Caterpillar internal rework on the way?

Brictoria

Commander
Apr 15, 2022
49
112
100
RSI Handle
Brictoria
With the upcoming cargo refactor, and work on making the mass of cargo affect ship flight models, it looks like a rework of the Caterpillar internals may be planned\in progress.

Looking at a post by CIG staff on Spectrum (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/3/thread/commodity-kiosk-feedback-show-commodities-not-ship/5162288), there were 2 images of the caterpillar included.

The second image was a simple line-art of the Caterpillar, with a large block in each compartment, which didn't provide much detail:


The first image, however, seems to suggest an intention to move the internal upper walkway to the centre-line and make walking through on either level possible once the ship is fully loaded:


If this does occur, it will be interesting to see if it is possible to move between levels via ladder in each of the compartments - there does appear to be a small gap between the cargo and wall in the second image, where a wall-mounted ladder may fit...

This may also affect the cargo capacity as well: The second image shows a capacity of 120 SCU per main compartment (one is highlighted in green), meaning the front would need to hold 96 SCU to contain the current capacity of the ship - The only image I could track down ( https://external-preview.redd.it/N4ehgn3Gp4TKepsphUeGNGKffT73V06QN6k2EcPaCBk.jpg?auto=webp&s=6386ee9fc171e098bd64b074b0f0acefc6ac490f ) on the caterpillar's load showed 124 SCU per main compartment and 80 for the front, although in theory the front cargo could be expanded to as much as 108 if widened to 6 stacks of 3 (if the image is accurate for how this ship is loaded now)... Perhaps decreased by 12 by removing 2 stacks of 3 from each side near\below the turret to retain curent capacity?
 

FZD

Space Marshal
Nov 22, 2016
1,090
4,171
2,000
RSI Handle
FZD
I'd give it like at least 50% chance that whoever was concepting the cargo representation just momentarily forgot where the upper walkway was / just made the representation based on the lower walkway.

I mean, it's possible they're doing this. I honestly kinda wish they wouldn't, as it'll interfere with caterpillars ability to haul larger boxes.
 

Cugino83

Grand Admiral
Apr 25, 2019
1,494
4,738
1,000
RSI Handle
Cugino
Well considering that the whole ship design is quite dated right now, the external pad doesn't drop, and it lacks all the components phisical space it's sure to be in line for a rework, probably just after the Cutlass if not alongside.
If the rework will affect the cargo capavity/funcionality as well that is yet to see but seams resonable, due to the interior rework for the introduction of working navmesh for NPC, so is not unlikely they'll choose to move the walkways in the middle: on the cargo refactor prospective itt does make sense since will allow to load/unload the ship from both side without any restrictions.
Larger cargo box will have other problema to deal with like the loading pads that are narrow and the ability to move the crate "by hand" one the pad is lifted at the cargo level: Caterpillars doen't seams to be design in first place to haul the largest container in the first place IMHO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Deroth

Brictoria

Commander
Apr 15, 2022
49
112
100
RSI Handle
Brictoria
I'd give it like at least 50% chance that whoever was concepting the cargo representation just momentarily forgot where the upper walkway was / just made the representation based on the lower walkway.

I mean, it's possible they're doing this. I honestly kinda wish they wouldn't, as it'll interfere with caterpillars ability to haul larger boxes.
I don't think it would have a huge impact on what could be transported, but it would simplify arranging cargo by mass to keep the ship evenly balanced for flight, which is something they are planning on implementing.

If you look at the current boxes we can "create", we have a 1x1x1 and a 1x1x2 SCU option. Assuming they continue with "modular" standards based around cubes and "doubling" one or more lengths for the next "step", future options would most likely be:
1x1x1
1x1x2
1x1x4 (unlikely)
1x2x2 (unlikely)
2x2x2
2x2x4 (Outpost\mining settlement crates - largest a Hull A can manage)
2x2x8 (Raft crates)
2x4x4 (unlikely)
4x4x4
4x4x8
4x4x16

Of these, the only option which would fit in the current Caterpillar, but not if it was reworked to move the walkway to the centre would be the 4x4x4, so it wouldn't make a huge difference to the transport options the caterpillar has - And if they introduce the modular compartments for the Caterpillar it may be possible that there are options without the upper walkway, having ladders at either end to use to access the upper doorways to the next module\compartment (or no ladders and the upper doors are sealed\walled over).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Deroth

FZD

Space Marshal
Nov 22, 2016
1,090
4,171
2,000
RSI Handle
FZD
I don't think it would have a huge impact on what could be transported, but it would simplify arranging cargo by mass to keep the ship evenly balanced for flight, which is something they are planning on implementing.
Actually, Caterpillar center of mass is already to the side when empty. You'd need off-centered cargo to balance it.

If you look at the current boxes we can "create", we have a 1x1x1 and a 1x1x2 SCU option. Assuming they continue with "modular" standards based around cubes and "doubling" one or more lengths for the next "step", future options would most likely be:
1x1x1
1x1x2
1x1x4 (unlikely)
1x2x2 (unlikely)
2x2x2
2x2x4 (Outpost\mining settlement crates - largest a Hull A can manage)
2x2x8 (Raft crates)
2x4x4 (unlikely)
4x4x4
4x4x8
4x4x16

Of these, the only option which would fit in the current Caterpillar, but not if it was reworked to move the walkway to the centre would be the 4x4x4, so it wouldn't make a huge difference to the transport options the caterpillar has - And if they introduce the modular compartments for the Caterpillar it may be possible that there are options without the upper walkway, having ladders at either end to use to access the upper doorways to the next module\compartment (or no ladders and the upper doors are sealed\walled over).
Pretty sure we've seen at least 1x1x3 and possibly 1x2x2 in some concept images though. Particularly some large ship weapons and torps would likely get 1x1x(>3) boxes when packaged, and some disassembled vehicle chassis would go in half-cubes. Also 2x2x3 seems to pop up from time to time in concept images. Ultimately, I don't think the cargo containers will be quite so standard and uniform.

Anyhow, it'd be 33% reduction in 2x2x4 boxes, and make 4x4x4s and 6-length boxes unhaulable.
 
Last edited:

Richard Bong

Space Marshal
Jul 29, 2017
1,550
4,457
1,600
RSI Handle
McHale
Asymetrical falls into "rule of cool." I don't own a Cat, so it doesn't really impact me, but I personally prefer the upper gantry down one side.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Deroth

Lemming

Captain
Apr 17, 2021
78
230
200
RSI Handle
Anotherlemming
There's a lot of weird in those screenshots, first the cutlass black looks like it got a rework, adding airlocks and removing the side doors. 2nd the cat seems to have lost its elevated walkway in lieu of being able to walk down the middle. I suspect they are just tinkering with placeholders more than reworking stuff, but we have no idea what they are doing when it comes down to it.
 

minor_accident

Commander
Mar 25, 2022
88
269
100
RSI Handle
minor_accident
There's a lot of weird in those screenshots, first the cutlass black looks like it got a rework, adding airlocks and removing the side doors. 2nd the cat seems to have lost its elevated walkway in lieu of being able to walk down the middle. I suspect they are just tinkering with placeholders more than reworking stuff, but we have no idea what they are doing when it comes down to it.
I suspect they were just using "stock photos" of the ships. One CB image shows the docking ports (which I believe the original model had), but the skinned CB has the side doors. If they change anything about the CB, I hope it's a fix of the retarded hab section design. Yes, I will rant about it every chance I get!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lemming

Cugino83

Grand Admiral
Apr 25, 2019
1,494
4,738
1,000
RSI Handle
Cugino
I suspect they were just using "stock photos" of the ships. One CB image shows the docking ports (which I believe the original model had), but the skinned CB has the side doors. If they change anything about the CB, I hope it's a fix of the retarded hab section design. Yes, I will rant about it every chance I get!
The original CB doesn't have any airlock: on the side of the first model there ware some gimble trusters...
If they took away the side doors I'll go on a rampage: those are what make the CB a valuable ship for space operation that require moving things around since they provide an easy access point to the cargo area.
A compleate rework of the abitation area is, on the other hand, very welcome! Making the turret a remote one will help a lot but I doubt CIG will go that way, on the other hand there is a lot of wasted space in the middle that can be used, problem is how the navmesh will work.
Very likely the CB rework will be only for adding light control and phisicalised component, I don't expect much more work other then that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: minor_accident

minor_accident

Commander
Mar 25, 2022
88
269
100
RSI Handle
minor_accident
The original CB doesn't have any airlock: on the side of the first model there ware some gimble trusters...
If they took away the side doors I'll go on a rampage: those are what make the CB a valuable ship for space operation that require moving things around since they provide an easy access point to the cargo area.
A compleate rework of the abitation area is, on the other hand, very welcome! Making the turret a remote one will help a lot but I doubt CIG will go that way, on the other hand there is a lot of wasted space in the middle that can be used, problem is how the navmesh will work.
Very likely the CB rework will be only for adding light control and phisicalised component, I don't expect much more work other then that.
I'd heard they did (somewhere), but I've only been playing a few months, so don't take my word for it! I'd also be pissed if they axed the side doors! they'll be even more useful when tractor beams are a thing.
 

Richard Bong

Space Marshal
Jul 29, 2017
1,550
4,457
1,600
RSI Handle
McHale
The original CB doesn't have any airlock: on the side of the first model there ware some gimble trusters...
If they took away the side doors I'll go on a rampage: those are what make the CB a valuable ship for space operation that require moving things around since they provide an easy access point to the cargo area.
A compleate rework of the abitation area is, on the other hand, very welcome! Making the turret a remote one will help a lot but I doubt CIG will go that way, on the other hand there is a lot of wasted space in the middle that can be used, problem is how the navmesh will work.
Very likely the CB rework will be only for adding light control and phisicalised component, I don't expect much more work other then that.
I rather have the side doors than the airlocks on my Blue.
 

Cugino83

Grand Admiral
Apr 25, 2019
1,494
4,738
1,000
RSI Handle
Cugino
I rather have the side doors than the airlocks on my Blue.
Well for the Blue (and even more the Red) the airlock actualy feel a more reasonable solution: if you need to get a prisoner in or out the Blue it looks more pratical to have a pressurized docking collar then a whide open door so you don't have to suite up the invicted for trasportations.
For the Red the docking is a necessity since an injured person that need to be retrived from another ship maybe not in a condition to be suited up.
 

Richard Bong

Space Marshal
Jul 29, 2017
1,550
4,457
1,600
RSI Handle
McHale
Well for the Blue (and even more the Red) the airlock actualy feel a more reasonable solution: if you need to get a prisoner in or out the Blue it looks more pratical to have a pressurized docking collar then a whide open door so you don't have to suite up the invicted for trasportations.
For the Red the docking is a necessity since an injured person that need to be retrived from another ship maybe not in a condition to be suited up.
For the Red, yes it makes sense.
For the Blue, I don't see it. For boarding, a short EVA is safer than docking. To get the prisoner back across, throw them in a stasis tube or slap a helmet on them. A body, on the otherhand needs no special consideration. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: minor_accident

Thalstan

Space Marshal
Jun 5, 2016
1,744
6,265
2,850
RSI Handle
Thalstan
Many things need to happen for 3.18. For instance, the Carrack cargo cannot be accessed form the outside at present. The Caterpillar sides don't move up and down, etc.

CIG has made some...interesting...decisions with regards to cargo and I am not sure how they will be received. Some few will love it, no matter what they do, some few will hate it, no matter what they do, and the rest will give it a try and give CIG feedback...Good or Bad.
 

Richard Bong

Space Marshal
Jul 29, 2017
1,550
4,457
1,600
RSI Handle
McHale
Cat still waiting for its modules. So i hope/guess we will see that once we get our "Search and Rescue" and "Salvage" Modules.
Tali modules first. Supposedly finished, but need the Tali Gold Standard for release. Expect it at some unspecified time in the future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael

BUTUZ

Space Marshal
Donor
Apr 8, 2016
2,993
10,010
2,850
RSI Handle
BUTUZ
Tali modules first. Supposedly finished, but need the Tali Gold Standard for release. Expect it at some unspecified time in the future.
I'm, sure they said that in like 2015 too :p
 

Richard Bong

Space Marshal
Jul 29, 2017
1,550
4,457
1,600
RSI Handle
McHale
I'm, sure they said that in like 2015 too :p
The first build I pulled the models from was 3.0. The Tali modules were in that build. They are also in the most recent build I have been able to pull models from. So we know the modules for the Tali exist. It is highly likely the modules for the Vanguard also exist. (I can't say for sure since they aren't seperated from the body of the ship in the build.)

I would suspect they would use those to test modularity works before building the modules for the other ships.
 
  • Love
Reactions: BUTUZ

Brictoria

Commander
Apr 15, 2022
49
112
100
RSI Handle
Brictoria
The first build I pulled the models from was 3.0. The Tali modules were in that build. They are also in the most recent build I have been able to pull models from. So we know the modules for the Tali exist. It is highly likely the modules for the Vanguard also exist. (I can't say for sure since they aren't seperated from the body of the ship in the build.)

I would suspect they would use those to test modularity works before building the modules for the other ships.
If the roadmap is accurate, the Retaliator has had a "gold standard pass" during q1 and q2 last year, with the room swapping (modules changing) being worked on at the same time.

I'm guessing these will be implemented after Q1 next year, however, as there is an entry for the Aegis Retaliator Base being made "game ready" in q1 2023: I may need to arrange some CCU's for it before then, because it seems the implementation of room swapping would be a good excuse for a price jump - $125 for bomb bays seems a bit too high a price difference between having them or buying them in-game, and if it has some other modules fitted as default in the "base", their "cost" will likely be added to the ship price.
 
Forgot your password?