Dev Blog : March 30th 2015

[Sven_The_Slayer]

Ah but, this is Starmade not Star Trek. Players in a Ship's gravity get much better Inertia Dampers. Why not shuttles too? :D



So, basically keep the existing Core docking mechanics working with the new Rail Blocks? I'm game for that as I think in practice it would only be relatively small ships which would still need to use it. However I presume Schema wants to move away from those kinds of mechanics so this may not be a choice.

I like the idea of being able to define a gravity zone. I'm sure there would be applications outside of Hangars, such as Asteroid Landing Pads, or creating a working Ringworld or Halo.

I don't think there is no reason game-play wise two blocks absolutely have to be touch in order to dock. As long as you can prove your ship will fit in the dock before actually docking. This should be able to be achieved by getting the perceived docking block up next to the dock. You get the best of both worlds, none of the old downsides. You can still create universal docking platforms that can land any ship, assuming it fits, or you can build fancy awesome docking structures that mate with each other. All the other requirements will be the same such as how many enhancers you need to hold the mass of the docking ship. It's all up to Schema code wise, and I think if it's viable it should be done and I doubt I am alone on that. I also feel that being able to dock central to the core is a must for shipyards, unless you can repair a ship without actually docking you may need to dock a damaged ship with no available docks.

 

[Bench]

The one issue with that Sven is that the rail system is designed so that the docking block you use to dock to a rail is the defining pivot point and detection point for that entity. At the moment the rail system is built to have any detection based off the position of the docking block, but if there's no docking block there then we need to rewrite how it's going to work to work for those instances to. Not only that but because of the way collisions are designed to work with rails (detecting the actual ship shape rather than just a box) there might be problems with the fact that it doesn't have any part touching the rail underneath when trying to detect collision, especially with rotating.

 

[Crimson-Artist]

The one issue with that Sven is that the rail system is designed so that the docking block you use to dock to a rail is the defining pivot point and detection point for that entity. At the moment the rail system is built to have any detection based off the position of the docking block, but if there's no docking block there then we need to rewrite how it's going to work to work for those instances to. Not only that but because of the way collisions are designed to work with rails (detecting the actual ship shape rather than just a box) there might be problems with the fact that it doesn't have any part touching the rail underneath when trying to detect collision, especially with rotating.

would a compromise be possible?

have standard core only docking for static docking as in the ship doesn't move while only allowing for these advanced moving/rotating mechanics if the ship docks via the new rail blocks.

 

[Bench]

would a compromise be possible?

have standard core only docking for static docking as in the ship doesn't move while only allowing for these advanced moving/rotating mechanics if the ship docks via the new rail blocks.

that might be possible, will talk to Schema.

 

[Sven_The_Slayer]

The one issue with that Sven is that the rail system is designed so that the docking block you use to dock to a rail is the defining pivot point and detection point for that entity. At the moment the rail system is built to have any detection based off the position of the docking block, but if there's no docking block there then we need to rewrite how it's going to work to work for those instances to. Not only that but because of the way collisions are designed to work with rails (detecting the actual ship shape rather than just a box) there might be problems with the fact that it doesn't have any part touching the rail underneath when trying to detect collision, especially with rotating.

would a compromise be possible?

have standard core only docking for static docking as in the ship doesn't move while only allowing for these advanced moving/rotating mechanics if the ship docks via the new rail blocks.

What he said ^^^

I don't care if you only get the spiffy rail features such as movement and rotation if you are using both blocks. I can more than live with just getting static docks when no receiver is present. It would essentially be the old system but using the mass limit style enhancers and you would have to get close to the dock with either a ghost block if there is void space or the bottom of the ship. I just don't want old style universal docks to not be possible with the new system. If two blocks absolutely have to mate in order to dock there is no way you can account for all variations, it will be impossible to make a "if I fits, I sits" dock.

 

[Blodge]

Has a maximum mass limit for a single Rail Block been determined yet? I'm hoping for around 35 (~350 blocks).

 

[shadowulf]

Looks like my mothballed designs might have to get this upgrade