shuttles, fighters, etc to fit there.

 

[mrsinister]

Plus, shooting a beam and suddenly teleporting into place looks really silly.

yeah that is a bit silly, i must admit.

 

[Ithirahad]

Great Idea, but what if its a mistake, how about that only happens when the "docking button" is pressed.

If you mistakenly don't activate the switch to deactivate your docking clamps and somehow also mistakenly bump into someone else's docking clamps with your docking clamps, then it isn't that hard to just hit "undock."

 

[jayman38]

Great Idea, but what if its a mistake, how about that only happens when the "docking button" is pressed.

What if it isn't a mistake? What if an enemy ship latches on, the shields between the two ships sync up so that there is no shield in between them, and the enemy cuts its way in? Boarding Partay! Woohooo! :D

 

[Ithirahad]

What if it isn't a mistake? What if an enemy ship latches on, the shields between the two ships sync up so that there is no shield in between them, and the enemy cuts its way in? Boarding Partay! Woohooo! :D

Not likely. Shields should remain up between ships, even when docked. Besides, this kind of scenario is more of a result of an unusual oversight than a common event. Remember, when you undock from something it automatically would retract your attached docking clamp(s).

 

[Proxima_Centauri]

I've seen this idea mentioned a couple places, but not really expounded upon. So...
1) Asymmetric ships!
2) Titans docking with each other!
3) Easy to access, easy to launch escape pods!
4) Large ships docking at smallish stations!
5) No more dumb-looking docking beams!
6) And so much more!

Most if not all of these things can be accomplished with a bit of planning and good building.

 

[Ithirahad]

Most if not all of these things can be accomplished with a bit of planning and good building.

No, actually only two of them... Asymmetric ships, and easy-to-use escape pods, but even those would be better with point-to-point docking...

Literally speaking, most of the others are possible, but not without rendering themselves pointless. Sure, you can dock two titans, but they have to be specially designed to dock with one another, and you'll need one to have a docking block randomly floating some distance from the main ship. Normally, the point of "docking two titans" would be so that people could dock to each other's ships without too much modification and be able to walk between them. Likewise, a 'small' station could dock a large ship, but it would have a big mast of docking enhancers sticking out of it, and again, they would both have to be specially designed if you wanted to be able to freely travel between them without having to fly through space. (Even then, the half-block gap would make things awkward.)

 

[lio_oVo_oil]

I'm all about having settings for the majority of things, so server settings for mass or volume limitations for "magnetic clamps" would save server/computer resources by not being hindered with large amounts of strength/mass/volume/clamp count/placement/orientation correction types of processes that would, today, eat away at your very soul (and most likely your CPU as well).

The only issue that I see thus far, is that any sort of "magnetic" connection would require that the orientation of the "parasitic" ship would be altered constantly to match its original orientation with the "host" ship. I suppose making them one entity rather than two bundled together would be somewhat less resource intensive, and simply having some ship ID value (like how each ship has a unique name/ID on a server), and dividing the new entity into two masses when a ship detaches, or the connection is too "weak" (like the host ship was attacked and a few "clamps" were destroyed or damaged) to have the two masses stay adjoined.

I find this plausible, but more than likely it won't be implemented in the way that I've described above.

 

[Lecic]

I'm all about having settings for the majority of things, so server settings for mass or volume limitations for "magnetic clamps" would save server/computer resources by not being hindered with large amounts of strength/mass/volume/clamp count/placement/orientation correction types of processes that would, today, eat away at your very soul (and most likely your CPU as well).

The only issue that I see thus far, is that any sort of "magnetic" connection would require that the orientation of the "parasitic" ship would be altered constantly to match its original orientation with the "host" ship. I suppose making them one entity rather than two bundled together would be somewhat less resource intensive, and simply having some ship ID value (like how each ship has a unique name/ID on a server), and dividing the new entity into two masses when a ship detaches, or the connection is too "weak" (like the host ship was attacked and a few "clamps" were destroyed or damaged) to have the two masses stay adjoined.

I find this plausible, but more than likely it won't be implemented in the way that I've described above.

How does docking currently work?

 

[Megacrafter127]

How does docking currently work?

The entities are still separate, however the location and orientation of the docked entity isn't "absolute" anymore, but instead relative to the "mother"-entity. The translation-values are constant, or at least not affected by movements of the "mother"-entity.
(I haven't had a look at the code, however this is likely the way it currently is)