Introducing... USD type 1 *updated*

[Thalanor]

Actually how deep the docking collar is is completely irrelevant - it is just about the first 1 layer of blocks (with the rail and rail docker). What comes beyond that is up to the ship/station (although any ship with interior naturally should have some sort of door or hatch to form a proper airlock together with the docked entity, or it won't pass an RP test).

 

[Krougal]

The more I think about it, the more I like what several people have proposed and Fireshock displayed, putting the dockers on the bottom.
Is only a minor change but it allows for more flexibility. It also doesn't involve a major rework.

One question I do have, how does it affect different orientations? For example ship A has the airlock on the left side, and ship B has it on the top. Are they still compatible? Haven't played with the orientations enough to see all the ramifications, but I'm assuming with them in the center as curently proposed the ship orientation doesn't matter.

 

[SchnellBier]

Just to contribute something

Spoiler

 

[Ithirahad]

So, we have USD and will soon have MicroUSD, but I'm willing to bet that Apple will make their own device-end USD port that's proprietary to them, and makes use of an exploit in the game so that others can't replicate it. Also, USD 2.0 and eventually USD 3.0 will be released. We'll even get a special docking system made by Fire, the FireWireFlier, which is actually a much quicker and more efficient standard but it won't be picked up by many manufacturers so it will eventually fall out of use by shipbuilders in favor of USD and its derivatives.

 

[Krougal]

So, we have USD and will soon have MicroUSD, but I'm willing to bet that Apple will make their own device-end USD port that's proprietary to them, and makes use of an exploit in the game so that others can't replicate it. Also, USD 2.0 and eventually USD 3.0 will be released. We'll even get a special docking system made by Fire, the FireWireFlier, which is actually a much quicker and more efficient standard but it won't be picked up by many manufacturers so it will eventually fall out of use by shipbuilders in favor of USD and its derivatives.

And to add to the confusion I heard a rumor that the UCC standard dock will also be called USD (for UCC Standard Dock) so then there will be 2 completely different standards called USD!

 

[EricBlank]

Lemme see if I get things right:

Pretty much, yeah. :P

I'd take a screenshot of what I really mean, but I can't get the game to update. It keeps either crashing on load, giving me an error during download, or not starting the game after the first launcher. I'm getting tired of downloading the same thing repeatedly.

 

[Sven_The_Slayer]

I tried putting the USD on the outside of my airlocks... I didn't like the look of it at all... even more than I don't like the look of having exposed rail bits on my nice clean black hull...

 

[Krougal]

I tried putting the USD on the outside of my airlocks... I didn't like the look of it at all... even more than I don't like the look of having exposed rail bits on my nice clean black hull...

Awww man, you coulda let me get some mileage out of my little joke above before you posted that

 

[Fireshock]

I just want some design to be able to dock left+bottom of two ships without them being one along X and one along Z axis or similar.
I think following design is the best one (with bottom ones required, other rails optional?)

This way
View attachment 11448

That design is actualy SAME design that I posted except that docks are facing opposite direction. Only difference is he has stuffed 4 USDs orientated differently in to one entrance instead of puting only 1 USD.

Each of those 4 USDs would dock a ship in different orientation, but USD ports would still always fit with each other. This allows him to CHOSE in which direction docking would be done each time he docks or someone docks to him(but he has to know which rail docking beam he is using in weapons pannel).
Sence you only want 1 orientation, only 1 USD(1 rail basic and 1 rail docker) will be enough for you. By orientating them you will chose in which direction you want to dock. This is 1 of 2 orientations which will dock your ship from bottom to side of other ship in same axis. But the problem is if someone else rotates their USD your single rotation will also be rotated by their rotation. Thats why he has put 4 USDs.



IMHO best solution is to use first standard that I posted:

That way people like Sven_The_Slayer and me who care about looks can hide it by using rails to make it look like this. People like NeonSturm who want to be 100% sure their ship will dock in same axis can have that by building it like this, no matter on which of 4 sides of ship they built it(front and back docking to 1 of other 4 sides wont be on same axis unles you built vertical ship, that is NOT possible to fix and therefor not a flaw of standard). People like Skairekrough who want to always be able to dock their ship in any of 4 orientations of their choice can build it like this, no matter on which of 6 sides of ship they built it. People who want USDs on front or back or have vertical ships this logic applies to you too, just use your brain. Finaly people like Valiant70 can build their logic on head height.

YES! ALL OF THIS IS COMPATIBLE WITH EACH OTHER!!! Point is that there is 1 simple minimal standard which works for everything. Standard is:
You just have to have these 2 blocks on your main ship with arrows pointing down and this frame made out of any blocks above them, aligned with your ship OR extended outwards. With "down" and "above" being relative to rest of USD design, NOT your ship, meaning you can rotate whole USD as you wish.

If I didn't cover someone's needs say so .

 

[Sven_The_Slayer]

That design is actualy SAME design that I posted except that docks are facing opposite direction. Only difference is he has stuffed 4 USDs orientated differently in to one entrance instead of puting only 1 USD.

Each of those 4 USDs would dock a ship in different orientation, but USD ports would still always fit with each other. This allows him to CHOSE in which direction docking would be done each time he docks or someone docks to him(but he has to know which rail docking beam he is using in weapons pannel).
Sence you only want 1 orientation, only 1 USD(1 rail basic and 1 rail docker) will be enough for you. By orientating them you will chose in which direction you want to dock. This is 1 of 2 orientations which will dock your ship from bottom to side of other ship in same axis. But the problem is if someone else rotates their USD your single rotation will also be rotated by their rotation. Thats why he has put 4 USDs.



IMHO best solution is to use first standard that I posted:

That way people like Sven_The_Slayer and me who care about looks can hide it by using rails to make it look like this. People like NeonSturm who want to be 100% sure their ship will dock in same axis can have that by building it like this, no matter on which of 4 sides of ship they built it(front and back docking to 1 of other 4 sides wont be on same axis unles you built vertical ship, that is NOT possible to fix and therefor not a flaw of standard). People like Skairekrough who want to always be able to dock their ship in any of 4 orientations of their choice can build it like this, no matter on which of 6 sides of ship they built it. People who want USDs on front or back or have vertical ships this logic applies to you too, just use your brain. Finaly people like Valiant70 can build their logic on head height.

YES! ALL OF THIS IS COMPATIBLE WITH EACH OTHER!!! Point is that there is 1 simple minimal standard which works for everything. Standard is:
You just have to have these 2 blocks on your main ship with arrows pointing down and this frame made out of any blocks above them, aligned with your ship OR extended outwards. With "down" and "above" being relative to rest of USD design, NOT your ship, meaning you can rotate whole USD as you wish.

If I didn't cover someone's needs say so .

I can't seem to load any of those images...

 

[Krougal]

IMHO best solution is to use first standard that I posted:

Yeah, that. Let's go with that. I vote for that. In fact I'm going to switch to that right now.

.....Every other possible option....

Using multiple dockers in that arrangement seems assinine, I mean after all the point of a standard is to minimize redundant crap you need, but hey, as you've shown people can be assinine and still be compatible. It's a win-wi....sorry....idiot corporatespeak rubbed off on me...again.

 

[Sven_The_Slayer]

This is my current design. I prefer the arrows pointing inwards, and a locked rotor block looks a lot better than a rail as a single block. It only adds two blocks for every dock on the ship so it's worth it. I may yet swap the two blocks though as "RAIL docker goes on the RIGHT" is easy to remember. The aforementioned style using the rails directly below the door won't work for me as some of my ships have a slope there such as my Longsword which is currently docked to the side of my carrier.

Creating a universal receiver would be easy as surrounding the entire door in rails, assuming the arrows match. Like I said I prefer them pointing at the door myself. Things like stations will never need to dock to anything else so you only need to worry about universal receivers on them.

 

[mindlord0013]

jath and I will be looking to collaborate some time within the next 24 hours. I'm looking at all of your feedback, and we'll come up with a revised design. I'll try my best to consider all of your concerns. It's very likely that the position of the docker/rail will be moved downwards so the middle of the ring is free for door logic. I'll do some testing to see whether a docked entity activates door logic (this may be somewhat important to consider).

It'll probably be all part of a new video which covers the revised design, some designs which are compatible but not considered part of the design itself, and some cool things like adapters, extending arms, and hiding your docking collar.

It looks like we're gonna have to kill my baby, and make it slightly differently this time. ;_;

 

[Krougal]

jath I'll do some testing to see whether a docked entity activates door logic (this may be somewhat important to consider).

Oh, yeah...we seem to have lost functionality where you used to be able to put a switch next to the dock and activate doors, lights, etc....Been meaning to complain about that but I was busy complaining about making turrets!
I was hoping maybe it's cause I don't pay attention past 2 minutes in videos, and I missed the new "how to", but since you brought it up I wonder.

 

[Sven_The_Slayer]

Oh, yeah...we seem to have lost functionality where you used to be able to put a switch next to the dock and activate doors, lights, etc....Been meaning to complain about that but I was busy complaining about making turrets!
I was hoping maybe it's cause I don't pay attention past 2 minutes in videos, and I missed the new "how to", but since you brought it up I wonder.

http://bugs.star-made.org/issues/2036

 

[Krougal]

http://bugs.star-made.org/issues/2036

Ahhh! Thank you sir!

 

[Valiant70]

So I've finalised the USD type 1 design. Here it is.

Spoiler

I like it, but it has one fatal flaw. You cannot place logic in the typical position beside the door without making the collar deeper.

Spoiler: Proposed USD change

These could become USD Type 1a and Type 1b, which are 100% compatible with each other and the UCC standard and and permit logic on the sides.

Spoiler: Recommended configurations

Here are two possible configurations with logic and lighting.

If you really want a universal standard, I highly recommend making this change. This one will have fewer problems and more advantages than what you originally proposed.

 

[Jake_Lancia]

I suppose I have to jump on the bandwagon and begin using the new, 1-block-down USD from now on, but I will continue to have first generation USD in addition to this, until this new one is the standard.

Time to update everything AGAIN... :P

 

[Krougal]

I like it, but it has one fatal flaw. You cannot place logic in the typical position beside the door without making the collar deeper.

Spoiler: Proposed USD change

These could become USD Type 1a and Type 1b, which are 100% compatible with each other and the UCC standard and and permit logic on the sides.

Spoiler: Recommended configurations

Here are two possible configurations with logic and lighting.

If you really want a universal standard, I highly recommend making this change. This one will have fewer problems and more advantages than what you originally proposed.

You're not "getting it". Functionally those 2 are identical, it is only cosmetic. The position of the dockers relative to each other and the door are all that's really relevant. Everything else is cosmetic/personal preference. Case in point if you dock those 2 to each other, they mate perfectly fine. Even though an airlock isn't an actual game mechanic, they also could be considered sealed to each other for the people who care.

Some of my small ships that I have no intention of fitting an airlock to, could still be USD compliant with proper block placement. You would be able to dock and get from 1 ship to the other, even though the RP airlock isn't there so you have to RP EVA your ass over.

I still like Fireshock placement better. For exactly the reason above, I can put them under the door somewhere and still line-up properly, even with a 1x2 door.

 

[Valiant70]

You're not "getting it". Functionally those 2 are identical, it is only cosmetic. The position of the dockers relative to each other and the door are all that's really relevant. Everything else is cosmetic/personal preference. Case in point if you dock those 2 to each other, they mate perfectly fine. Even though an airlock isn't an actual game mechanic, they also could be considered sealed to each other for the people who care.

I recommended a change to the "position of the dockers relative to the door" which you just said is relevant.