Making an ACTUAL carrier

[Insane Randomness]

OK, so for my biggest and baddest ship, I decided on a supercarrier, mainly because, whilest I love giant dreadnoughts, carriers are far more interesting and dynamic. I find it entertaining that, even in the real world, carriers work really well. They can hit far beyond the ranges of battleships with far more firepower. But they are rediculously complexe. So are the ones in starmade.

I've been thinking about how to make the basic carrier systems that we know today on say a Nimitz class in a starmade ship. The asthertic I'm building into my fleet naturally caters to a carrier, but some of the systems needed to replicate the operation of a real world carrier I'm not sure are possible. A catapult system IS possible with either push beams, or an automated rail system (I'll probably do the later, which means I need to figure out how to build with logic). Couple issues is I need to know if it's possible for a rail system to accelerate a ship upto server max speed, or even half server max speed. If not, then I'll go with the push beams, or maybe even a combination of them both.

Guiding a ship into a narrow landing window is easy too. Just use the simple "meatball" system, that is a light (beacon) is required to be placed in a certain position between a different group of lights placed in front of the beacon. Then the pilot simply lines up the lights so what he sees is the beacon shinging through a hole in the center of a group of dimmer lights. This allows the pilot to follow the optimal path to land the fighter. Very simple.

The biggest issue I have is stopping the fighters once they've landed. The carrier I'm building is using the CATOBAR system that the worlds navies use today for the largest supercarriers. That is, the landing runway is canted at a 15-30 degree angle so that fighters can land and take off at the same time. Saves a ton of time in a combat zone. But how would you stop a fighter once it's landed? You could use a stop beam "net", but this would also halt the carriers movement as well. And I don't think I could use logic and rails to stop a fighter moving at 100-200 m/s. And because of the CATOBAR setup, I can't shoot the stop beams out the ship at an angle directly at the fighter. I figured someone might have a suggestion for me.

 

[terra mining corp.]

just use a docking rail,good luck with the build ad keep us updated

 

[Insane Randomness]

just use a docking rail,good luck with the build ad keep us updated

How would you use a docking rail? You're doing 200 m/s on landing. That was the point I was trying to get at. Todays carriers have to use arrestor systems because fighter jet landing speeds are something like what, 140-170 mph, right? In starmade, strictly it's not necessary, but theres also the matter of combat landings. Getting the fighters down as quickly as possible so you can get the heck out of there and escape the wrath of whoever wants to get at them. I didn't think you could place a fighter doing 200 m/s on a docking rail easily.

Also, an arrestor system is pretty awesome. I may have a solution, but I've got a lot of work to do before I can try it.

 

[Heillos]

I mean, high-speed docking isn't a very big issue in Starmade; and if it was, you'd still just fire your docker at the rail and be immediately attached to it, with all momentum transferred to somewhere else in the process. So mechanically speaking, building some sort of traditional aircraft carrier is redundant.

It's an interesting project though, and I look forward to seeing its continuation. Good luck

 

[Insane Randomness]

So all I have laid down is the primary hanger and primary runway. I failed to realize how big this ship is, so this may turn into a much much longer build than I anticipated. Good practice though. I has pictures too.



These are the plans I have for the ship, now named the "Fortress Class Carrier" The green line represents the lanch path, and the red line represents the recovery path. As you can see, the two paths are offset. This is the CATOBAR layout. Probably should have mentioned that thats an achronym, which stands for Catapult Assisted Take Off But Arrested Recovery. Basic carrier layout really. The ship is 1001 meters long right now, but may be extended to 1100 meters eventually by additions. Plans are to have three flights of three fighters, plus two shuttles, a resupply ship and a scout ship contained within the primary hanger bay (the giant bubble mounted on the side.) which is 300 meters long and 150 meters wide and high. The fighters, which I haven't designed yet but have some ideas for are going to have a wingspan of around 20 meters. Again, also standard.
[DOUBLEPOST=1454482459,1454482337][/DOUBLEPOST]

I mean, high-speed docking isn't a very big issue in Starmade; and if it was, you'd still just fire your docker at the rail and be immediately attached to it, with all momentum transferred to somewhere else in the process. So mechanically speaking, building some sort of traditional aircraft carrier is redundant.

It's an interesting project though, and I look forward to seeing its continuation. Good luck

I know, but that's just not as fun, is it? I know what you mean. I'm trying to solve whats actually a very simple problem with a far too elaborate solution. But it's still a really cool idea.

Also, lets be honest, haven't you ever wanted to be shot off the end of an aircraft carrier in a F-18 hornet?

 

[Gasboy]

Also, lets be honest, haven't you ever wanted to be shot off the end of an aircraft carrier in a F-18 hornet?

Yes. But an aircraft carrier is a far different kettle of fish from a space fighter carrier. Sure, your idea is neat, but to what purpose?

If it's just going to be an RP ship, then that's fine. If you're expecting to do actual PvP, having a rather clunky system for recovering fighters is not optimal. :P

 

[Malacodor]

Couple issues is I need to know if it's possible for a rail system to accelerate a ship upto server max speed, or even half server max speed.

Nope, docking off resets speed.

But how would you stop a fighter once it's landed? You could use a stop beam "net", but this would also halt the carriers movement as well.

Why should that be the case?

 

[Insane Randomness]

Yes. But an aircraft carrier is a far different kettle of fish from a space fighter carrier. Sure, your idea is neat, but to what purpose?

If it's just going to be an RP ship, then that's fine. If you're expecting to do actual PvP, having a rather clunky system for recovering fighters is not optimal. :p

Perhaps I should do both? I could have both the arrestor net and docking points for pilots to just dock too. Probably the best solution.
[DOUBLEPOST=1454522195,1454522111][/DOUBLEPOST]It's certainly big enough for me to do both. I'm actually increasing the planned size of the fighters because of the size of the ship. At the previous size, you could fit four abreast and still have room to launch and fly.

 

[Keptick]

Nope, docking off resets speed.


Why should that be the case?

Probably because the stop beams would be on docked entities since having them on the carrier would mean that they'd go through the ship, and you'd have beams sticking out kms from the ship, which would look stupid as f***

 

[jayman38]

The most realistic way I can think of would be to set up a line of plex or blast doors to serve as the arresting "cable", activated shortly before a craft comes in for a landing. It would probably need to be repaired after every landing. Similarly, you could set up a plex-door "net" to provide an arrestor for more than just a line. Something more space-y might be a complete plexdoor or force field arrestor door.

However, with a spaceship, it would be more like landing a helicopter or VTOL: The smaller craft just hovers close and drops down onto the carrier. Furthermore, a high-speed arrestor system doesn't make sense in space, because it is meant for aircraft that must move a minimum speed in order to use airflow to remain aloft. No such limitation is in play for spaceships. As long as they don't fall into a gravity well, spaceships remain "aloft". So they can slow down on their own and land at a near-stand-still, like a VTOL fighter.

If you use a line of blocks to serve as the arresting cable, you can extend its life, by making the cable extra long and having rails push an undamaged segment of the line into position, pushing the damaged portion out of the way.
Example:
Say you have a 100-m wide landing strip. You could create a 400-m "arresting cable", where 100 meters of the "cable" is in the flight path, while the other 300 meters of cable are trailing behind. When the 100-m flight path cable becomes sufficiently damaged, you would have a rail mover in place to push the entire cable structure along another 100 meters, moving the damaged 100-m length out of the landing path and putting a fresh 100-meter length in it's place. You could do that twice more before the entire "arresting cable" structure would need to be replaced. (Lengths given in this example are just example lengths. You could make it longer or shorter, and the landing path could be wider or narrower. It's all up to the builder.)

- - - - -- -- -- - - --------------------------------------------------------------------------------o<
< damaged part >< undamaged segment length ><entity core><rail docker>

 

[Malacodor]

Probably because the stop beams would be on docked entities since having them on the carrier would mean that they'd go through the ship, and you'd have beams sticking out kms from the ship, which would look stupid as f***

But isn't a turrets' stop effect affecting the mothership only a bug?

 

[Insane Randomness]

But isn't a turrets' stop effect affecting the mothership only a bug?

Is it? If thats true, then I would just have a stationary set of turrets mounted across the landing strip with stop beams. Once the bug gets fixed, then that'll work perfectly.

Also, while the beams ARE affecting the mothership, they're meant to stop something the size of a fighter. I've already gotten half a million blocks placed down (and I have over 75 million armor hit points to go with that), so even if I had the turrets working right now, the effect they'd have on the mothership would almost be negligable.

 

[Gasboy]

Perhaps I should do both? I could have both the arrestor net and docking points for pilots to just dock too. Probably the best solution.
[DOUBLEPOST=1454522195,1454522111][/DOUBLEPOST]It's certainly big enough for me to do both. I'm actually increasing the planned size of the fighters because of the size of the ship. At the previous size, you could fit four abreast and still have room to launch and fly.

If I were to build a carrier in StarMade, I'd take a page out of the drone builders' books: Have the fighters carried in ready racks inside the side of the carrier. So that they can all launch simultaneously.

You can use a 'runway' to recover the fighters quickly. And my idea for an 'arrestor net' would be a criss-cross pattern of docker rails that pull fighters to the left or right, clearing up space for others to land.

 

[Ragged Design]

You can use turrets to stop or slow down the fighters! Use the AI setting "fire at selected" on turrets with 100% STOP effect and then just select the approaching fighters. I tested it and it works fine for me

 

[Keptick]

But isn't a turrets' stop effect affecting the mothership only a bug?

I'm talking about logic activated beams on a static docked entity (or on rails most likely). He said that it'd be like a net, so a turret wouldn't work very well.

It's the same way that power supply beams can affect the main entity, which isn't a bug.

 

[Insane Randomness]

So after careful consideration, a test, and a BIG accident, I've decided the awesome per second factor of this ship, when it's fully built, even with practical usable systems, just isn't enough for the time I would have to invest in it. There also the slight problem, after finishing the most basic form of the shell, that the ship would have been in the 5-10 million block range, and that just seems far too large and massive. As much as I'd love to see this ship work, it just wouldn't with todays computer hardware. As such, I think I'll just return to finishing the rest of my fleet.

 

[Chances_Ghost]

if were talking actual game mechanics rather than just fluff then i have the perfect idea to stop your fighters!

make giant landing pads entirely out of rails... and .... wait for it... make sure the fighter has the rail docker flush with the bottom.

then all a fighter has to do is touch the bottom of its ship on the landing pad and with touch docking it will simply stick there! you can make the entire end of the runway out of rails and point all the rails in the direction off the landing strip into an offload zone where they can be reset to be relaunched at your convience ( you can actually use a funnel system with rails to get them to reset automatically)

 

[TBB]

So after careful consideration, a test, and a BIG accident, I've decided the awesome per second factor of this ship, when it's fully built, even with practical usable systems, just isn't enough for the time I would have to invest in it. There also the slight problem, after finishing the most basic form of the shell, that the ship would have been in the 5-10 million block range, and that just seems far too large and massive. As much as I'd love to see this ship work, it just wouldn't with todays computer hardware. As such, I think I'll just return to finishing the rest of my fleet.

This is an issue with today's hardware, but not at the day it's finished.

if were talking actual game mechanics rather than just fluff then i have the perfect idea to stop your fighters!

make giant landing pads entirely out of rails... and .... wait for it... make sure the fighter has the rail docker flush with the bottom.

then all a fighter has to do is touch the bottom of its ship on the landing pad and with touch docking it will simply stick there! you can make the entire end of the runway out of rails and point all the rails in the direction off the landing strip into an offload zone where they can be reset to be relaunched at your convience ( you can actually use a funnel system with rails to get them to reset automatically)

Sound good in theory... But I'm a bit sceptical about this. Of course you'll only find it out after it has been done.

 

[Chances_Ghost]

This is an issue with today's hardware, but not at the day it's finished.



Sound good in theory... But I'm a bit sceptical about this. Of course you'll only find it out after it has been done.

from my experiance its going to be ALOT harder than it sounds to land on a moving carrier... but then again a carrier isnt exactly supposed to be terribly mobile in the first place.

its best to place the docking module on the very very back/bottom of the fighter (you kinda have to design it with this in mind) and you have to slam down on the sunway and use it to properly align yourself as you move to the capture pit where it will get docked.

the issue comes with speed, the faster you are moving the glitchyer it gets so you actually need to slow down quite a bit under your own power, i find moving faster than about 50m/s against a stationary target tends to be the limit.

 

[MrDeez]

I like the net idea, would be fun if you tried it. Make a square frame with auto firing stopping beams that fire none stop (or just 2 pillars) this is the pat to the landing space.