Standardization

[rubyoctopus233]

So, two things:

1. Is it a viable option to have standardized 'shipping containers' for cargo? because this could allow for very fast cargo transport.
2. Is there a standard airlock design? As in, only for the outside and the docking systems?

 

[aceface]

2. Is there a standard airlock design? As in, only for the outside and the docking systems?

https://starmadedock.net/content/usd-type-1.3397/

 

[kiddan]

So long as folks use load/unload rails, shipping containers are certainly less convenient (unless you want to drop-off something but don't have unloading permissions). Shipping containers can look very impressive, nonetheless, especially if you're into advanced rail stuff. =)

 

[MChain]

There are lots of different-sized containers, no standard here. I prefer to stick to Gasboy's, they are pretty small and easy to operate, but their capacity is somewhat lacking. But currently, with no limit on pulling amount of cargo blocks and an ability to assign ship inventory as your own (which makes cargo transfer literally two-click job per item type), there's no sense in using a container other than for cool factor as Kiddan noted above. Direct inventory transfer will be always faster and more reliable. But if you want exactly that cool factor... Look for something rather small, easily stackable and with a central docking point, that will make container-operating equipment easier to setup. With some tinkering you can even detect if the container is loaded or not and process it accordingly.

 

[JinM]

9x9x17
and every multiplication of that. My containers also have their own rails to be dockable to each other.

I preffer to have the smallest possible container as basic model, so I have a minimum scale for building hangars around. A 7x7x13 container for example would allready be too small in my opinion, as it really has next to no capacity.

Mini roleplay ships are also allways at least 7x7x11, 5x5x11 ships really are too small imo. Real life container are also around 4m high and even longer.

And using 11x11x23 container allready blow a hangar having space for 3x2x2 containers from a 17*2=34m to a 23*2=46m length. In my opinion this is huge scaling. I mean 46m lenght is allready half a carriers width. And then he only has space for 2 containers behind each other.

 

[Zekester81]

I use various size containers, no standards either. To get around space constraints, I dock all containers on external rail systems during transport. And yeah, logic makes cargo fun.

Spoiler: pics

 

[NeonSturm]

You really need to decide what you want from a container, before deciding which container to use.
Zekester81 uses nice containers btw.

I have set my container size to 23x 15y 31z. This is my standard container size now.
The reason is simple: my small shipyards are able to produce these and the small ships I usually produce fit in such a container.

I am still trying to figure out how I want my docking.
I prefer, if I can use invisible rail blocks and a pickup zone with some walk-through-able plants to mark that area, thus it does not only need an USD dock, but also a centered rail on bottom. I am not a fan of assymetry, so I can'T make the left bottom corner the dock for example.


The next thing is the height of that USD dock and the distance of the rail docker to the container's boundary box edge.
For the reason of wedged edges of containers, I decided that 3 blocks distance are ideal.

The next thing to decide is which dock I want. USD or some large hangar-door type dock.
I think I make one side USD and the rear side a hangar-door.

Do I want the USD in the centre or at bottom of my container?
I think at width, I prefer centre, having the container grow left/right. But for heigh, I really need it to be at the bottom, so that differently sized containers can be docked at the same slot and entered, when the need arrises.


I really think that the //24-16-32 minus 1// format doubled/halfed and 1 less on all axis post-multiplication is a good format.
//11-7-15/ is a smaller sized value you get from that and //5-3-7// fits into some hallways plus (if you don't look top/bottom) you can cover quite some volume in decorative hull.

 

[MChain]

Can imagine the complications of operating such a huge container xD

But if it works for you - I guess it can work for anybody ;-)

 

[Zoolimar]

Probably the only idea I came up with for containers is to make them dockable behind each other (snake style) so that you could use the same tug ship for multiple sizes of cargo load. For the most part it's still just a waste of time.

 

[NeonSturm]

Probably the only idea I came up with for containers is to make them dockable behind each other (snake style) so that you could use the same tug ship for multiple sizes of cargo load. For the most part it's still just a waste of time.

The same thing they did in "Endless Sky" with a ship that can have 1, 2 or 3 containers.

I think for some applications it really is a waste of time - but then there are these other applications.
Like make a cargo container that is a combat drone smuggled through a territory in the shape of a harmless miner-addon.
Or use a container for cargo and another container as hangar-extension with workshop-utilities and medical carbinets installed already.

I think containers are mostly good, when they are larger than 9x9x9, because then wall-blocks only take away less than 1/2 volume.
That's why I opted for 23x15x31 - I don'T want cubes.

 

[Tydeth]

The StarSquad server during their second season did use cargo containers of a standard size, 9x9x17 as JinM mentioned above.

 

[NeonSturm]

My smallest attempt at building a puddle jumper from star treck and get every detail right turned out to be 9/7/15 at least.
Fully functional versions required me to make it 15/8/21 or 23.

I guess you can improve it with slabs, but then you would ruin the wedges. Perhaps save 4m width for making it 9m high so it turns into a 11/7/15 with the loss of space-requirements for FTL-engines, reducing cockpit seat width included and squished length of back room.

My minimal containers will be 11x7x15 - they would fit the same dock.

 

[Gasboy]

Mine are 9x9x25. Some of the internal space is taken up by thrusters, power, and a teleporter. Mine are meant to be moved manually and sometimes you might get trapped if your ship covers the doors of the cargo container, which is why there's a teleporter.

 

[NeonSturm]

I can totally imagine my 11x7x15 container docking to a 11x7x10m or 16m long "Thug" if needed.
With 11x7x25 or 31, that totalls in about the same volume as your 9x9x25.
If equipped with power by default - like an escape pod container - I would opt for a 2x as long small container anyway.

But why are peoples sticking with a 9x9 instead of 11x7 at all?
By allowing rotations, it's much more flexible and also allows left/right decorations without up/down decorations without narrowing the container too much.

 

[Gasboy]

But why are peoples sticking with a 9x9 instead of 11x7 at all?
By allowing rotations, it's much more flexible and also allows left/right decorations without up/down decorations without narrowing the container too much.

I wanted to. I designed the container to fit the ships I was building. Just easier to stick to that. And I don't see how it is more difficult to decorate a 9x9 container at all.

 

[JinM]

Let me show you mine. I think they are a little bit too small though. But they are big enough to it a 7x7x14 ship or turret into them.

 

[MChain]

Let me show you mine. I think they are a little bit too small though. But they are big enough to it a 7x7x14 ship or turret into them. View attachment 52712

They look nightmarishly hard to operate on auto xD.
Otherwise nice convenient crates you have

I can totally imagine my 11x7x15 container docking to a 11x7x10m or 16m long "Thug" if needed.
With 11x7x25 or 31, that totalls in about the same volume as your 9x9x25.
If equipped with power by default - like an escape pod container - I would opt for a 2x as long small container anyway.

But why are peoples sticking with a 9x9 instead of 11x7 at all?
By allowing rotations, it's much more flexible and also allows left/right decorations without up/down decorations without narrowing the container too much.

9х9 is more convenient mostly due to its symmetry, and ease of addition of lacking docking points for total stackability and ease of docking to ship (no need to remember where's up and down). Plus if you have 9x9, you get more volume for cargo inside. Remember, 7x7 = 49, 9x5 = 45.