Standardized docking system, using rail system

[GRHayes]

Well I've been using the rail system while it was in dev and loved it and glad it has finally come to production mode.
That said I did notice one thing that may cause some interesting issues. It isn't a bug either.
I built a station and a number of ships where I put entry hatches so I could get to the core which is great.
The issue I thought of is what happens if someone comes on my system and they don't build their docking connection the same as I do.
Right now I put the rail on the bottom side of the docking tube and the rail docker on the bottom side of the hatch. The arrows on both are pointing up. However lets say another player comes on and builds his ship and flies to the station. If he doesn't align the rail docker the same or put it in the same location in relation to the hatch he won't be able to connect properly.
This also would be an issue with any ships or stations someone may choose to download they would then have to fix everything to work with their design.

So as simple proposal so the community can avoid this issue I propose the current standard I am using. Entry tubs have a path of no wider than 3x3 for personnel docking. The rail should be placed center bottom in which yes it would be walked on. Ships should place rail dockers on bottom of center of personnel hatch. Both rail docker and rail should have arrows facing towards top of door.

This obviously isn't needed for a craft that lands on a flat surface.
What I am talking about looks like this.

The station isn't finished this is on my test system. If you are curious as to what it currently looks like.

 

[Valiant70]

There's already a better standard that allows docking between two ships as well. http://starmadedock.net/threads/introducing-usd-type-1.7305/

The video in the OP explains the advantages of USD ports and on page 3 I suggested a change that allows buttons to be placed in the normal locations on the sides. I suggest you use this:

Spoiler: Modified USD

These two are compatible with one another. You can pick either for any ship.

 

[Krougal]

Valiant70 was faster on the reply, so not gonna say anymore about that.

I like your spacestation!

 

[GRHayes]

I noticed his after I went and posted my post. His didn't show up when I looked for standard docking...
How about a smaller ship that only has room for a 1x2 hatch how does it connect to this system?
The system you pointed to is great if you have to larger ships you want to dock.
It however is not compatible with a ship that may have a frame smaller than the dock system. If you notice on mine such ships still can make use of the docking port. The reason it is extremely simple in standard. The more complex something it is the greater the number of requirements are to work with it.
I chose the to make the air lock as a separate system which I just haven't added in currently.

There is a simple solution though combine both systems. Simply add one more rail to the bottom center of the door.
[DOUBLEPOST=1431461113,1431460436][/DOUBLEPOST]

Valiant70 was faster on the reply, so not gonna say anymore about that.

I like your spacestation!

Thanks, Just really for testing ideas. Works pretty well though especially being attached to the planet.

 

[Krougal]

I noticed his after I went and posted my post. His didn't show up when I looked for standard docking...
How about a smaller ship that only has room for a 1x2 hatch how does it connect to this system?
The system you pointed to is great if you have to larger ships you want to dock.
It however is not compatible with a ship that may have a frame smaller than the dock system. If you notice on mine such ships still can make use of the docking port. The reason it is extremely simple in standard. The more complex something it is the greater the number of requirements are to work with it.
I chose the to make the air lock as a separate system which I just haven't added in currently.

There is a simple solution though combine both systems. Simply add one more rail to the bottom center of the door.
[DOUBLEPOST=1431461113,1431460436][/DOUBLEPOST]

Thanks, Just really for testing ideas. Works pretty well though especially being attached to the planet.

I've brought that up in the discussion, but there's less interest in standardizing that, at least for the moment. This standard still isn't finalized. There's a few proposals on the table, and of course some people will go with their own. I like what Fireshock proposed as with them at the bottom it is quite easy to line up a smaller door as well. We might wind up with that, we mind end up with what Valiant70 proposed. No matter what some people won't be happy.

 

[GRHayes]

I've brought that up in the discussion, but there's less interest in standardizing that, at least for the moment. This standard still isn't finalized. There's a few proposals on the table, and of course some people will go with their own. I like what Fireshock proposed as with them at the bottom it is quite easy to line up a smaller door as well. We might wind up with that, we mind end up with what Valiant70 proposed. No matter what some people won't be happy.

You are right no matter what someone won't be happy.
What could fix this entire issue is if one change was made so that a rail docker could dock to another rail docker. Just adding that simple extra function would meaning all docking ports could connect to one another.

 

[Krougal]

You are right no matter what someone won't be happy.
What could fix this entire issue is if one change was made so that a rail docker could dock to another rail docker. Just adding that simple extra function would meaning all docking ports could connect to one another.

From a codebase perspective, it probably isn't all that simple. There are a lot of ramifications to the whole game from this rail system, a lot more than most people probably understand. From just a player's C&C perspective it would add a lot of aggravation since who is docked to who in that case?

 

[GRHayes]

From a codebase perspective, it probably isn't all that simple. There are a lot of ramifications to the whole game from this rail system, a lot more than most people probably understand. From just a player's C&C perspective it would add a lot of aggravation since who is docked to who in that case?

I programmed for more than 30 years now. I doubt it would be that hard of a change.
Basically they would need to allow for the block to target other blocks just like it does the rail system then redirect to the same code it does for aligning and docking. It would be locked stationary rather than able to move. Thus most of the code would be reusable. I would hope that is the case considering they are using an object oriented language java. Even if I was using C++ I would have written in the system to dockable class system. Really if you get down to it. The only function of the rail being used in this case is the fact it can be targeted. The ship releases and so on by the ships rail docker function. That however could be an added trigger added to both rail dockers in use if that is the case allowing both ships the ability to undock from one another.
The current proposals have another major flaw I just thought of. The ship that initializes the docking has to initialize undocking.

 

[Krougal]

I programmed for more than 30 years now. I doubt it would be that hard of a change.
Basically they would need to allow for the block to target other blocks just like it does the rail system then redirect to the same code it does for aligning and docking. It would be locked stationary rather than able to move. Thus most of the code would be reusable. I would hope that is the case considering they are using an object oriented language java. Even if I was using C++ I would have written in the system to dockable class system. Really if you get down to it. The only function of the rail being used in this case is the fact it can be targeted. The ship releases and so on by the ships rail docker function. That however could be an added trigger added to both rail dockers in use if that is the case allowing both ships the ability to undock from one another.
The current proposals have another major flaw I just thought of. The ship that initializes the docking has to initialize undocking.

So I'm not the oldest fart here
That change no, but how many other things does it affect?
You're probably right though.

Can you not undock from the rail end? Hadn't even thought of trying yet, with the old dockers you could undock from either side, kinda just took that functionality for granted. If you can target the other ships rail and fire on it, your docking to them would probably break their docking to you, but yeah, I doubt you'd be able to get the view on it, unless you had the blocks on the bottom with a camera in the center.

 

[NeonSturm]

I programmed for more than 30 years now. I doubt it would be that hard of a change.

And you could do it in a GPL project.
I would make the rail docker being a computer and the rail being the docker module and also a rail. Changing direction would cause a turn.

The current proposals have another major flaw I just thought of. The ship that initializes the docking has to initialize undocking.

If you could channel logic through rails, this wouldn't be a problem.

Stuff moving on rails or docking to them does activate an adjacent activation module. This activation module could trigger an unconnected wireless one which causes it to automatically connect to the docking entity with a similar system.

 

[GRHayes]

So I'm not the oldest fart here
That change no, but how many other things does it affect?
You're probably right though.

Can you not undock from the rail end? Hadn't even thought of trying yet, with the old dockers you could undock from either side, kinda just took that functionality for granted. If you can target the other ships rail and fire on it, your docking to them would probably break their docking to you, but yeah, I doubt you'd be able to get the view on it, unless you had the blocks on the bottom with a camera in the center.

No there is no way to put a rail in the menu bar or activate the rail itself.

 

[Krougal]

No there is no way to put a rail in the menu bar or activate the rail itself.

Yeah, I went and tried it out in game myself. Also firing docking beam from the "mothership" doesn't break you away, and of course it doesn't since you would lose the ability to carry any docked ships. So yes, it's going to be a bit of a problem. Saw your suggestion.

Workaround is to go into buildmode, remove offending railblock, click undo, go on your merry way.

 

[GRHayes]

Yeah, I went and tried it out in game myself. Also firing docking beam from the "mothership" doesn't break you away, and of course it doesn't since you would lose the ability to carry any docked ships. So yes, it's going to be a bit of a problem. Saw your suggestion.

Workaround is to go into buildmode, remove offending railblock, click undo, go on your merry way.

Build mode bit of an extreme work around. but at least it works.
Just think of what fun you could come up with using the suggestion and the ability to undock or launch stuff.

 

[Krougal]

Yeah, and I just tried with the bottom arrangement and a camera in the middle, to see if I could fire on the other ships raildocker to switch who was docked to who; no go. Either the aim wasn't reaching or it doesn't work.

Oh, there does have to be an existing way to do it with logic, because otherwise drone launches wouldn't be possible, and the drone experts are already updating their racks. Check their thread.