A change to docking mechanics

[Cybertooth]

Ok so i know everyone got really annoyed last time the docking mechanics changed, but hear me out.
I'm thinking of turret docking specificly, but there's no reason this couldnt be applied to the other type.


Currently the system for docking works like this: You expand the docking area by laying down a strip of enhancers in that direction, so you get something like this: (please excuse the crude examples)

Now, the reason i think this is a problem is that frequently with turret designs, the core is not in the centre (i allways build turrets with the core further back in the main body of the turret, with long barrels). This leaves me with a problem as i have to put the docking module much further foreward than i would like.
I suggest that it is changed to work like this. When you have docking enhancers arranged on more than one axis (an L shape for example) it system assumes that the enhancer on the intersection represents the position of the docking module, so your docking area would then be off center, like this:

This would allow you to dock turrets in tighter areas, and you would be able to have your turrets backed right up againtst any raised hull behind it (which is where im running into trouble). Basicly it lets everyone take full advantage of their docking areas, turret designs might become a little more varied, off center barrels etc.

However, if you only had your enhancers arranged in a single axis (a stick) it would have to work according to the first example (current mechanics) as it wouldnt have a reference point.

I hope i've made the idea clear enough, im not the best at putting ideas into words.

Edit: ltmauve did better diagrams, and changed the idea to include a second docking module as the reference point, to prevent breaking docks built using the current system. Please go look at post #10.

 

[ltmauve]

Err...
What if you try to make your enhancers fit as snugly as possible in your ship design and you wind up making multiple intersections? Or just the intersection winds up in a bad place. I would say that you link another docking module to the first, and the adjacent groups expand the docking size.

This would also allow "sticks" to be asymetric.

As for fixed docking the core could simply get offset in the z and x as well as the y.

 

[Cybertooth]

Well i dont see how you'd get multiple intersections, unless you mean from another group of enhancers, but they wouldnt be linked to it, so shouldnt affect it. I dont see how it can be in a "bad place" either aslong as you know how it works and you plan for it, you have to fit enhancers in now anyway so as long as you have space to fit the intersection in where you want it you'll be fine, if not, put the enhancers somewhere else on the ship, people do that with the current ones anyway, they dont have to be near it.

I was going to suggest a reference point docking block, but i thought adding another block for it would be dumb, using another docking module as the reference point/intersetion is great idea!

 

[CyberTao]

I think Itmauve is referring to the fact Enhancers Do not have to be in Straight Lines.
Each enhancer will add 2 to the Docking Box SO LONG as it is extending the dimensions of the enhancer Group - 3- If I wanted to, I could make a T shape with a winding Cross that extends downwards on 1 side, and up on the other.

Whats more, Enhancers dont have to be placed anywheres close to the Docking/turret module, which makes me wonder how you would even set it up. Unless you mean to make it so enhancers only extend in 1 Direction, not both - 3-

 

[Cybertooth]

Ok so i never realised they didnt have to be in straight lines. This mechanic would have required that they have to be, but not with Itmauve's idea of linking another docking module as a reference point. I had a play with it though and i dont see why you would need to do anything other than straight lines to be honest.
I know they dont have to be anywhere near it, im not suggesting they have to be, i even said that in the last post.
But yes i am suggesting that they only extend in one direction, so that you could dock turrets closer to things without having wasted space at the back while still having decent looking designs. However maybe with the idea to use another linked docking module at the intersection you could have both mechanics ingame, so none that are currently set up get broken.

 

[MineCatFTW]

Overall, I like this idea a lot. It would make carriers and other ships that carry ships inside them much easier to make efficient, and would make turrets much less of a hassle.

 

[CyberTao]

For larger ships, I create Turret Control rooms - 3- or plan them at least, with the Turret enhancer wrapping around certain parts of it. It's also useful for wrapping the enhancers around Rooms withing the ship as well.

I dunno, try to flush out the idea more - 3- remember Left and Right will also be effected as well (You would have to make a T shaped intersection somewheres)

 

[rece ktore leczo]

Weeeell, i still think mass-based docking would be better so i keep repeating this. I wrote a question about it in Q&A thread and hopefully it'll be asked during Q&A

 

[Mr. V]

I'm not sure altering enhancers are really the way to go about this - if nothing else, simply because the con you pointed out yourself (a lot of people have already built around the currently existing system).

In general, I'd like it if there was a place-able block that could be used to movethe reference point and orientation that any ship or turret uses to dock. It'd be cool to have more options in terms of how a specific item or ship docks to something else in general

Even better if you could place multiple of such a block and decide which one you wanted to use when docking to different ports by hotkeying that block to shoot the docking beam from

 

[ltmauve]

So here is what we have now:

And here is what I proposed:

The docking module that is slaved would act as the reference.
Max dimensions are based on the difference between the module and the side of the box in that direction. ( 2*(boxedge - enhancer) +1). The y-direction still works as it currently does.

 

[Cybertooth]

Yup, thats what i want, the slaved docking module is a very good idea

Mr. V It wouldnt break anything built with the current system, the old system would still work, untill you slaved another docking module to it to act as the reference point.

 

[Mr. V]

Yup, thats what i want, the slaved docking module is a very good idea

Mr. V It wouldnt break anything built with the current system, the old system would still work, untill you slaved another docking module to it to act as the reference point.

Cybertooth I think I'm following you now... Are you essentially saying that we could add a secondary docking block and slave it to set the point of attachment within a docking space? As opposed to the attachment point always being at the center of the magical green boxed in area under the present system? Because I like that idea!

an you were right in your original post... it's difficult to put this subject into words.

 

[Cybertooth]

Almost, but you've got it a little backwards, the system we're suggesting would move the "magical green box" as you put it, off center. So you would still dock to the same docking module in the same place, but the space you have to dock in would be off center (more space in front than behind the docking module, or more on one side than the other).
But yes, you are right in saying that the docking module would no longer be at the center of the box.

 

[Mr. V]

Almost, but you've got it a little backwards, the system we're suggesting would move the "magical green box" as you put it, off center. So you would still dock to the same docking module in the same place, but the space you have to dock in would be off center (more space in front than behind the docking module, or more on one side than the other).
Nut yes, you are right in saying that the docking module would no longer be at the center of the box.

Interesting - it sounds like either way results in the same thing through slightly different means -- I'm all for more control in terms of how docking space is used and applied in general.

+1

 

[Creeper__God]

+infinity
Schema or Calbiri or anyone else on the dev team that sees this please put this in the game

 

[the guyver]

i definitely need this kind of change to docking mechanics,
I have hollowed out an entire planet to make a hanger for my ship, my ship will fit in the hanger with space to spare around it
But I cannot dock it in the hanger since the current centred docking box needs to be longer than the planets diameter,
my ship design excludes the possibility of having the core in the centre of the ship

Also some way to set which face of the ships core will dock with a docking module so i dont have to build ships upside down or with the front of them being the bottom of the ship.

the front of this pod is actually the bottom of the ship:

 

[Cybertooth]

Yup, that sort of problem is what made me think of this
is that thunderbird 2? Nice

 

[the guyver]

yes that is ThunderBird 2, one of my Work In Progress ships,
i also have a space 1999 Eagle WIP with dockable cargo pod but the pod on that one has to be built upside down due to docking orientation, and that ship also requires a docking area nearly twice the size of the ship

 

[Sven_The_Slayer]

No, the simplest solution that would take no additional changes to ships would be to allow a dock to expand as it does now until it encounters a conflict, once the conflict is detected, the dock stops expanding in that direction. This way you will be able to expand turrets and docks in any direction you want without having to be forced to build enhancers in special arrangements. It could also when a conflict is detected and the dock stops expanding in that direction extend the dock 2 meters in the opposite direction so we still get the same return on our enhancers. Additionally this has the added benefit of allowing for smaller than 7x7x7 docks.

Basically the same concept but changes to the dock are done automatically and allow for smaller docks.

 

[the guyver]

would be nice if they could work that way, but i believe there are 2 ways to do that both of which would add to lag issues, either the collision routine would have to calculate the offset every time the docking unit was drawn (adding potential for lag) or the docking unit would need to store the data in its block data, making the data stream between client and server bigger is one of the biggest causes of lag,

using existing blocks and existing linking methods is a better way to go to avoid add other issues, if there is no other docking unit linked to the original it would not break any existing docking setup, only when you link a second docking unit to the first one will the docking behaviour change.
and it makes more sense if you add an enhancer in the +x position the docking area would increase in the +x direction as well