Multiple simultaneous docking points

[GRHayes]

I was working on a ship today. I had to modules side beside one another. Well just call them left and right for now. The left module docked on its own pushing the right module into nearly perfect docking position but not just quite. The module seemed to be dangling on the docking area because of how I made it a tight fit.
So it sat their vibrating not really moving to any great extent. I could only tell it wasn't docked by the rear of the module was not even with the other module being the same size.

The other hint something was wrong was extreme lag from high CPU demand and frame rate dropped to 2 fps.

This would be a night mare for everyone in a battle on a server if 1 ship had a docking module come loose like this. It would only get worse if multiple ships with modules or more than one module ended up loose like that.

So I propose allowing multiple docking points to work simultaneously. It would only take the first or one to create initial docking and alignment once in place the rest would auto dock as needed.

This would help in other areas making them smoother as well such as cargo module drop offs.

 

[Exozen]

Yasss, I never realized how much I want this.

 

[alterintel]

I totally agree. Redundant dock points would be the solution to so many problems in battle as well.
having docked entities dependent on one single point of failure is not an ideal situation.

I am curious about how this would effect future planned feature of entity to entity docker transfers though.
I would imagine when an unused docker gets close to another rail, it would undock from it's existing docking point and switch to the new docking point. However in your scenario above this might create an infinite loop of docking and undocking. Either way it would have to be handled in some fashion.

 

[GRHayes]

I totally agree. Redundant dock points would be the solution to so many problems in battle as well.
having docked entities dependent on one single point of failure is not an ideal situation.

I am curious about how this would effect future planned feature of entity to entity docker transfers though.
I would imagine when an unused docker gets close to another rail, it would undock from it's existing docking point and switch to the new docking point. However in your scenario above this might create an infinite loop of docking and undocking. Either way it would have to be handled in some fashion.

They could create docking groups so they get treated as one. Then require the group to be docked to the same object. That way it also would only take one button to undock all at once but you would have to destroy them all in combat.

Now I already have a cargo docking system I posted. This wouldn't make any difference to it.

 

[NeonSturm]

They could create docking groups so they get treated as one. Then require the group to be docked to the same object. That way it also would only take one button to undock all at once but you would have to destroy them all in combat.

Now I already have a cargo docking system I posted. This wouldn't make any difference to it.

Did you think about movement on rails?
One: go left
Two: go right
Result: undecided!

Or having multiple rails in the same direction with speed enhancers - do they accumulate enhancement? 200% +, * 200% = 300%, 400%?

 

[GRHayes]

Did you think about movement on rails?
One: go left
Two: go right
Result: undecided!

Or having multiple rails in the same direction with speed enhancers - do they accumulate enhancement? 200% +, * 200% = 300%, 400%?

I would hope the person who is building a system realizes that multiple docking points on rails would require rails that go in the same direction.
After all you would have to be a complete moron to have cranes track left side go north and the right side track going south for example and what would the crane do well two equal force means it would stay still or jump around like the physics in this game dictates currently.

It would still be one object docked and speed enhancers work on the object not the number of contact points. Weight enhancers do the same because it is the weight of the single object that makes the difference vs the number of them.

 

[jayman38]

Rail "disagreement" is easy, even in a well-planned environment, so hierarchy is required. Basically, the rail-connected entity needs to follow the first rail only. Then when that first rail becomes unavailable, the control switches to rail 2, and so on down the hierarchy. Normally, you'll only have 2 equal rails. However, because unexpected things like damage to speed controllers or mass enhancers can upset the most carefully planned setup, the entity needs to follow exactly one rail at a time, with additional rails set up as backup.

 

[BDLS]

OP, I don't really understand. Doesn't the new touch docking allow multiple docking points for whatever you're doing?

I did a test when the previous update released. 6 spaced away single rail blocks, and 6 matching rail dockers on the modular unit. I flew the unit over the rails portion, and lowered it down so magnetic docking activated. I shot out 5 of the 6 rails and it stayed docked.

Couldn't you have the rail blocks turn sideways when each module reached a certain section so they stop traveling?

You got a pic or vid of what you're doing?

 

[GRHayes]

OP, I don't really understand. Doesn't the new touch docking allow multiple docking points for whatever you're doing?

I did a test when the previous update released. 6 spaced away single rail blocks, and 6 matching rail dockers on the modular unit. I flew the unit over the rails portion, and lowered it down so magnetic docking activated. I shot out 5 of the 6 rails and it stayed docked.

Couldn't you have the rail blocks turn sideways when each module reached a certain section so they stop traveling?

You got a pic or vid of what you're doing?

NO it doesn't.
The basic idea of what I am looking for is below. Imagine you want to dock a module in your ship and you don't want your enemy able to shoot one point and end your ability to use that module nor do you want the massive loss of frame rate.
If you look in the image both module are on rails however the only one at all docked is the right one the one you shoot the docking beam from. If you contact dock it will be the first module that touches down or gets a lock which ever that is.
contact docking isn't instant so when the right one gets shot out the module or whatever is docked is pushed away by the stupid push system they have built in.

As soon as I shot that left docker out it floated up. I've ran more than enough tests on this stuff building automated systems to make most people sick.
In your case you didn't shoot out the right module simple enough unless you are using the dev build and they added it in recently.

[DOUBLEPOST=1450460544,1450460311][/DOUBLEPOST]

Rail "disagreement" is easy, even in a well-planned environment, so hierarchy is required. Basically, the rail-connected entity needs to follow the first rail only. Then when that first rail becomes unavailable, the control switches to rail 2, and so on down the hierarchy. Normally, you'll only have 2 equal rails. However, because unexpected things like damage to speed controllers or mass enhancers can upset the most carefully planned setup, the entity needs to follow exactly one rail at a time, with additional rails set up as backup.

In that regard dealing with things like damage it makes perfect sense what you are saying.

I was thinking more on the lines of a player creates to rails to run a module or craft in and sets the orientation on one rail incorrectly.

Good point.

 

[BDLS]

I suppose I got unlucky with my tests. Also, the rail ship wasn't moving as well.

 

[GRHayes]

I suppose I got unlucky with my tests. Also, the rail ship wasn't moving as well.

Trust me the railed ship doesn't need to be moving. That ship the power module came loose on was docked to a station. It sat between other modules that were still docked. It drove all my CPU cores to 100% plus the video frame rate dropped to 2.
The reason it doesn't matter is when anything undocks there is a push effect that forces it to move even a minuscule amount is enough to cause issues.
The second reason it creates massive problems is the collision system in hear doesn't dampen movement it increases it by pushing objects out of each other. I just posted a video showing the mild negative of the push effect and collision system is on here on the post I have on get rid of push effect. At the end I did the experiment above on it as well.

 

[Malacodor]

The single point of docking could be seen as a fair weakness for things like modular reactors, but I think it's rather the opposite. If killing a big ship with lots of internally docked stuff also means killing the server, then that's rather a deterrence than an encouragement.

Multidocking should also be possible for turret axes, btw. Of course these must all be in a line or the turret simply won't rotate.

 

[NeonSturm]

Multidocking should also be possible for turret axes, btw. Of course these must all be in a line or the turret simply won't rotate.

Perfect if you have a rotating ring around your ship with turrets on it. That means even if you kill all turrets a side, there will still come new ones to hit you.

That also makes them harder to get hit.