Guesses on the Caterpillar Reveal?

[BenjiMac]

For a modular craft couldn't they design variants (different graphic of the ship) and when selecting the module a user wants just replace the current ship with the correct one.

It would still be modular and multipurpose, maybe not as modular as having four different bay types at the same time but still able to outfit for a specific mission.

I mean really in the end it just a graphic so if you can't plug the parts together just make more than one ship and show the one the user selected.

Just think if they are having problems with this the endeavor is going to be a nightmare. They have already sold modules for that ship.

yep, Id keep hold of it because the apology gift would be huge.

otherwise,you are getting the same vibe as me. They will create interchangeable complete models for the retaliator because the modules are already bought and paid for and the ship is otherwise functional but I suspect if they withdraw the modules for the cat and never sell them, having seen the extra work they represent in the retaliator, expect variants only.

my gut feeling is this is how it'll pan out.

 

[supitza]

that is a good point I had forgotten about. I do wonder how they'll fix that because right now I cant tell where youd even attempt to connect up.

I remember some of the older graybox models of the Starfarer (those that GHG used in his videos) had a pipe coming out from between the tanks.
Found a picture:

 

[Sportsvee]

You will all be very happy to know that the future of the Cat has been leaked. It's intended role will now be:


Beer & Porn.

 

[BenjiMac]

I remember some of the older graybox models of the Starfarer (those that GHG used in his videos) had a pipe coming out from between the tanks.
Found a picture:

accept my extend-a-nipple, little spaceship.

 

[BenjiMac]

You will all be very happy to know that the future of the Cat has been leaked. It's intended role will now be:


Beer & Porn.

that's cool, it'll fit in perfectly with everything else I own.

 

[FZD]

Let me prefix with, I don't have a Cat, so I got no horse in this.
But in any case, the cat has 4 very distinguishable sections of the hull that seem to be easily detachable, they even seem like they'd each maintain an atmosphere on their own. It's built to be a modular ship from the beginning, that was the plan, and the current design enables it. Could there be variants that change the main hull or give different amount of modular places? Yeah, sure. But I'm around 90% certain that it will have swappable modules. Where'd this variant concern stem from?

 

[BenjiMac]

Let me prefix with, I don't have a Cat, so I got no horse in this.
But in any case, the cat has 4 very distinguishable sections of the hull that seem to be easily detachable, they even seem like they'd each maintain an atmosphere on their own. It's built to be a modular ship from the beginning, that was the plan, and the current design enables it. Could there be variants that change the main hull or give different amount of modular places? Yeah, sure. But I'm around 90% certain that it will have swappable modules. Where'd this variant concern stem from?

I havent made it on to the RSI forums yet today, but another poster (if I understood correctly) has heard mention that the deal may have been changed with regard to modules for the Caterpillar and we now have a brochure coming out, presumably to finalise somethings.

From my side, I've heard several people in various forums mention that theres rumour that CIG are having real trouble with docking, getting objects to connect and disconnect modularly is causing the physics to freak out and the modules in question to catapult apart.. which I can believe having experienced the physics in the engine to date. When we consider that theres no finalised refuelling mechanic for the starfarer, docking collars are either missing or badly placed where present and the new cutlass and Prowler do away with them entirely in clear favour of EVA boarding it seems this is playing out in what we see from CIG.

I could understand it and it will by no means ruin the game if true, maybe it even gets resolved months down the road - but it seems its one of a few things that they don't want to continually hold up progress and so are working around it (speculation, speculation).

You say it's built from the ground up to be modular, but that's not technically true. It was pitched as modular, but in engine it hasn't been built as modular. I'd be confident in saying that model we get with 2.6 is one solid mesh that cannot seperate at any of the joints.

if you think of all the trouble they've had with thruster placement.. anyone who's played kerbal Space program must be sympathetic to the problems ships that seperate.. especially asymmetrical ones like the Cat.. present to developers.

To give the illusion of modularity, we hypothesise that they'd have to build models with every possible configuration of modules in every order.. which wouldn't help with the detachable cab but would allow modules to come in. then based on the work that woudl entail, an dbearing in mind they may well have to do the same thing for the Tali modules they already sold... we hypothesized (and again, this is all hypothetical and speculatory) that to get the game shipped they may just drop modules in favour of flat out variants.. and now we wait to see if the brochure aligns with this.

 

[Blind Owl]

Lets wait and see. There are lots of ships which haven't found their place up to now. Yet I think, they will find it as soon as the 'verse expands and players will operate the ships as they think the ships are meant for. CIG will analyze this and customize the ships. That being said, I can assure that nobody of you will be disappointed of the Cat because she is a picture-perfect, beautyful redhead lady :slight_smile:

Haha, your optimism is uplifting Sam. Thank you.

Cannon module
EMP module
four module block for a spinal mount mass driver
hydroponics Lab module
salvage module
Medical bay module
Passenger quarters module
Repair module
Jettisonable mine module

Dare to dream. I think they already quashed the salvage. That was one of my primary roles for her.

 

[AstroSam]

But don't tell your wife whose fault it is to mislead you @Blind Owl dreaming of redhead beauties :flushed::grin:

 

[Blind Owl]

But don't tell your wife whose fault it is to mislead you @Blind Owl dreaming of redhead beauties :flushed::grin:

Oh snap! Haha. I'll tell her you said that and see what she says. I may get a smacking tonight! :hand_splayed::punch::sleeping:

 

[FZD]

From my side, I've heard several people in various forums mention that theres rumour that CIG are having real trouble with docking, getting objects to connect and disconnect modularly is causing the physics to freak out and the modules in question to catapult apart.. which I can believe having experienced the physics in the engine to date. When we consider that theres no finalised refuelling mechanic for the starfarer, docking collars are either missing or badly placed where present and the new cutlass and Prowler do away with them entirely in clear favour of EVA boarding it seems this is playing out in what we see from CIG.

That's weird, they could literally just use the current coordinate system with a few minor tweaks. Just select the bigger ship and transfer the smaller to the bigger ones coordinate field. If they're the same size, make the ship that is getting docked into the lead ship.

You say it's built from the ground up to be modular, but that's not technically true. It was pitched as modular, but in engine it hasn't been built as modular. I'd be confident in saying that model we get with 2.6 is one solid mesh that cannot seperate at any of the joints.

The one we get in 2.6 in game probably won't be separable yet, especially since Cat is still scheduled to be released in 3.0. (Yeah, it has two release dates, that's kinda weird) But the model the 3D artist has, is made up of separate parts. Those parts are not any different than detachable Turrets, which can have one or more detachable guns, which can have one or more detachable ammo boxes. They're just larger in size. The engine has been built as modular.

if you think of all the trouble they've had with thruster placement.. anyone who's played kerbal Space program must be sympathetic to the problems ships that seperate.. especially asymmetrical ones like the Cat.. present to developers.

If they need to have thrusters placed on the modular parts, then just make sure each module has thrusters placed in the same spot.

To give the illusion of modularity, we hypothesise that they'd have to build models with every possible configuration of modules in every order..

That would be something a beginner would resort to. I doubt CIG would, it's pointlessly time consuming, especially when you already have a system working in the game, where you can take out parts and put other parts in. Modules are just parts. Shouldn't matter how many other parts they've got attached to the part being placed or removed.

which wouldn't help with the detachable cab but would allow modules to come in.

If docking is the issue, then that's what's affecting the detachable cab. Modules are different, they supposedly won't separate mid flight. If they did, they'd most likely follow the normal damaged part separation route, which is already working in game.

then based on the work that woudl entail, an dbearing in mind they may well have to do the same thing for the Tali modules they already sold... we hypothesized (and again, this is all hypothetical and speculatory) that to get the game shipped they may just drop modules in favour of flat out variants.. and now we wait to see if the brochure aligns with this.

I'm not saying that's not a possibility, but I would facepalm rather sternly if that was to happen. That system is basically already in the game in one form, might just require few tweaks. What is not is expandable or malleable coordinate system size, as evidenced by Constellation lowering it's cargo bay in space, which would potentially be a problem with modules, if there was a possibility that a ship could take off without all modules installed. But then you could just decide that it's not possible to take off without all modules installed.

 

[Blind Owl]

That's weird, they could literally just use the current coordinate system with a few minor tweaks. Just select the bigger ship and transfer the smaller to the bigger ones coordinate field. If they're the same size, make the ship that is getting docked into the lead ship.


The one we get in 2.6 in game probably won't be separable yet, especially since Cat is still scheduled to be released in 3.0. (Yeah, it has two release dates, that's kinda weird) But the model the 3D artist has, is made up of separate parts. Those parts are not any different than detachable Turrets, which can have one or more detachable guns, which can have one or more detachable ammo boxes. They're just larger in size. The engine has been built as modular.


If they need to have thrusters placed on the modular parts, then just make sure each module has thrusters placed in the same spot.


That would be something a beginner would resort to. I doubt CIG would, it's pointlessly time consuming, especially when you already have a system working in the game, where you can take out parts and put other parts in. Modules are just parts. Shouldn't matter how many other parts they've got attached to the part being placed or removed.


If docking is the issue, then that's what's affecting the detachable cab. Modules are different, they supposedly won't separate mid flight. If they did, they'd most likely follow the normal damaged part separation route, which is already working in game.


I'm not saying that's not a possibility, but I would facepalm rather sternly if that was to happen. That system is basically already in the game in one form, might just require few tweaks. What is not is expandable or malleable coordinate system size, as evidenced by Constellation lowering it's cargo bay in space, which would potentially be a problem with modules, if there was a possibility that a ship could take off without all modules installed. But then you could just decide that it's not possible to take off without all modules installed.

I feel like you've dropped a knowledge bomb. More food for thought. Thank you.

 

[AstroSam]

Oh snap! Haha. I'll tell her you said that and see what she says. I may get a smacking tonight! :hand_splayed::punch::sleeping:

Admit it: you would love it, ha!

:bride_with_veil::grin::grin::grin:

 

[supitza]

You say it's built from the ground up to be modular, but that's not technically true. It was pitched as modular, but in engine it hasn't been built as modular. I'd be confident in saying that model we get with 2.6 is one solid mesh that cannot seperate at any of the joints.

The individual modules of the Caterpillar don't need to separate in flight, they just need to *poof* and appear in the Hangar. Mixing and matching them shouldn't be an issue, I think. Despawn the whole ship and respawn it with different modules (where only the inside of said modules is different).

 

[BenjiMac]

That's weird, they could literally just use the current coordinate system with a few minor tweaks. Just select the bigger ship and transfer the smaller to the bigger ones coordinate field. If they're the same size, make the ship that is getting docked into the lead ship.


The one we get in 2.6 in game probably won't be separable yet, especially since Cat is still scheduled to be released in 3.0. (Yeah, it has two release dates, that's kinda weird) But the model the 3D artist has, is made up of separate parts. Those parts are not any different than detachable Turrets, which can have one or more detachable guns, which can have one or more detachable ammo boxes. They're just larger in size. The engine has been built as modular.


If they need to have thrusters placed on the modular parts, then just make sure each module has thrusters placed in the same spot.


That would be something a beginner would resort to. I doubt CIG would, it's pointlessly time consuming, especially when you already have a system working in the game, where you can take out parts and put other parts in. Modules are just parts. Shouldn't matter how many other parts they've got attached to the part being placed or removed.


If docking is the issue, then that's what's affecting the detachable cab. Modules are different, they supposedly won't separate mid flight. If they did, they'd most likely follow the normal damaged part separation route, which is already working in game.


I'm not saying that's not a possibility, but I would facepalm rather sternly if that was to happen. That system is basically already in the game in one form, might just require few tweaks. What is not is expandable or malleable coordinate system size, as evidenced by Constellation lowering it's cargo bay in space, which would potentially be a problem with modules, if there was a possibility that a ship could take off without all modules installed. But then you could just decide that it's not possible to take off without all modules installed.

you make some good points.

Perhaps thruster placement isn't an issue in the end, especially if only the cab need be controllable.

but, I still believe docking will be dropped, at least for a while, too many indicators pointing to it.

Im not an expert, I cant break down what the impediment could be but the more we see come to fruition, the more I believe that impediment is there and we're now working around it.

The modules are again hypothetical on my part, but even despawning the model and bringing in a new one to account for modules is potentially extra work for them. Each configuration is another one to bug test, assuming objects have mass then switching modules can switch the centre of mass of the vessel (although cargo also poses this problem so I guess it may not be huge and standardizing the ships with variants as far as possible and removing true modularity limits the number of configurations to bug test and polish.

I guess the new brochure will come down one side or the other for these issues. Id have no problem with being wrong on any if these points, its just theorising.

 

[Crymsan]

I can see that making any ship modular is more work, it is clear the cat was an early decision where the belief of more modular but less ship types was encouraged as they thought it was less work. Since they have got on the ship sales equals big mullar clearly this changed. So yes modules are more work but they sold the ship on that basis and it was at the time an expensive (relevant to other ships) options. I also accept I will have to pay for the modules to, just not sure they will add any real functionality any more (adding weopons back just because they took them of in the first place seems a lousy deal but what is coming). It is somewhat suprising they then did this again with the endeavour but then put it in the too tough to do category and have stated it will not be in until after launch. At least they have told you the endeavour will have lousy weopons up front.

The best hope for the cat is that 2.6 or indeed any later patch actually makes turrets less than useless otherwise it is unarmed. Thus taking the cat from pirate mothership to the playground bully target.

The cat is a sure sign that ambition can be bad in games, wouldn't it be nice if a ship could do all this......

 

[FZD]

I can see that making any ship modular is more work, it is clear the cat was an early decision where the belief of more modular but less ship types was encouraged as they thought it was less work.

That depends entirely on what you're measuring and how you're measuring it. If you're just measuring how many different ship hulls there are, then yeah, making one ship more finished via modules is more work which doesn't contribute to the total.
But if you are measuring how many different total variations you can get across all ships, then modules are considerably less work [in the long run].
Like say you got a ship that could either have 10 variants, or 2 modular slots you then design 4 different modules for. 4nCr2 + 4 = 10 (AA, AC, AB, AD, BB, BC...DD), so you got the same total number of different variants, but you only had to design 1 ship and 4 modules, which is roughly half the work as designing 10 variants.
Then, let's say, your team has a brilliant idea for a new module they want to add to the game. Designing 1 additional module, then would be the same as adding 5 additional variants.
This has not changed, modules are less work for larger gain in variety. Of course, if they decided to drop variety altogether, then yeah, that's less work.

Since they have got on the ship sales equals big mullar.

Now, I understand that this is true. However, I don't quite see how this goes with CRs promise and continued insistence that all funds generated prior to launch go into the development, when the development budget is already in excess of 100mil. Now, sure, with 200mil we probably get a better game, but I'm not quite sure CR is doing a money grab in our expense for our benefit.

The cat is a sure sign that ambition can be bad in games, wouldn't it be nice if a ship could do all this......

As I've pointed out previously, they already have pretty much all systems working in the game that a modular caterpillar would require. Whether or not they've followed some good programming practices that would enable them to use the aforementioned systems for caterpillar, I can't vouch for, but I'm fairly sure that they have. I'd be honestly quite concerned if they hadn't.

 

[Crymsan]

Well I think modular should be easier but they have scaled back on the modularity. At least two roles have gone. This is a flaw of open design they put out a video to sell the cat with all the modules it was going to have then took them away. (yes they could reappear at a later date). This is always a problem with a jack of all trades ship, you now you have compromised ability for flexibility so if they take away the flexibility....

A cash grab is taking guns off the main ship for balance then selling you a weopons module as an optional extra... Which you can avoid but your ship will be relatively under armed without it. I already bought the ship to invest in game development.....

What I do not think is a cash grab is if they say sell a module for scavenging and the cheapest scavenging ship is $160 then selling modules that allow scavenging for say $100 is fair.

Personally I am at fatigue of yet another "new" shiny ship even though I understand they are trying to get as much mullar in as possible before allowing in game purchases of ships. This is mainly because of the cost of ships i.e. not cheap.

The issue on the modules seem to be design time i.e. lets move onto something else.

 

[Blind Owl]

And the debate continues unabated. Excellent.

@Sanzennin, your math makes sense. As to whether it's as simple to implement modules as it is to switch weapons, well, Friday will tell I reckon. Assuming we get the brochure Friday.

@Crymsan I too am worried that it'll end up being extraordinary expensive to add all the roles we want to the Cat. I'm also concerned by the lack of apparent salvage. There were some others that were apparently cut, but I'm not tracking which ones at this point.

@BenjiMac thank you for your theorizing: it's certainly got me thinking. I wouldn't be surprised to see variants being sold on Friday, with modules to follow once they've figured out the modules system. They may do this just to placate the masses.

 

[Cherokeedog]

Ok, here's my shiny 0.02$ on this:

I got me a Cat 'cause its modular system makes it the perfect ship for a travelling jack of all trades freelancer, which is what my arse hopes to be in this game. I can cope with having lower firepower, although it wouldn't make sense not to have a possibility to improve that, on such a large ship. However, if they take away the possibility to switch modules, I'll drop it like a bad habit. Well...I kinda' have a tendency to embrace bad habits, but you get my drift.

And if they do this crap and explain me it's difficult to code somethin' so complex, I won't give a shit. They've cashed a fuck ton of dough on this game and they are still ridin' the wave. Considering they took a couple of years to find out a chicken don't move its head, they damn well should take another couple to make my Caterpillar modular. End of discussion.