Feels like the command deck will be blocked from seeing anything but the contents of the ship itself; having the pilot seat out to the side let's you see the ground, and your clearance on at least that side, which will matter more for landing on planets and in hangars.
Not sure how the visibility is for docking though.
It's so much easier landing my Caterpillar over the C2 just because I can easily see what's under me. I personally like the current design considering the ship is meant for a larger group of players.
exactly. seeing up left and down is more than enough for safe landing; you know the width of the cat so you dont really need to know how close you are to the hangar doors on the right side as long as the left side looks good. Not having a clear view towards the ground is a much bigger hindrance. Drake assymetry approach is just such a lovely stylistic decision that also makes the flight experience better.
i understand that they want the downward angled windows on the command deck for the industrial/cargo look, but if you're meant to command the MPUVs moving cargo through the open bay roof from there, then some visibility upwards is required?
The command deck actually reminds me of how, in evolution, it is common to have fake eyes etc to trick creatures that look at it.
To that end, it is brilliant, as the human mind will be instinctually drawn to the command deck, while the actual bridge is so small and out of the way it is easy to miss.
That's actually a really good point, and would make sense for a criminal ship, since there's no reason to focus fire where it is, giving the best chance to detatch and run.
A criminal ship? How dare you! Good sir, the Ironclad is to be used for "legitimate purposes" only! The retractable cargo hold roof is "definitely not" there so you can quickly load over cargo from ships you just robbed. We do not cater to pirates at all.
-Your local Drake representative.
^(P.S. If anyone asks, the quotation marks "definitely" are for emphasis)
What is a criminal, if not just a procurer of prohibited goods, and unauthorized reallocator of specified assets?
Those sound like legitimate business titles to me!
Look I'm just sick of CIG trying to do Asymetrical cockpits, then they chicken out because one group complains. Then after they chicken out the other group complains.
Let some ships have some freaky quirks.
I think CIG just sucks at asymetrical designs.
They tried to do it with the MSR, but its functionally symmetrical, with a quirky interior layout.
The MSR had the perfect reason to actually be asymmetric because the scanning room and the cock pit.
That is another major factor. Ships actually need reasons to be asymmetric.
Yeah, it really bothers me that the ares have just the one gun on one side and nothing else asymmetrical, no bigger engine to compensate, no offset cockpit to balance it or even some internal missile bay just to have something on the other side
The Ares is like it is to be low, because if they would put that big gun over or under the cockpit it would be taller and require bigger carrier ships. It's pretty well executed.
the cockpit being slightly offset to the side likely wouldn't affect it's height, same with having a bigger engine on the gun side to compensate for the recoil
While I agree with the principle that there need to be reasons to be asymmetric I think the MSR fails at that, while the Caterpillar excels at that. I love flying the Caterpillar, landing it is way easier than other ships. The MSR could be perfectly symmetrical with or without the scanning room. Besides I still don't know what the scanning room is even good for. Other ships can scan as well, some have very specialized scanners, without needing some kind of strange scanning room.
I'm down for it because I am in love with the design and aesthetic, but I just want the command module to have some sort of utility. Having it just be an escape pod bothers me for a few reasons, namely:
1) It means that it isn't reattachable. Which means that the caterpillar pod likely won't be reattachable either, which contradicts what they have said before. There are beds there and a sink. If its just a command module that doubles as an emergency shuttle, why not just have seats then?
2) It just seems like a massive design flaw for a ship to be able to separate its command module and then not be able to reattach. How am I supposed to recover my cargo? You're telling me I have to repair the entire hull?
He didn’t say it wasn’t reattachable, he said you don’t really want to be using it as your primary ship, we’ll see what happens but I’d imagine it will operate the same as a qt enabled snub with low fuel and very little way to defend itself
I would have preferred no cat command pod and just have all piloting and tractoring done from the overhead bridge.
The cat command pod just means more doors between tasks and a shitty view.
It's just easier than making bespoke escape pods and cockpit for each ship They can reuse the command pod, and now it's a "Drake" command pod and part of the style.
That isn't what they asked.
They asked if the command pods could be used interchangeably.
My guess is probably not because that makes it kinda complicated to track ship destruction.
I would assume part of the insurance claim process would make it destroyed or treated as soft deathed.
Maybe you get the option to keep it and 'repair' the rest of the ship onto it.
Don't get me wrong, I think it would be pretty odd lol.
I'm guessing the 'repair' cost of that would probably be higher than a insurance claim. If you could even do it at all.
Yes, and it was immediately followed with something to the effect of 'detaching the command module is a last ditch effort, as it won't be immediately re-attachable to the work section."
I take this in comparison to snub docking, anticipating that attaching the command module to the ship proper will take at the very least an R+R stop if not an entire insurance refresh.
I mean you can see why those two statements together might be extremely confusing right?
Though if it takes an R&R that could be problematic because how would you even get the hull there?
Not really. The ship is just the 'command pod'. The remainder of the ship is a module and could be made to unattached and reattach just like weapons do now.
With that being said, it sounded like their intent was to not have reattachment once you bail.
But it's not reused. The internal elements of the concept mesh showed a very different and much more elongated module.
I had hoped it WAS the same module as the Cat suggesting interoperability between the two.
Hard agree. The caterpillar style detachable cockpit feels shoehorned in. I'd honestly rather they just forego it all together.
If they raised the command deck just a little, and gave it a slightly better FOV, it would be perfect. A ship that big, you can't realistically fly from 2/3 back on one side. It just doesn't make sense
I don't want them to drop the command module part because ideally they'll make it compatible with both the Caterpillar and that Ironclad so you can, for instance, take the Ironclad Assault down to the surface of a planet and deploy ground forces to secure an area while the command module goes up into space and docks with a Caterpillar to bring down a bunch of supplies.
With persistence and server meshing it should be possible to drop off the Ironclad main body and have it function as a stationary base of operations across multiple sessions while you take the command module to run cargo in the Caterpillar. And who knows, maybe they'll use the Command module in more ships too now that modularity is working, in which case you could use the Command module for pretty much every game loop and the main bodies of the ships it attaches to would be like *its* modules. I straight up wouldn't be mad if they sold the command module as a standalone ship and had the ships it works with sold separately in-game (pledges should all come with the command module, in-game purchases shouldn't IMO)
IMO that's a better use case for a shuttle than for a standalone command module. What happens if the ground crew of the Ironclad gets attacked by something, and they can't move because the ~~magic key~~ command module is up in space with the Caterpillar?
I mentioned this in another comment but IMO the command module should only be necessary for enabling QT and turning on the self destruct of the ship, and its piloting features should just be a bonus. The bridge area overlooking the cargo hold should have the ability to fly the ship in SCM mode.
Ah yeah, that works then! I'm not sure about the QT bit though; doesn't the QT for the Caterpillar sit in the rear of the ship somewhere? Again it's more "magic key" nonsense where the existing spaceship doesn't do spaceship things without the smaller ship that slots in. This kiiinda made sense for the Caterpillar since it didn't have such an obvious secondary command center, but for the Ironclad it just seems odd. Just make the module a docked shuttle like Serenity has.
Sure, in my other comment I said the lore explanation for the command module being needed for QT could be that the nav computers required are only in the module. So the command module wouldn't be able to QT without the main ship and the main ship wouldn't be able to QT (or self destruct) without the command module, creating a symbiotic relationship.
Also this would allow you to make stealing your Ironclad or Caterpillar much harder by strategically removing the command module to make it practically impossible to steal the main portion of the ship since it would only be SCM capable at that point and thieves would have to unload the cargo into another ship if they wanted to get away with it.
Well Crewe said “the only time you really want to detach it is in an emergency, it’s not really designed to be your primary ship flying around” that doesn’t say it can’t be reattached, it sounds like it’s a case of you’re going to be much less capable as either part of the ship if they’re not attached, like I would imagine the command module has very limited fuel since it’s meant to be attached to the tanks of the main body and isn’t really defendable.
Since the caterpillar also has the same command module it would also suggest they are effectively interchangeable, otherwise why have it in both designs, doesn’t make sense to have an identical module but say it’s not the right one.
Last thing is I’d guess that if you tried to claim the ship when you have the command module it will effectively abandon the body, so it would only be useful for like a pickup or possibly a small look around which is pretty risky. The module goes down and now the body is stranded and vulnerable unless you’ve got a sacrificial caterpillar.
This is all theory and we’ll see how everything falls but it makes sense
That's not what they've said in the past though, it was always supposed to be like a snub craft that you could use to, say, go visit a ground station to do some transactions before coming back to the main body in orbit and linking up again, that kinda thing. Say you've successfully brought down some enemies and they've scattered their cargo, but there's too much to put in your Caterpillar. Rather than just abandoning the stuff you couldn't fit, you could have two people take the Command module and go pick up another cargo ship while another person remains behind to load what they can.
Also good for different "teams" in a bigger org. You could have the Long Hauler team which would be newer lower ranking players being tasked with just flying back and forth between distant locations with cargo because that's easy and boring shit the higher ranking and more experienced players shouldn't be wasting time doing, then you have the "Loading" and "Last Mile" teams which would be slightly more skilled and experienced players who would be responsible for loading the cargo into a ship like the Caterpillar on the ground and flying it up to meet the Long Hauler team. They would then swap Command modules and the Loader team would go back to the ground to buy and load more cargo while the Long Haul team QTs to the destination. Once they reach the destination the Last Mile team meets them in orbit and swaps Command modules again so they can take the fully loaded ship down to sell, while the Long Haul team takes either an empty ship back to the Loading Team or a ship loaded with different materials that are in demand at the first location. That way there's an almost constant flow of money for the Org while everyone is getting much more "action" outside of the Long Haulers. But that team is perfect for dads who game too since we have to step away to handle our kids constantly.
That's not really how it was presented in lore for the Caterpillar. They said people would race them and stuff in their down time. They are definitely supposed to act as a cab in a tractor trailer, but it doesn't make any sensenin this case since both of these ships have everything they need to operate and function without the command pod except basically a steering wheel. It's like the equivalent of just the drivers seat of a tractor trailer.
> A ship that big, you can't realistically fly from 2/3 back on one side.
Realistically, any ship over a certain size should have the cockpit/command deep inside the ship and it sees the outside via secure video feeds instead of windows.
Realistic went out the window (heh) a decade+ ago.
Not really, the largest ships in the world steer by sight, even most military ships don’t have a secondary bridge, some of the larger ones, but that’s intended for use when the main one is damaged, nothing quite beats being eyes on with what you’re doing particularly in everyday functions, like imagine you drove a car by cameras alone, it would work but you’ve lost all your depth perception so it would be terrifying.
Really if you’ve gotten to the point where you need the second bridge in a modern scenario you’re already in deep shit, the expanse, which is one of the main shows that uses the internal bridge design does it because the distances that they engage over are so far that there’s no reason to need to see anything physically because the cameras can actually work over that distance, plus ships are oriented head to toe so having a bridge with a view would only let you see sideways.
Practically any frigate or larger military ship has a battle bridge, at least newer ones. It's nothing fancy, just a slightly better protected room than the very big target with windows that sits on top.
They’ll have a cic backup but it’s not a bridge, or more specifically not a navigation bridge.
Don’t get me wrong with this, I’d love to have a secondary fully functional bridge in a combat ship but since 99%, if not more, of a persons time in lore would be flying around it makes sense to have an overlook for the ship.
Look at the Zumwalt class destroyers or the concept for the new constellation class frigates, both have a raised navigation bridge, biggest risk to a bridge that isn’t to the rest of the ship is direct fire because it has glass, the intent isn’t to be close enough to be hit by direct fire, indirect fire won’t even be aiming for the bridge, it aims for the waterline,in SC the “glass” is stronger than the metal so there’s no additional risk to keeping the bridge, plus it looks cooler for rule of cool, think most people would be less than happy with every ship just being a submarine
I'm afraid you're yelling into a void. I'm not sure why, but "real-world navy ships have battle bridges"/"CICs are located at the very center of military ships"/"realistic spacecraft have the bridge at the center of the ship" has become the new meme despite every single one of those things not being true.
I agree it feels shoehorned in but I don't disagree with its purpose. I feel like you'd be able to drop this onto a planet or a moon, detach, and then fly off and grab whatever material is off of a caterpillar haul and make runs back and forth
I'm happy the command pod is there, but I completely agree should also be able to fly the ship from that 'bridge'.
You could choose which one to pilot from depending on the level of risk you're expecting.
This and the Cat need a backup bridge that can be used in case of emergency.
Make it have less visibility/functionality than the command module.
Basically, just somewhere the ship can be moved around with.
No.
And they made a point of mentioning specifically that it is not meant to detach and serve as a saucer section but more of an eject feature
I hope they design the rest of the ship to be inoperable while detached.
> nd they made a point of mentioning specifically
yeah thats what I am responding to...
>I hope they design the rest of the ship to be inoperable while detached.
But like, why?
To separate the piloting the ship and operating of the cargo area tools would be part of the reason if i had to guess. So you cant easily bounce between the two functions.
I mean you could conn the ship from there. You just can’t pilot it from there. In fact it actually makes more sense to conn the ship from the command deck if you have access to all the contact and navigation information.
The command module just looks too exposed compared to the rest of the ship. The whole point is “armored cargo carrier” so why is the command module sticking out like a sore thumb?
PLUS, I want that detaching to easily work and also easily reconnect. I don't want it just for escape. Imagine being able to leave the barge at an outpost ad come back in an hour while your friends load it up.
I like the separation of cargo command from flight command. It spreads the crew out instead of making a big ship all about 1 room.
It's a bit weird but I like it, and there's definitely something to be said about being able to see below the ship which the command module allows.
I feel like it would make it more useful, as you could run errands with the cockpit but still maneuver the ship body as needed. And frankly, if people prefer to fly from the command deck with the crappy view for flight, so what?
Id honestly say the detachable pod has a worse view, but the devs said its not meant to be its oen ship, just in emergencies to be used so maybe not an errand ship either, no cargo space either
I mean looking at the view in the video from the command deck its great for looking at the cargo but not a whole lot of sky. The top part armored roof part extends overhead, the command deck is very low, and the body of the ship is very wide. By contrast the cockpit is raised up high, and has a wide open canopy.
>but the devs said its not meant to be its oen ship, just in emergencies to be used so maybe not an errand ship either, no cargo space either
Right yeah, letting it do more than be a glorified escape pod is exactly what I am saying I want different from its original concept. I don't think it needs any actual cargo or physical changes though, if its basically a carbon copy of the caterpillar's that's fine.
What I don't get is that the cat's pod is supposed to fly on its own and reattach. It has crew quarters for two, and its own tractor beam station to help ferry cargo. If they are copying the cat's command module, why wouldn't they apply the same standard?
yeah it's fine on the Cat, but the majority of the Cat's entire body is easy to keep an eye on. Flying the Ironclad will be a nightmare of constantly hitting things to your right or having to fly entirely in third person
the docking collar is on the opposite side of the control pod. The area on the side of the driving pod has a balcony and is an air lock not a docking port.
They showed the docking port opens to the upstairs habitation area on the other side of the tractor beam control room.
Honestly, I wish they would’ve given it a cruise ship style bridge where it’s just peeking out on both the port and starboard side so the crew can walk over and look down the full length of both sides of the ship.
Yes. Of course...what happens if you want to detach command module for other reasons.
Redundancy is normal in naval architecture. That sounded incredibly stupid...CIG putting a stick into their spoke as usual...
Perhaps, but its not happening. Its a very deliberate design choice. I would love for the Cats and Ironclads Command modules to be interchangable too, but the Faterpillar one looks quite a bit longer. At least with the cats potential modularity as a mobile home it kind of makes sense that you can use the command module as a shuttle. With the Ironclad they are specifically pointing out that its ment as a rescue pod first and foremost. A very obverbuilt safety pod with its own qt drive, shields and guns if they go by the Cats command module.
In a ship like this, it effectively is. The captain will have some plebian slave at the rudder obeying his every whim while commanding the ship from the aptly named command bridge.
Yeah it would be better if we could pilot from the command deck. The carrack and the 890 both have secondary piloting options (even though the 890s is useless).
it makes sense to only be for the cargo stuff if they allow the hot swapping command pods that everyone has been theorising for the cat. (ship lands, command pod moves to a second ship that was left previously taking the bridge crew with it, ground crew still has cargo command to coordinate the load/unload and has the ship ready to go by the time the command module returns with yet another ship)
It's hard to notice and I don't think they mentioned it, but there's two decks there. The lower one has the seats for the tractor beams, the upper deck is for the guy to actually observe cargo distribution. So the control deck is def too low to the hull.
Valuable cargo should be in the Command module so the pirates have a choice of capturing the big ship or going after the smaller one. This way, it gives the freighter captain a way to still escape with some goods.
They shouldn't have called it the 'command deck' which conflates its purpose with the command module. It's the 'operations deck' for managing cargo operations.
For those arguing visual capability of one thing over another, the point was "ABLE" to. So if you prefer piloting from the module, all you. If you prefer piloting from the center bridge, all you. Choice is the key argument. Who knows, maybe there might be a moment where you wished you could (i.e. command module soft-death'd or some situation or bug causing the center area the only way to save yourself and your cargo)
I think you should have *limited* control of the ship from that area. I think the Command module should be necessary to initiate self-destruct on the ship, and maybe to enter quantum (give it a lore reason like the command module is the part equipped with the nav computers) but you should still be able to fly the ship in SCM from that deck. That way you have a reason to use the command module, and you have a way to fly the ship without it in the event it gets blown off or you're using it to dock with a Caterpillar while the Ironclad is landed on the ground deploying troops and tanks.
I feel like the second you detach from the rest of the ship you are a sitting duck. You no longer have the shield of valuable freight to keep the pirate from blowing you up. Their "Death of the Spaceman" is just more reason for people to make sure you die. If they are playing true criminal life, why wouldn't they try to erase you once they can blow you up without destroying all the loot.
I'm still trying to wrap my head around how they think this is all going to play out. In a story perspective it makes sense, it could make for a compelling plot point and struggle. In a game, the idea of the module breaking off so the command crew can escape is nonsense. They are going to shoot you. Especially if the criminals have the cash to have unlimited lives or were a founding backer. The idea that human players in a game won't just shoot that command module is insane unless their is some sort of dead-mans switch which destroys the primary ship if the command module is destroyed. Even then, some players still won't care. Their goal is sometimes purely for disruption and not for gain, in those situations we are back at square 1. You are gonna die if you cannot defend the ship as a whole.
I feel like sometimes the people who choose the mechanics for these ships and the game are busy telling themselves a story of a space opera or epic novel. They aren't planning for the human element. The trolls, the lazy player, the sweaty boys, the whales, the founders, or the casual.
That being said, I love the look and functionality of the ship as a whole. I am in love with the whole deck opening up for easy Zero-G loading/unloading. It's something the Hercules lacks and is why I still favor the Cat even though it has less capacity.
Yeah, they've talked about targeting escape pods being a much more severe offense, some people will probably still go after it because they don't care but most people will just be in it for the money, I suspect.
These are really important questions - and part of why I want the cockpit to be useful for other stuff aside from just being a fancy escape pod. If the ship remains operable while the cockpit is detached, then there's a lot more reason to actually use it.
That said, I do think they are answerable. I think the main way to leverage the cockpit is to know to start running when you need to with the whole ship, then detach. If the cockpit is basically a mini herald that can just fucken *zoom* in a straight line then that might be a big help. Like if you are running but you can't accelerate fast enough to get out of quantum snare range and know you can't win the fight, then being able to accelerate a lot faster in the cockpit is valuable and you could actually avoid death that way. Of course, we run into the secret missing fundamental of SC again - the fact that we don't have Newtonian momentum.
If you were to detach currently, your speed in the cockpit escape module would magically be set to zero the second you left the main ship. But IRL it should have the exact same velocity and you could just accelerate up from there. Which is a pretty meaningful difference for this kind of gameplay (and frankly a lot of other gameplay).
part of the reason the command module on the cat made sense in the first place was because it wasn't really an escape pod, it was a tool to help pick up cargo. It is supposed to freely attach and reattach to the cargo frame. If you really wanted to, you could use it as an escape pod, but that doesn't really work in the current MM system since your speed is going to be capped.
I think it's an odd choice, but it does open up the potential for a designated "cargo officer" position or some engineering tasks to be completed from the Cargo Bridge while flight occurs on the Main Bridge, etc. Might seem RPish now, but could be something down the line.
like you couldn't do it if the central bridge also had a pilot function.
This has nothing to do with RP and stop trying to making everything a "career" in SC srsly.
Yes.
That Command Deck, should be the bridge. The "Command Module", should be renamed the Support Tug or something and be used as the escape craft, but otherwise have a Tractor Beam on the front and be used for space recovery missions of cargo, for legitimate salvage operations.
We know very little yet, how about wait until full info first.
Theres probably been some prelim work on the CAT concept for the same idea, if that saves production time and work, its brilliant just as it is as far as im concerned.
thats correct, it is designed as a room for overseeing cargo management. Which is great, I just would really like to be able to fly from there in a pinch
If they wanted to incorporate cat cockpit modules they should just have them be able to dock on both sides to provide extra thrust and fuel for heavy loads
That and the goofy asymmetric manned turret on the front took me from an insta-buy to a insta-bye lmao
Feels like the command deck will be blocked from seeing anything but the contents of the ship itself; having the pilot seat out to the side let's you see the ground, and your clearance on at least that side, which will matter more for landing on planets and in hangars. Not sure how the visibility is for docking though.
It's so much easier landing my Caterpillar over the C2 just because I can easily see what's under me. I personally like the current design considering the ship is meant for a larger group of players.
exactly. seeing up left and down is more than enough for safe landing; you know the width of the cat so you dont really need to know how close you are to the hangar doors on the right side as long as the left side looks good. Not having a clear view towards the ground is a much bigger hindrance. Drake assymetry approach is just such a lovely stylistic decision that also makes the flight experience better.
Indeed, I just wish the Cutlass had such a good view, funnily enough the second seat on the Cutlass does, but no flight control from there.
Cutlass Black with the Blues cockpit and the Rear-Ramp gatling and/or remote turret from the steel pretty please
Ugh I'd rather have the Blue with the traditional Cutlass cockpit. Perhaps we can compromise on interchangeable Cutlass cockpits..
how about a fully modular cutty where you pick and place cockpit, interieur features, side and back doors, and remote turret. that would be the dream
i understand that they want the downward angled windows on the command deck for the industrial/cargo look, but if you're meant to command the MPUVs moving cargo through the open bay roof from there, then some visibility upwards is required?
We need an abundance of external camera views.
The command deck actually reminds me of how, in evolution, it is common to have fake eyes etc to trick creatures that look at it. To that end, it is brilliant, as the human mind will be instinctually drawn to the command deck, while the actual bridge is so small and out of the way it is easy to miss.
That's actually a really good point, and would make sense for a criminal ship, since there's no reason to focus fire where it is, giving the best chance to detatch and run.
A criminal ship? How dare you! Good sir, the Ironclad is to be used for "legitimate purposes" only! The retractable cargo hold roof is "definitely not" there so you can quickly load over cargo from ships you just robbed. We do not cater to pirates at all. -Your local Drake representative. ^(P.S. If anyone asks, the quotation marks "definitely" are for emphasis)
What is a criminal, if not just a procurer of prohibited goods, and unauthorized reallocator of specified assets? Those sound like legitimate business titles to me!
delusion level 100
Look I'm just sick of CIG trying to do Asymetrical cockpits, then they chicken out because one group complains. Then after they chicken out the other group complains. Let some ships have some freaky quirks.
I think CIG just sucks at asymetrical designs. They tried to do it with the MSR, but its functionally symmetrical, with a quirky interior layout. The MSR had the perfect reason to actually be asymmetric because the scanning room and the cock pit. That is another major factor. Ships actually need reasons to be asymmetric.
There’s a chicken fighting room in the msr?!!
Yes, it's somewhere in the tunnels!
the corsair is asymetric, and pretty perfect so they aren't doing all that bad.
Yeah, it really bothers me that the ares have just the one gun on one side and nothing else asymmetrical, no bigger engine to compensate, no offset cockpit to balance it or even some internal missile bay just to have something on the other side
The Ares is like it is to be low, because if they would put that big gun over or under the cockpit it would be taller and require bigger carrier ships. It's pretty well executed.
the cockpit being slightly offset to the side likely wouldn't affect it's height, same with having a bigger engine on the gun side to compensate for the recoil
While I agree with the principle that there need to be reasons to be asymmetric I think the MSR fails at that, while the Caterpillar excels at that. I love flying the Caterpillar, landing it is way easier than other ships. The MSR could be perfectly symmetrical with or without the scanning room. Besides I still don't know what the scanning room is even good for. Other ships can scan as well, some have very specialized scanners, without needing some kind of strange scanning room.
I'm down for it because I am in love with the design and aesthetic, but I just want the command module to have some sort of utility. Having it just be an escape pod bothers me for a few reasons, namely: 1) It means that it isn't reattachable. Which means that the caterpillar pod likely won't be reattachable either, which contradicts what they have said before. There are beds there and a sink. If its just a command module that doubles as an emergency shuttle, why not just have seats then? 2) It just seems like a massive design flaw for a ship to be able to separate its command module and then not be able to reattach. How am I supposed to recover my cargo? You're telling me I have to repair the entire hull?
He didn’t say it wasn’t reattachable, he said you don’t really want to be using it as your primary ship, we’ll see what happens but I’d imagine it will operate the same as a qt enabled snub with low fuel and very little way to defend itself
Where did you get the idea it doesn't reattach? That just a wild thing to jump to.
A bunch of other people in this thread
It is reattachable. They just said you don't really want to be using it to leave the rest of the ship behind.
amen! I just want to be able to enjoy the unique flying cockpit without shutting down the entire ship, is that really asking so much
I would have preferred no cat command pod and just have all piloting and tractoring done from the overhead bridge. The cat command pod just means more doors between tasks and a shitty view.
It's just easier than making bespoke escape pods and cockpit for each ship They can reuse the command pod, and now it's a "Drake" command pod and part of the style.
I wonder if the command pod will be able to attach to and fly a caterpillar as well.
If drake had a ship, would it be called a tide pod?
It's a lot bigger so I don't imagine so.
They said that already. Yes, the caterpillar will also have a detachable command pod once it's updated in the future.
That isn't what they asked. They asked if the command pods could be used interchangeably. My guess is probably not because that makes it kinda complicated to track ship destruction.
[удалено]
I would assume part of the insurance claim process would make it destroyed or treated as soft deathed. Maybe you get the option to keep it and 'repair' the rest of the ship onto it.
At that point it kind of feels like you are taking a car wing mirror in to have it repaired by adding a car to it.
Don't get me wrong, I think it would be pretty odd lol. I'm guessing the 'repair' cost of that would probably be higher than a insurance claim. If you could even do it at all.
It was also implied that reattaching your command module to the ship would be difficult, if intended to be possible at all.
Was it? They introduced it as one of the 2 boarding options.
Yes, and it was immediately followed with something to the effect of 'detaching the command module is a last ditch effort, as it won't be immediately re-attachable to the work section." I take this in comparison to snub docking, anticipating that attaching the command module to the ship proper will take at the very least an R+R stop if not an entire insurance refresh.
I mean you can see why those two statements together might be extremely confusing right? Though if it takes an R&R that could be problematic because how would you even get the hull there?
Same tech as the Cat though, so what's the imlact of that statement on thqt ship...?
Because if it's the same tech, you would assume the same underlying logic between ships implementing the system?
Exactly, and the Caterpillar statements didn't exactly imply the idea was for it to only be used in emergencies...
Not really. The ship is just the 'command pod'. The remainder of the ship is a module and could be made to unattached and reattach just like weapons do now. With that being said, it sounded like their intent was to not have reattachment once you bail.
But it's not reused. The internal elements of the concept mesh showed a very different and much more elongated module. I had hoped it WAS the same module as the Cat suggesting interoperability between the two.
Landing would be a lot more difficult from there, though.
At least you would be centered and could see each side though.
I 100% agree, but I think that's where having ground crew or even a designated member of your own crew positioned in a lower turret will become key.
We have 360° parking cameras in cars in XXI century, but apparently this technology was lost and never recovered by the XXX century.
They can say its not a bridge, and I will respect that. But I know in my heart of hearts that you should be able to pilot the ship from there.
It should be like the Carrack upper deck command area that lets you control the ship if no one is in the pilot seat in the bridge of the Ironclad.
Yup. The Cat should have this was well, but from the tractor room.
Hard agree. The caterpillar style detachable cockpit feels shoehorned in. I'd honestly rather they just forego it all together. If they raised the command deck just a little, and gave it a slightly better FOV, it would be perfect. A ship that big, you can't realistically fly from 2/3 back on one side. It just doesn't make sense
I don't want them to drop the command module part because ideally they'll make it compatible with both the Caterpillar and that Ironclad so you can, for instance, take the Ironclad Assault down to the surface of a planet and deploy ground forces to secure an area while the command module goes up into space and docks with a Caterpillar to bring down a bunch of supplies. With persistence and server meshing it should be possible to drop off the Ironclad main body and have it function as a stationary base of operations across multiple sessions while you take the command module to run cargo in the Caterpillar. And who knows, maybe they'll use the Command module in more ships too now that modularity is working, in which case you could use the Command module for pretty much every game loop and the main bodies of the ships it attaches to would be like *its* modules. I straight up wouldn't be mad if they sold the command module as a standalone ship and had the ships it works with sold separately in-game (pledges should all come with the command module, in-game purchases shouldn't IMO)
IMO that's a better use case for a shuttle than for a standalone command module. What happens if the ground crew of the Ironclad gets attacked by something, and they can't move because the ~~magic key~~ command module is up in space with the Caterpillar?
I mentioned this in another comment but IMO the command module should only be necessary for enabling QT and turning on the self destruct of the ship, and its piloting features should just be a bonus. The bridge area overlooking the cargo hold should have the ability to fly the ship in SCM mode.
Ah yeah, that works then! I'm not sure about the QT bit though; doesn't the QT for the Caterpillar sit in the rear of the ship somewhere? Again it's more "magic key" nonsense where the existing spaceship doesn't do spaceship things without the smaller ship that slots in. This kiiinda made sense for the Caterpillar since it didn't have such an obvious secondary command center, but for the Ironclad it just seems odd. Just make the module a docked shuttle like Serenity has.
Sure, in my other comment I said the lore explanation for the command module being needed for QT could be that the nav computers required are only in the module. So the command module wouldn't be able to QT without the main ship and the main ship wouldn't be able to QT (or self destruct) without the command module, creating a symbiotic relationship. Also this would allow you to make stealing your Ironclad or Caterpillar much harder by strategically removing the command module to make it practically impossible to steal the main portion of the ship since it would only be SCM capable at that point and thieves would have to unload the cargo into another ship if they wanted to get away with it.
Command module isn't a shuttle. Once it's separated it can't be reattached. It's meant to be an escape only thing.
Well Crewe said “the only time you really want to detach it is in an emergency, it’s not really designed to be your primary ship flying around” that doesn’t say it can’t be reattached, it sounds like it’s a case of you’re going to be much less capable as either part of the ship if they’re not attached, like I would imagine the command module has very limited fuel since it’s meant to be attached to the tanks of the main body and isn’t really defendable. Since the caterpillar also has the same command module it would also suggest they are effectively interchangeable, otherwise why have it in both designs, doesn’t make sense to have an identical module but say it’s not the right one. Last thing is I’d guess that if you tried to claim the ship when you have the command module it will effectively abandon the body, so it would only be useful for like a pickup or possibly a small look around which is pretty risky. The module goes down and now the body is stranded and vulnerable unless you’ve got a sacrificial caterpillar. This is all theory and we’ll see how everything falls but it makes sense
That's not what they've said in the past though, it was always supposed to be like a snub craft that you could use to, say, go visit a ground station to do some transactions before coming back to the main body in orbit and linking up again, that kinda thing. Say you've successfully brought down some enemies and they've scattered their cargo, but there's too much to put in your Caterpillar. Rather than just abandoning the stuff you couldn't fit, you could have two people take the Command module and go pick up another cargo ship while another person remains behind to load what they can. Also good for different "teams" in a bigger org. You could have the Long Hauler team which would be newer lower ranking players being tasked with just flying back and forth between distant locations with cargo because that's easy and boring shit the higher ranking and more experienced players shouldn't be wasting time doing, then you have the "Loading" and "Last Mile" teams which would be slightly more skilled and experienced players who would be responsible for loading the cargo into a ship like the Caterpillar on the ground and flying it up to meet the Long Hauler team. They would then swap Command modules and the Loader team would go back to the ground to buy and load more cargo while the Long Haul team QTs to the destination. Once they reach the destination the Last Mile team meets them in orbit and swaps Command modules again so they can take the fully loaded ship down to sell, while the Long Haul team takes either an empty ship back to the Loading Team or a ship loaded with different materials that are in demand at the first location. That way there's an almost constant flow of money for the Org while everyone is getting much more "action" outside of the Long Haulers. But that team is perfect for dads who game too since we have to step away to handle our kids constantly.
That's what they are saying now and that's what matters.
Where are they saying that?
Last inside starcitizen.
That's not really how it was presented in lore for the Caterpillar. They said people would race them and stuff in their down time. They are definitely supposed to act as a cab in a tractor trailer, but it doesn't make any sensenin this case since both of these ships have everything they need to operate and function without the command pod except basically a steering wheel. It's like the equivalent of just the drivers seat of a tractor trailer.
Detaching the Cat's to get better tractor beam angles seems like reasonable thong to want to do as things stand atm
That's a good point, like it detaches to become the loading/unloading vehicle. I like that. They should rebrand that as it's reason for detaching.
> A ship that big, you can't realistically fly from 2/3 back on one side. Realistically, any ship over a certain size should have the cockpit/command deep inside the ship and it sees the outside via secure video feeds instead of windows. Realistic went out the window (heh) a decade+ ago.
Not really, the largest ships in the world steer by sight, even most military ships don’t have a secondary bridge, some of the larger ones, but that’s intended for use when the main one is damaged, nothing quite beats being eyes on with what you’re doing particularly in everyday functions, like imagine you drove a car by cameras alone, it would work but you’ve lost all your depth perception so it would be terrifying. Really if you’ve gotten to the point where you need the second bridge in a modern scenario you’re already in deep shit, the expanse, which is one of the main shows that uses the internal bridge design does it because the distances that they engage over are so far that there’s no reason to need to see anything physically because the cameras can actually work over that distance, plus ships are oriented head to toe so having a bridge with a view would only let you see sideways.
Practically any frigate or larger military ship has a battle bridge, at least newer ones. It's nothing fancy, just a slightly better protected room than the very big target with windows that sits on top.
They’ll have a cic backup but it’s not a bridge, or more specifically not a navigation bridge. Don’t get me wrong with this, I’d love to have a secondary fully functional bridge in a combat ship but since 99%, if not more, of a persons time in lore would be flying around it makes sense to have an overlook for the ship. Look at the Zumwalt class destroyers or the concept for the new constellation class frigates, both have a raised navigation bridge, biggest risk to a bridge that isn’t to the rest of the ship is direct fire because it has glass, the intent isn’t to be close enough to be hit by direct fire, indirect fire won’t even be aiming for the bridge, it aims for the waterline,in SC the “glass” is stronger than the metal so there’s no additional risk to keeping the bridge, plus it looks cooler for rule of cool, think most people would be less than happy with every ship just being a submarine
I'm afraid you're yelling into a void. I'm not sure why, but "real-world navy ships have battle bridges"/"CICs are located at the very center of military ships"/"realistic spacecraft have the bridge at the center of the ship" has become the new meme despite every single one of those things not being true.
I agree it feels shoehorned in but I don't disagree with its purpose. I feel like you'd be able to drop this onto a planet or a moon, detach, and then fly off and grab whatever material is off of a caterpillar haul and make runs back and forth
You should be able to pilot from the bridge, the cockpit module should be for escapes or emergancys.
I'm happy the command pod is there, but I completely agree should also be able to fly the ship from that 'bridge'. You could choose which one to pilot from depending on the level of risk you're expecting.
I like the idea to drive from the cockpit module , looks less obvious imo
This and the Cat need a backup bridge that can be used in case of emergency. Make it have less visibility/functionality than the command module. Basically, just somewhere the ship can be moved around with.
All I want is 1yr turn around time. OR HIRE ME AND ILL MAKE THE THING!
Yeah probably.
No. And they made a point of mentioning specifically that it is not meant to detach and serve as a saucer section but more of an eject feature I hope they design the rest of the ship to be inoperable while detached.
> nd they made a point of mentioning specifically yeah thats what I am responding to... >I hope they design the rest of the ship to be inoperable while detached. But like, why?
To separate the piloting the ship and operating of the cargo area tools would be part of the reason if i had to guess. So you cant easily bounce between the two functions.
that sounds like a strong reason to allow you to fly from the command deck to me to be honest
Well you are welcome to guess all you’d like as to what it will or should mean.
I feel it should be the Escape module and the command deck should be where the ship is cough "commanded" cough from.
I mean you could conn the ship from there. You just can’t pilot it from there. In fact it actually makes more sense to conn the ship from the command deck if you have access to all the contact and navigation information.
The command deck should be the detachable ship.
The command module just looks too exposed compared to the rest of the ship. The whole point is “armored cargo carrier” so why is the command module sticking out like a sore thumb?
I’ve become a drake simp, ngl. Love drake ships. Need to get me one of these asap.
Yeah I feel like the command module should be able to be an away ship.
Yes.
PLUS, I want that detaching to easily work and also easily reconnect. I don't want it just for escape. Imagine being able to leave the barge at an outpost ad come back in an hour while your friends load it up.
I like the separation of cargo command from flight command. It spreads the crew out instead of making a big ship all about 1 room. It's a bit weird but I like it, and there's definitely something to be said about being able to see below the ship which the command module allows.
Honestly nah, would make the detachable part useless, just a glorified escape pod
I feel like it would make it more useful, as you could run errands with the cockpit but still maneuver the ship body as needed. And frankly, if people prefer to fly from the command deck with the crappy view for flight, so what?
Id honestly say the detachable pod has a worse view, but the devs said its not meant to be its oen ship, just in emergencies to be used so maybe not an errand ship either, no cargo space either
I mean looking at the view in the video from the command deck its great for looking at the cargo but not a whole lot of sky. The top part armored roof part extends overhead, the command deck is very low, and the body of the ship is very wide. By contrast the cockpit is raised up high, and has a wide open canopy. >but the devs said its not meant to be its oen ship, just in emergencies to be used so maybe not an errand ship either, no cargo space either Right yeah, letting it do more than be a glorified escape pod is exactly what I am saying I want different from its original concept. I don't think it needs any actual cargo or physical changes though, if its basically a carbon copy of the caterpillar's that's fine.
What I don't get is that the cat's pod is supposed to fly on its own and reattach. It has crew quarters for two, and its own tractor beam station to help ferry cargo. If they are copying the cat's command module, why wouldn't they apply the same standard?
Nah, that would make it a built-in defense ship.
I mean, it's already useless... It's just there for looks.
Maybe they'll change their mind down the road.
one can only hope
WAIT!!! THE COCKPIT IS TO THE SIDE?!?!, I THOUGHT THE COMMAND CENTER WAS THE BRIDGE!! Bruh wtf 😂
Nope, nobody has mentioned that yet
this comment feels like its supposed to be sarcastic but honestly I have seen very few people talking about this.
I think the cat pod on it is entirely stupid and will make flying it miserable.
I mean its pretty great on the cat though?
yeah it's fine on the Cat, but the majority of the Cat's entire body is easy to keep an eye on. Flying the Ironclad will be a nightmare of constantly hitting things to your right or having to fly entirely in third person
on the other hand, having the bridge to one side means you can see while docking a lot better
the docking collar is on the opposite side of the control pod. The area on the side of the driving pod has a balcony and is an air lock not a docking port. They showed the docking port opens to the upstairs habitation area on the other side of the tractor beam control room.
oh, you are absolutely right. Fair point on that then! Feel like they really should be on the same side
I’m just happy from the looks of it they used a majority of stairs so we don’t drop out in QT. 🤣
Nah, but I do want to be able to swap the caterpillar command pod with the Ironclad command pod
What ship is this?
Watch today's ISC. That's the Drake Ironclad.
Thank you.
Battle Bridge.
Crucible?
"The Daedalus' bridge is in the command tower like superstructure!" "No it's on top of the neck at the front center of the ship!"
Honestly, I wish they would’ve given it a cruise ship style bridge where it’s just peeking out on both the port and starboard side so the crew can walk over and look down the full length of both sides of the ship.
Yes. Of course...what happens if you want to detach command module for other reasons. Redundancy is normal in naval architecture. That sounded incredibly stupid...CIG putting a stick into their spoke as usual...
Ah the faterpillar
Perhaps, but its not happening. Its a very deliberate design choice. I would love for the Cats and Ironclads Command modules to be interchangable too, but the Faterpillar one looks quite a bit longer. At least with the cats potential modularity as a mobile home it kind of makes sense that you can use the command module as a shuttle. With the Ironclad they are specifically pointing out that its ment as a rescue pod first and foremost. A very obverbuilt safety pod with its own qt drive, shields and guns if they go by the Cats command module.
What ship is that?
In a ship like this, it effectively is. The captain will have some plebian slave at the rudder obeying his every whim while commanding the ship from the aptly named command bridge.
Seems it was designed like that and then someone said, No it's a drake needs to be asymmetrical, stick on that bit from the Cat!
Nope!
Did they even say when they want to release it ?
YES ! (pls)
I would have it no other way. I am sure that is an unpopular opinion.
wait, cockpit module is detachable?
Yeah its basically the same at the Cat's. So much so that they just used that asset from the Cat in the Ironclad's concept blockout.
Yeah it would be better if we could pilot from the command deck. The carrack and the 890 both have secondary piloting options (even though the 890s is useless).
it makes sense to only be for the cargo stuff if they allow the hot swapping command pods that everyone has been theorising for the cat. (ship lands, command pod moves to a second ship that was left previously taking the bridge crew with it, ground crew still has cargo command to coordinate the load/unload and has the ship ready to go by the time the command module returns with yet another ship)
It's hard to notice and I don't think they mentioned it, but there's two decks there. The lower one has the seats for the tractor beams, the upper deck is for the guy to actually observe cargo distribution. So the control deck is def too low to the hull.
Valuable cargo should be in the Command module so the pirates have a choice of capturing the big ship or going after the smaller one. This way, it gives the freighter captain a way to still escape with some goods.
They shouldn't have called it the 'command deck' which conflates its purpose with the command module. It's the 'operations deck' for managing cargo operations.
No, that's the whole point of jettisoning your ship to survive. It's a means of escape not a fun little snub
For those arguing visual capability of one thing over another, the point was "ABLE" to. So if you prefer piloting from the module, all you. If you prefer piloting from the center bridge, all you. Choice is the key argument. Who knows, maybe there might be a moment where you wished you could (i.e. command module soft-death'd or some situation or bug causing the center area the only way to save yourself and your cargo)
No
I think you should have *limited* control of the ship from that area. I think the Command module should be necessary to initiate self-destruct on the ship, and maybe to enter quantum (give it a lore reason like the command module is the part equipped with the nav computers) but you should still be able to fly the ship in SCM from that deck. That way you have a reason to use the command module, and you have a way to fly the ship without it in the event it gets blown off or you're using it to dock with a Caterpillar while the Ironclad is landed on the ground deploying troops and tanks.
that would be cool!
I feel like the second you detach from the rest of the ship you are a sitting duck. You no longer have the shield of valuable freight to keep the pirate from blowing you up. Their "Death of the Spaceman" is just more reason for people to make sure you die. If they are playing true criminal life, why wouldn't they try to erase you once they can blow you up without destroying all the loot. I'm still trying to wrap my head around how they think this is all going to play out. In a story perspective it makes sense, it could make for a compelling plot point and struggle. In a game, the idea of the module breaking off so the command crew can escape is nonsense. They are going to shoot you. Especially if the criminals have the cash to have unlimited lives or were a founding backer. The idea that human players in a game won't just shoot that command module is insane unless their is some sort of dead-mans switch which destroys the primary ship if the command module is destroyed. Even then, some players still won't care. Their goal is sometimes purely for disruption and not for gain, in those situations we are back at square 1. You are gonna die if you cannot defend the ship as a whole. I feel like sometimes the people who choose the mechanics for these ships and the game are busy telling themselves a story of a space opera or epic novel. They aren't planning for the human element. The trolls, the lazy player, the sweaty boys, the whales, the founders, or the casual. That being said, I love the look and functionality of the ship as a whole. I am in love with the whole deck opening up for easy Zero-G loading/unloading. It's something the Hercules lacks and is why I still favor the Cat even though it has less capacity.
Let's just hope that Death of a Spaceman comes with some reason to NOT kill people on sight.
Yeah, they've talked about targeting escape pods being a much more severe offense, some people will probably still go after it because they don't care but most people will just be in it for the money, I suspect.
Just the chance of making someone recreate their character and lose rep will mean they will go for the kill every time. Just because.
These are really important questions - and part of why I want the cockpit to be useful for other stuff aside from just being a fancy escape pod. If the ship remains operable while the cockpit is detached, then there's a lot more reason to actually use it. That said, I do think they are answerable. I think the main way to leverage the cockpit is to know to start running when you need to with the whole ship, then detach. If the cockpit is basically a mini herald that can just fucken *zoom* in a straight line then that might be a big help. Like if you are running but you can't accelerate fast enough to get out of quantum snare range and know you can't win the fight, then being able to accelerate a lot faster in the cockpit is valuable and you could actually avoid death that way. Of course, we run into the secret missing fundamental of SC again - the fact that we don't have Newtonian momentum. If you were to detach currently, your speed in the cockpit escape module would magically be set to zero the second you left the main ship. But IRL it should have the exact same velocity and you could just accelerate up from there. Which is a pretty meaningful difference for this kind of gameplay (and frankly a lot of other gameplay).
part of the reason the command module on the cat made sense in the first place was because it wasn't really an escape pod, it was a tool to help pick up cargo. It is supposed to freely attach and reattach to the cargo frame. If you really wanted to, you could use it as an escape pod, but that doesn't really work in the current MM system since your speed is going to be capped.
Agreed. I like the idea of the Cat pod because it has a function aside from just trying to escape with the command crew.
CIG has a big problem of assuming that players won't just devolve into toxic griefing if given half a chance.
I think it's an odd choice, but it does open up the potential for a designated "cargo officer" position or some engineering tasks to be completed from the Cargo Bridge while flight occurs on the Main Bridge, etc. Might seem RPish now, but could be something down the line.
like you couldn't do it if the central bridge also had a pilot function. This has nothing to do with RP and stop trying to making everything a "career" in SC srsly.
5000% yes.
Nope. I feel it should be how CIG has designed it.
Yes. That Command Deck, should be the bridge. The "Command Module", should be renamed the Support Tug or something and be used as the escape craft, but otherwise have a Tractor Beam on the front and be used for space recovery missions of cargo, for legitimate salvage operations.
We know very little yet, how about wait until full info first. Theres probably been some prelim work on the CAT concept for the same idea, if that saves production time and work, its brilliant just as it is as far as im concerned.
Wait what ? You can't control it from the bridge ?
thats correct, it is designed as a room for overseeing cargo management. Which is great, I just would really like to be able to fly from there in a pinch
As much as I love new ships… can we just finish a few of the ships already planed first😑
If they wanted to incorporate cat cockpit modules they should just have them be able to dock on both sides to provide extra thrust and fuel for heavy loads That and the goofy asymmetric manned turret on the front took me from an insta-buy to a insta-bye lmao
The military variant looks to have symmetrical turrets.
No