Inactive rail

[Scypio]

Just gotta toss in a small idea.

So a simple thing i'd like to see is the ability to have several drones on board of my ship without them draining all of my freaking power because they need to upkeep everything for reasons.

So the simple solution that comes to my mind is a new type of rail. A rail that, every docked entities to it are deactivated. As such there is no upkeep but docked entities are dead weight. No shields on them except the one from the mother entity and no thrusts share. Just dead weight, but not a hassle to drag with you with this power upkeep.

Also to prevent someone from using this type of rail between the mother entity and a giant turret of doom that would fire once then be disabled and as such fire for free. Weapons should need a first charging round to be available to use. Makes sense anyway.

 

[Gasboy]

I think allowing people to set up a logic circuit as an on/off button would suffice instead of a new block.

Something like this could be useful for doing things like turning off weapons or other systems that you don't currently need.

 

[Sachys]

Snippety snip snip

So a "non-conductive" rail? Sounds like a plan!

 

[Crimson-Artist]

I think allowing people to set up a logic circuit as an on/off button would suffice instead of a new block.

Something like this could be useful for doing things like turning off weapons or other systems that you don't currently need.

was thinking the same thing a few days ago. Have a formal shut down switch for ships.

 

[Scypio]

A shut down switch for a ship/turret means wireless logic. Something that is tedious to use and breaks often.

However a rail block that you can switch like the other rail blocks is simpler and more reliable for any users. But the second solution comes with limitation and abuses.

 

[Gasboy]

A shut down switch for a ship/turret means wireless logic. Something that is tedious to use and breaks often.

However a rail block that you can switch like the other rail blocks is simpler and more reliable for any users. But the second solution comes with limitation and abuses.

A turret, sure, that would probably require wireless logic. Though, since the turret is actually attached to the ship, and turrets inherit power from the ship, if you could shut off the rail that the turret is attached to, you would not need wireless logic. Same goes for rails that drones dock to.

 

[0ldSkull]

Something like this could also solve the problem of someone docking a titan to your public-access station and overwhelming the station's reactor.

 

[Gasboy]

Something like this could also solve the problem of someone docking a titan to your public-access station and overwhelming the station's reactor.

Well, you can use logic to make the rail kick the titan off.

 

[Scypio]

A turret, sure, that would probably require wireless logic. Though, since the turret is actually attached to the ship, and turrets inherit power from the ship, if you could shut off the rail that the turret is attached to, you would not need wireless logic. Same goes for rails that drones dock to.

And how do you achieve that in a intuitive way ? Sending a high signal to a rail undocks what's it's attached to it. An activation block near the rail allows to detect whether a ship is docked here or not. regex ? Please that's not intuitive. The most intuitive solution is a rail specific to this. Schine is not scared of adding blocks because they make more sense, look at the load/unload rails.

Well, you can use logic to make the rail kick the titan off.

And how do you detect which docked ship is draining all of your power ? You undock everyone because a dummy is draining all of your power ? Sounds like a good idea.

 

[Gasboy]

And how do you achieve that in a intuitive way ? Sending a high signal to a rail undocks what's it's attached to it. An activation block near the rail allows to detect whether a ship is docked here or not. regex ? Please that's not intuitive. The most intuitive solution is a rail specific to this. Schine is not scared of adding blocks because they make more sense, look at the load/unload rails.


And how do you detect which docked ship is draining all of your power ? You undock everyone because a dummy is draining all of your power ? Sounds like a good idea.

Obviously, a means to detect power usage would be nice to have. A means to shut down power without booting docked entities off would be nice to have. I just think it can be done with the means (logic blocks) we already have, instead of inventing a new rail. Making the current rails have more flexibility is better, don't you think?

Without the means to detect your power usage from individual docking points, yes, you undock ships one at a time until the power drain stops. Then you redock everything but that ship.

 

[MrGrey1]

Any reason not to incorporate this into the standard rail speed controller? If the controller is off then no power transfer to any docked entity.

 

[Gasboy]

Any reason not to incorporate this into the standard rail speed controller? If the controller is off then no power transfer to any docked entity.

That is a workable idea, I think.

 

[MChain]

Hmm... Sounds good, but instead of powering off rail speed controller to cut ff power I'd add a similar Rail Power Controller. Sometimes you'd want to have rail stopped but still powered.

 

[Gasboy]

Hmm... Sounds good, but instead of powering off rail speed controller to cut ff power I'd add a similar Rail Power Controller. Sometimes you'd want to have rail stopped but still powered.

I think you could have the rail speed controller just become a rail computer, able to do all the functions we want in one.

 

[MChain]

I think you could have the rail speed controller just become a rail computer, able to do all the functions we want in one.

But it is hard to imagine how can it determine what do we want? If the circuit tells the computer to disable movement, power or both simultaneously?

 

[Gasboy]

But it is hard to imagine how can it determine what do we want? If the circuit tells the computer to disable movement, power or both simultaneously?

That I don't know.

 

[jayman38]

But it is hard to imagine how can it determine what do we want? If the circuit tells the computer to disable movement, power or both simultaneously?

The easiest way would be a menu, but you could use block-link combos to represent the type of percentage.

For example, to indicate speed control only, slave a thruster block to the controller, in addition to the activation block(s).
To indicate power control only, slave a power block to the controller, in addition to the activation block(s).
To indicate both power and speed control, slave both types of blocks to the controller.

This would most easily match Starmade's block-control idiom, instead of using a menu, and would provide enough flexibility with other block types to allow other control types in the future, such as AI control on/off (replacing the ship-control menu option).

To enable different control levels for different control types, you'd want to be able to slave (master?) multiple controller blocks to the same dock block, and slave a different control-type-block to each controller, for fine-grain control.

 

[Gasboy]

The easiest way would be a menu, but you could use block-link combos to represent the type of percentage.

For example, to indicate speed control only, slave a thruster block to the controller, in addition to the activation block(s).
To indicate power control only, slave a power block to the controller, in addition to the activation block(s).
To indicate both power and speed control, slave both types of blocks to the controller.

This would most easily match Starmade's block-control idiom, instead of using a menu, and would provide enough flexibility with other block types to allow other control types in the future, such as AI control on/off (replacing the ship-control menu option).

To enable different control levels for different control types, you'd want to be able to slave (master?) multiple controller blocks to the same dock block, and slave a different control-type-block to each controller, for fine-grain control.

That's quite good actually, well said.

 

[MChain]

Agreed, that would work.