The Cargo Food Chain

[NaffNaffBobFace]

Hi TESTies of a logistical leaning,

Today in the Hull C promo page on RSI, they had the following graphic:

The dotted lines are Hull A's serving the local moons and main planet, moving all the stuff from those small points of production to the main planet hub, and the Hull C's moving that Hub produce between the other planet hubs.

It's like trucks bringing stuff from factories to railways to be taken further, faster, more efficiently by trains...

I expect there to be System Hubs too, which Hull D and Hull E's will then take between star systems and have a reverse of the above graphic where Hull C's take that delivered stuff from the system hubs to the planet hubs and out to the specific local points of need.

Wanted to comment on the graphic because it puts it so very, very well!

 

[FZD]

Ideally, we'd have like Sector hubs that Hull E handles, System hubs that are perfect for Hull D, then planetary hubs for Hull C and maybe like moon hubs that Hull B delivers to from the planetary hub, and then Hull A does the outpost-to-outpost trading within a planet or a moon. I'd imagine CIG will revise this food-chain graphic once they get more hulls flyable.

In reality though, Hull E, D, C and probably B and mayyybe even A will all do the sector hub trade route, or then the smallest trade route they can, depending on which direction the profit balance leans too heavily towards.

 

[maynard]

Aren't there other ships with greater cargo capacity than hull As for in-system hauling? (I can't be arsed to log in to RSI's site to check stats)

What about speed, and fuel costs?

My understanding of the Hull A is that it has the biggest cargo capacity of the ships that will fit through a small wormhole, making it the right choice for certain inter-system routes

 

[Ayeteeone]

Aren't there other ships with greater cargo capacity than hull As for in-system hauling? (I can't be arsed to log in to RSI's site to check stats)

What about speed, and fuel costs?

My understanding of the Hull A is that it has the biggest cargo capacity of the ships that will fit through a small wormhole, making it the right choice for certain inter-system routes

Historically, the designation of 'most capacity through a small wormhole' has belonged to the MAX. However, there's been very little confirmation and a fair amount of reasonable questions as to how accurate this is. One example is that at release, the MSR was stated to fit the same wormholes as a Freelancer, which then opens the doors to the Taurus and Hull-B as ships of the same size class with medium Q-drives.

There is also the discussion by CIG in the past of wormholes possibly having multiple paths. This wasn't purely speculative, there was some game design thrown behind it, with the idea of NOT having fixed points of entry and exit to be ambushed at.

BOTTOM LINE: We don't KNOW F* all, so even the question is nothing more than happy speculation.

Also, the Hull A and C have massive quantum fuel capacities, so there is more going on here than mere in-system transit.

 

[stockish]

Aren't there other ships with greater cargo capacity than hull As for in-system hauling? (I can't be arsed to log in to RSI's site to check stats)

What about speed, and fuel costs?

My understanding of the Hull A is that it has the biggest cargo capacity of the ships that will fit through a small wormhole, making it the right choice for certain inter-system routes

Remember, capacity won't be the only metric. Cargo box sizes need to be taken in to account as well so if you need some 32scu boxes moved, options are limited.

RAFT and Hull-A/B are a few that can move and land planetside with larger boxes if larger items like ship weapons and components or even vehicles need transport.

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

Other ships may of course be available however it's very hopeful for the intended scale of the economy of planets and their moons to be able to keep a hub supplied to the point of being able to support multiple Hull C visitors and up.

 

[Bambooza]

Remember, capacity won't be the only metric. Cargo box sizes need to be taken in to account as well so if you need some 32scu boxes moved, options are limited.

RAFT and Hull-A/B are a few that can move and land planetside with larger boxes if larger items like ship weapons and components or even vehicles need transport.

I was going to say cargo box size will significantly impact the amount of effort it will take to move items on and off a ship.

I imagine cig is attempting to add depth of game play by mimicking to a degree real world logistics. But even in the real world different types of cargo has different transportation needs and value. Factor in crew , fuel cost along with jump range and speed there are lots of vectors they can play with to help distribute players into given ship roles and play time availability.

I do like that they are sticking with physical assets and not magic bags of holding with fix times. I am sure cargo ports will be the only place where you can easily change cargo container sizes.

Oh and the complaints when players will be expected to pay npcs or load and unload their cargo themselves will be enjoyable. What do you mean I have to hand carry 90 boxes up and down the elevator to use my 600 touring as a cargo runner.

 

[Bambooza]

Remember, capacity won't be the only metric. Cargo box sizes need to be taken in to account as well so if you need some 32scu boxes moved, options are limited.

RAFT and Hull-A/B are a few that can move and land planetside with larger boxes if larger items like ship weapons and components or even vehicles need transport.

Don't forget the mighty herk and the lumbering gas jugaunat stargazer both have sizable cargo holds with easy access. Even the msr and constellation class have not bad cargo access. Freelancer back half is not bad but those doors to the other parts will make it a pain.

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

Don't forget the mighty herk and the lumbering gas jugaunat stargazer both have sizable cargo holds with easy access. Even the msr and constellation class have not bad cargo access. Freelancer back half is not bad but those doors to the other parts will make it a pain.

In regard to the Starfarer the Gas Tanks are supposed to be swappable with cargo containers so on top of the near 300 SKU hold you'll also have space for shipping boxes at the back too. Best of both worlds? The main drawback of this is you'll still have all the gas harvest rigging throughout the ship so the weight is still there although the capability is not.

In contrast to the above images there are six removable storage tanks, but also two fixed processing tanks you can't take off. This should mean you can still access the hold no matter what shape the eventual cargo containers are.

Personally I'm also hoping we'll be able to mount MOABs back there too, but it won't be a very safe way of using them - being external mounted a stray bullet and the whole lot'll go up.

 

[Bambooza]

In regard to the Starfarer the Gas Tanks are supposed to be swappable with cargo containers so on top of the near 300 SKU hold you'll also have space for shipping boxes at the back too. Best of both worlds? The main drawback of this is you'll still have all the gas harvest rigging throughout the ship so the weight is still there although the capability is not.

View attachment 24876

In contrast to the above images there are six removable storage tanks, but also two fixed processing tanks you can't take off. This should mean you can still access the hold no matter what shape the eventual cargo containers are.

View attachment 24878

Personally I'm also hoping we'll be able to mount MOABs back there too, but it won't be a very safe way of using them - being external mounted a stray bullet and the whole lot'll go up.

I thought with the way we drive it already is a moab?

On another note it's fun to watch the latest two cargo videos and see the vision hasn't changed.

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

I thought with the way we drive it already is a moab?

Unfortunately so! Even when hauling non-flamable liquids and gas