Docking ports

[happyhilmi]

Version: Alpha 25

Start on Lave. Sold Cobra III bought Cobra I, equipped Atmospheric Shielding, Scanner, Radar Mapper, Autopilot and 1mw Dual Lasers on Front. Headed over to Zaonce, Station Rebbeca Watson and have been waiting waited 3 days to dock, Autopilot reports Docking denied, when requesting docking, Clearance denied, there are no free docking ports.

Is this correct as it's still Alpha ?

[Ziusudra]

The Elite systems aren't the same as others in Pioneer. They have fewer stations per population than other systems, meaning they get a lot of trade ships and not enough places for them all to dock. So, the trade ships end up occupying all the berths.

Perhaps a better method of determining the number of trade ships per system would be the number of station or docking berths in that system.

Or it may be the the TradeShips script is broken and the ships aren't undocking as they should.

[Adie123]

I personally think there should be many more berths per station. Too many times having to wait outside for long periods of time, as happyhilmi mentioned, also watching all the npc ships turn up then fly away when they have been rejected.

Ships that are docked are spending weeks in there before they decide to depart. The station is for business not for a holiday hehe. So maybe there is an element of unbalance in the script that governs npc ship activity (TradeShips script?)

[Ziusudra]

If they're spending weeks docked, then the script is broken. It should be hours, with even the largest staying less than a day.

[fluffyfreak]

The number of berths for stations is insanely low. You go to all the trouble of building a space station with your super-hyper-advanced technology and then only give it 1 parking space.... 1!

[Brianetta]

Apparently, that's entirely due to the amount of physical space within the station that the docking animation takes up.

[Adie123]

Maybe when docked, the ship disappears from view. Maybe behind a closed off area (doors). That would enable a larger amount of craft to dock without it looking odd. Maybe in the future, larger stations (both orbital and ground) could support visuals of docked craft that show many more berths. Im not familiar with the process of getting stations into the game, but am willing to create some via 3DSMax for someone to insert them into pioneer. Would need to know what (if any) rules apply to constructing them though :)

[Luomu]

Well, we've got two separate issues here 1) Trade ships never undock (unconfirmed) 2) Stations do not have enough parking space (model issue)

I'm not familiar with the TradeShips script, I know the docking time is calculated from the amount of cargo, maybe some maximum timeout could be added. Ships could also print warnings if scripts leave them docked for too long.

[walterar]

This will remain same, because Mr. Random decides what docking bays place.

[mkDanger]

This is something I wanted to bring up when I got around to modelling some stations. Assuming we're using artificial gravity and these aren't spinning, there's just no good reason for a major trading hub to have only one docking bay.

[Brianetta]

Assuming we're using artificial gravity

Not an assumption that I had ever made. I had always assumed that gravity aboard stations was provided by rotation, and that this was why every single one of them rotated.

In any case, I don't think this should have any effect at all on the number of bays. It's entirely down to the animation, as far as I'm aware. The model used at Lave only has one bay, because of the way that the docking procedure is animated.

[mkDanger]

It's a topic that's come up in chat, apparently leaning toward artificial gravity. I'm operating with the little information I possess. Frankly, rotational gravity is a crap system all around. It's a fictional future, yes? Why not save some headache and cash in on the creative license that provides?

[mkDanger]

Further, if these stations are spinning (and, obviously, this is all hypothetical) the trading of commodities by the tonne is likely to happen off-site at a separate facility where the lack of gravity would be a boon, rather than a hindrance.

My suggestion is this: Build non-rotational stations in-game with multiple entry doors (bays); provide each bay a mechanism by which npc ships are admitted, shuttled aside, and disappear without regard to capacity; and suddenly we've struck a reasonable balance between realism, necessity, and convenience.

[fluffyfreak]

Well gotta disagree that rotational gravity is crap. It's much better than some kind of powered faux-gravity - lose power and you lose gravity, with a rotating station you lose power and... nothing changes.

Much more likely is that large stations which handle bulk carriers etc would have a zero-work area AND a spinning populated section because it's so much safer. The spinning section would handle smaller ships and thus loading/unloading etc.

All of this is skirting the issue though. Whether or not the station is spinning or stationary it can still have more doors. We just need to sit down and make one ;)

[mkDanger]

There's a laundry list of potential problems for both. In the end, I'm likely to stick with the artificial gravity, particularly if these are stations that could ever potentially sustain any sort of attack. At any rate, you're right about it being a moot point.

More doors it is.

[mkDanger]

I've thought about it a bit more, and (barring some serious dissent from the community here) I'm going to model some stationary stations - for number of reasons. In game terms, we don't have to deal with spin. That's great for the model, and it's great for pilots without autopilot. I mean we can automate the docking procedure and chalk it up to tractor beams... but how big a leap is it from tractor beams to artificial gravity? Not bloody huge. Fact is, when the technology becomes available (assuming cheap energy, which ought to be a given) the switch is going to be made. It eliminates a host of engineering problems and, most importantly, brings down costs of building the station.

As for the argument with power loss: You have two solid ways to build a rotating station. You can rotate with exterior thrust, or you can have a sectional station pushing against itself with motors - sections rotating counter to each other. Either way, with loading and unloading population, ships, and countless tonnes of goods, a computer system needs to be monitoring and adjusting constantly to maintain a consistent rate of spin. You lose power and there's serious potential for all hell to break lose. In a stationary building you float around - it's inconvenient, but you're not dealing with countless tonnes of neigh-unstoppable spinning steel (or whatever composite). A spinning station isn't exactly an escalator - she doesn't turn into stairs. Good luck evacuating that mess without the station powered up. Further, assuming motorized spin (which is easier, more cost efficient, and requires no combustion) you've got a station that slowly grinds to a halt... with people in it! That's a safety-hazard and a half.

This is all, of course, assuming massive failure of what would have to be incredibly redundant power systems.

I could be wrong, of course, and feel free to correct me... but, this really seems like the way to go.

[fluffyfreak]

I don't agree with any of your assumptions. Except maybe the modelling one.

From the game engines point of view we already deal with spin in the game, it's not an issue, you enter the few stations that have multiple parking sections through a single bay entrance/exit but that's only because the whole object spins - one option would be to have the entrance/exits in a stationary part and still have a rotating ring section with a "lift" section to spin up/down to sync with the rotating or stationary parts. Only as far as the fictional explanation goes anyway since it's irrelevant to the gameplay. The thing this does highlight is that it's silly having an autopilot being a separate piece of equipment that can be damaged when we could do the autopilot calculations on the processors found in a digital watch...

Secondly, once something is spinning that's it. There's nothing else too it, these stations are mega-tonnage objects, you could run all of the people inside from one side to the other without affecting it's spin and as you say there's likely to be the odd level or 2 of redundancy. When you lose power and it's 1 million tonnes of spinning metal it just continues to be 1 million tonnes of spinning metal. It could takes decades for the people inside it to affect it's spin and in all of the existing stations the docking bays are part of the spinning structure, meaning that getting to the ships and staying or going isn't affected.

As far as the games fiction is concerned, well so far we don't have tractor beams or artificial gravity or anti-gravity in the game. In fact the most amazing and advanced things there are in the game so far are the ships engines which are some form of "rocket" be it fusion or something else and the hyperdrive which is completely inexplicable. So that's one hard to make thing and only one that's completely impossible. However if you have AG (Artificial Gravity) then you can manipulate gravity, if you can manipulate gravity then why do we have rocket engines when you can bend space and effectively ignore gravity?

[fluffyfreak]

Look, if you want to model a stationary station then it's upto you, the technical-serious-science reasoning just doesn't hold, but then, this is a game.

I personally think that stationary spacestations in games, i.e. none spinning ones, is a sign that whoever made it really doesn't understand or care about why even in an age with artificial gravity you still wouldn't use it. It's like a red flag for me, a warning that they just didn't get it. That is however my personal viewpoint.

The game desperately needs some new stations and some of the other ships you've modelled (#1413) look so fantastic that if you purposely shaped one like a giant cock it'd probably still get included :) So I look forward to seeing what you make.

[mkDanger]

"it's silly having an autopilot being a separate piece of equipment"

Absolutely true.

"it's 1 million tonnes of spinning metal it just continues to be 1 million tonnes of spinning metal"

This really is dependent on the mechanism and the size of the station. If it's thrust-generated spin, then yes - it's just keeps on trucking. If it's motorized (which still strikes me as the best way to do it, a-la the Babylon stations) there's serious potential for it to grind to a halt... possibly soon enough to be a problem.

"if you can manipulate gravity then why do we have rocket engines when you can bend space and effectively ignore gravity?"

I'm assuming, and this could be a bogus assumption, that the energy requirements for AG on a small station are not the same for space as a whole. Then again, our universe could be a three-dimensional holographic projection from a two-dimensional horizon, so what the f*ck do I know? Maybe, ultimately, that's a question that ought to be addressed: why rockets?

Worth noting: I love the idea of stationary platforms in the higher-tech systems and spinning stations everywhere else. I'll defer to the community either way.

"if you purposely shaped one like a giant cock it'd probably still get included"

Thank god someone's on board with my giant cock designs. I'll get 'em modeled up.

Alright, I'm enjoying the hell ought of this, but i need to attend to the woman. I'll check this thread out again when I'm back in town near the end of the week.

[Brianetta]

Artificial gravity will, in the real universe, almost certainly be done by rotation. Science has pretty much only one point of view on the subject. Every other representation of AG is entirely fictional, and usually there to help the plot (or to make it easier to film).

I like the idea of non-rotating stations in Pioneer. There's no reason why there shouldn't be stations where the crew live and work in free-fall; after all that's how the ISS does it. So yes. Design a station without rotating parts. We can even get the fiction involved here, and come up with some BB adverts that care which sort of station is which. There might be no market for live animals on a free-fall station -- please deliver all cows to the rotating stations.

As for grinding to a halt? You can't get rid of angular momentum that way. If your station's bearing jammed, the non-rotating parts would spin up, and the rotating parts would slow down. The station as a whole would continue to rotate, albeit with reduced gravity and quite a few spilled coffees. Much safer to do it Pioneer's way, and get the docking spacecraft to match spin.

One thing that ships in Pioneer do is fire their jets to cancel rotation when the player lets go of the controls. I'd love that to be something that could be turned off and on by the player.

[mkDanger]

This game is set, what, one thousand years (I don't remember) into the future? We're already doing some interesting things with gravitomagnetic fields, and there's speculative basis in quantum physics. Assuming our technological progress retains it's roughly exponential growth, I'm hesitant to discard even outlandish possibilities.

At any rate, I'll work on both. Both is more fun.

[Brianetta]

Quantum physics has nothing to say on the subject of gravity. Gravitometric field research is interesting, although it's been a few years since I heard any news on that subject. If I remember correctly, it did involve spinning superconductors... (-:

[mkDanger]

Are you saying that there is no connection between gravity and quantum information, particularly as it relates to the holographic principal, which is itself gaining traction in the scientific community? That's false, from what i understand.

Haha, damnit. Spinning, yes.

[Brianetta]

Yes, I suppose I am. I'll withhold any opinion on string theory until it begins to make testable predictions.

[fluffyfreak]

What I like about string theory is that it's always halfway there... ... :)

[Adie123]

Heres one i just made for you lovely people :p

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEvRQzdYSaI

Its fully rendered with 3DSMax. Its been a few years since i touched 3DSMax, so had to relearn a few things while making this 8D

[Adie123]

infact this maybe better lighting

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LJOURAd2CI

[mkDanger]

Brianetta: Ha! You better hope the Singularity really IS near if you'd like to live to see those predictions verified or dismissed. The math pans out, but you're as welcome to be incorrect as the rest of us. It's exciting stuff, if nothing else.

[mkDanger]

What's the verdict on a stationary bit of a spinning station? Is the gravitational pull of the planet enough to keep it in place, or would it require thrust to push back?

I submit that it's likely to just spin in the opposite direction.

[fluffyfreak]

@mkDanger it's in orbit, so whether it's rotating or stationary makes no difference.

[fluffyfreak]

@Adie123 that's the sort of thing :) Simple but effective change, lots more docking ports!

[robn]

Don't mind me.

[Adie123]

that model is 400 meters diameter. what kind of scale would it need to be for the larger ships to dock in thoughs bays?

( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LJOURAd2CI )

[Ae-2222]

@mkDanger wrote: Assuming we're using artificial gravity and these aren't spinning, there's just no good reason for a major trading hub to have only one docking bay.

I'm not sure I understand why it would be that restrictive. A revolving station (or multiple revolving sections) can support many docking bays or vast entrances with a lot of internal slots etc. . Keep in mind the models are early iteration ones done to give a starting point (and not suited in size for major trading hubs of a interstellar civilisation. Pioneer has uses for stations of all sizes, and the largest available ones at any one time will do for major hubs), and there's no specific design decision to have one docking bay:).

Pioneer's physics can handle arbitrary rotation/orbit/motion of things relative to other things and navigation already switches to a stations or planet's reference frame when in the vicinity..so that type of thing is not a concern when dealing with docking/navigation inside a complex station.

@Adie123 wrote: ...what kind of scale...

Just letting you know Pioneer is capable of handling big stations This experimental station's door is several km. Pioneer doesn't need to stick to the technology limited video game trope of garage sized stations for interstellar empires (especially since Pioneer attempts to depict a universe that's realistic in scale in terms of the physical universe and the presence of life).

---

As an aside several design considerations relevant to this thread were noted in the first design piratepad (not completed) from a long time ago.

Realism vs fiction The game is set far in the future, so similarly to how books even mid 20th century tv shows depicted present day (using exaggerated combinations of tech in their time) in the actual future will be different.

Conversely people can relate to and reason with things-concepts they know (why mechanically moving/reconfiguring parts on ships look cool, spaceships have windows instead of 3d displays, why people speak face to face often instead of rely on borg-like tech etc.)

Or in other words, as an example, if people from hundreds of years ago were to make a game about the present, their futuristic auto-mobiles would likely be depicted as mechanical horses powered by windmills which pulled carriages:). It isn't a true depiction of the future, but it's a very valid piece of game design for that audience.

From that perspective, rotating sections might be justifiable based on an aesthetic that present day people like moving parts and the fact that people will get some enjoyment from recognising/relating to/understanding the simple theory. Having said that, if for any justifiable game play/aesthetic reasons, there was a need to have artificial gravity, the two are not mutually exclusive. We can easily say some stations/ships have artificial gravity and others don't for energy/size/era of tech when first built/cost/other made up reasons.

[Adie123]

@Ae-2222 Thats one massive station, but it doesnt exactly answer my question. What size ships are in and expected to be in or allowed into pioneer. No point making a station 400 meters (like the model i made) and finding out that that size of a station can only serve 1/4 of the ships ingame.

[Ae-2222]

Someone who has dealt with ships will be able to answer that and give the clearance factor required (based on current door size in spacestations.lua 200m seems to be sufficient) for the autopilot (The largest ship is probably the Hammerhead which is > 100m IIRC.). However, with the current LMR system, it's easy enough to deal with larger ships in the future by resizing the station in Lua, although things like human scale windows might pose a potential issue.

As far as the far future goes not all space stations could be expected to accommodate all ships and some of the smaller outposts etc. might have cargo ferry bots/external docking. There are entities exponentially bigger than the player in pioneer, like factions, which could potentially have absolutely massive ships.

Edit: @Adie123 you should make a separate issue about your models. This issue is sort of off-topic enough (while still having an impact on the original issue) as is without adding important new things:).

[impaktor]

There are now, more up to date, posts on the forum discussing this.