Kroom's Forge (0.15.11+)
what does the test docking pad do
Bug with docking bay in version 0.15.5d.
After attaching a ship to the docking bay the ship isnt able to take the attached ship with it to FTL.
Fighter cockpits can't transfer power to FTL drive, or at least not to fighter scale FTL drives.
Also, that concern I raised way back about a lack of falloff in mass drivers that you discounted because long mass drivers had their fire rate limited by the ability to get batteries and bullets through just two doors? Well now you can use small cockpits to put power in from the sides. One about every ten tiles seems to pretty well match the maximum firerate.
Atarlost Fighter cockpits can't transfer power to FTL drive, or at least not to fighter scale FTL drives.
Yes, that's intended.
Atarlost Also, that concern I raised way back about a lack of falloff in mass drivers that you discounted because long mass drivers had their fire rate limited by the ability to get batteries and bullets through just two doors? Well now you can use small cockpits to put power in from the sides. One about every ten tiles seems to pretty well match the maximum firerate.
Oh, that's a bug, i will fix it for the next update, thanks.
AI launches torpedoes outside torpedo range.
I've gone back to trying to make carriers work, and run into some technical issues.
1) It is possible to sling fighters by engaging the jump before the carrier finished charging its FTL. The fighters wind up in the next system while the carrier remains behind. This would allow a single pad carrier to project any number of fighters without having to make multiple ferrying trips.
Suggested solution: If fighters can inherit the charging status of the ship mounting the pad transporting them they wouldn't be able to jump before the carrier.
2) Fighers on the pad (test) cannot be selected without selecting the carrier, nor can components be selected without selecting the pad. Movement orders to the pad also get interpreted as follow orders. All of these appear to be consequences of the pad (test) mask encompassing the entire pad.
Speculative solution: I don't know if it's possible, but if the mask was hollow with only a half or quarter tile's width around the edges needed only for connections the pad would interfere far less.
3) The pad (test) cannot be overlapped with engine exclusion zones. This is unavoidable given its purpose, but makes putting engines on impure carriers more difficult. The easiest place to put landing pads on mixed use ships is at the back in the exclusion zones for the engines. The parts having the same name implies that if the test version works out the old version will be discontinued. I would urge you to not do that.
From a not-so technical standpoint, the cheapest pregen carrier is too expensive to have both it and a useful fighter the first time you have to make a jump. A more minimalist carrier with a fighter scale cockpit, reactor, and jump drive and no factories would be more useful.
ConnCraft Thanks, i will fix it for the next update.
Atarlost Suggested solution: If fighters can inherit the charging status of the ship mounting the pad transporting them they wouldn't be able to jump before the carrier.
I will try to do something like this for the next update.
Atarlost Speculative solution: I don't know if it's possible, but if the mask was hollow with only a half or quarter tile's width around the edges needed only for connections the pad would interfere far less.
Sadly it's not possible to do hollow parts that can also be attached to other parts.
Atarlost 3) The pad (test) cannot be overlapped with engine exclusion zones. This is unavoidable given its purpose, but makes putting engines on impure carriers more difficult. The easiest place to put landing pads on mixed use ships is at the back in the exclusion zones for the engines. The parts having the same name implies that if the test version works out the old version will be discontinued. I would urge you to not do that.
I'm not sure about this, i never liked that the thrusters could be placed over landing pads.
Atarlost From a not-so technical standpoint, the cheapest pregen carrier is too expensive to have both it and a useful fighter the first time you have to make a jump. A more minimalist carrier with a fighter scale cockpit, reactor, and jump drive and no factories would be more useful.
I'm thinking in adjusting the cost of the landing pad to 10k and the 1x1 FTL to 5k to make landing pad more useful.
Landing pads don't reload modded launchers, and they seem to just void ammo if there's no ship above.
OK, just the Kroom's missile launcher. Torpedo's seem to work OK. Not playing with any other mods right now.
Weird: i saved, swapped to an older autosave, then swapped back, and it works. Will go look for any save where it doesn't.
Also the forum doesn't like uploading saves. Are you on Discord?
Kroom I'm not sure about this, i never liked that the thrusters could be placed over landing pads.
If you can't solve the UI issues with landing pads, which it sounds like you can't, I for one will never use the new version of them. The inability to order ships directly onto the pad or select them individually when on the pad are deal breakers even for designs that don't hang landing pads in engine exclusion zones.
Kroom I'm thinking in adjusting the cost of the landing pad to 10k and the 1x1 FTL to 5k to make landing pad more useful.
It's more about the cost of the ship than the cost of the parts. If you don't have the design saved it's a lot more awkward to get a carrier than to slap on an FTL drive. Carrier0 would still cost almost 100k and more than half of that would be extraneous for a first carrier. If you build a minimalist carrier and a sufficiently optimized fighter to the remaining expected post-first-system budget beforehand in sandbox mode it's doable to at least start with nothing but fighters, though I'm not sure fighters alone are viable in the long run.
ConnCraft OK, just the Kroom's missile launcher. Torpedo's seem to work OK. Not playing with any other mods right now.
You may have crew priority problems. If you have two pads served by the same factory your crew will only load one pad unless its full while the fighter on the other pad will only get the ammo in ready storage. You have to turn off loading/repair on all pads that don't have unloaded fighters on them. I don't think teleporters have this issue. They dump ammo into space if it has nowhere to go, but they don't waste ammo when there's a valid destination.
Another issue I've run into is fire. I've had fighters burn to death while on a landing pad being repaired because a cannon started a fire. Repair can sometimes keep up with small fires, but if the fire spreads before the fighter gets back to the pad it can burn faster than it's repaired, and since only repairing with credits can put out the fire, if the carrier is in combat the fighter can't be repaired, rearmed, and returned to the fight even if the damage that caused the fire wouldn't significantly impair its combat capabilities. I've had a surprising number of burning fighters reach a landing pad with nothing unrepairable but the fire itself and some cosmetic armor or RCS structure damage.
Atarlost Good advice. We hammered it out in Discord
PSA: Invulnerable ships can't be reloaded by landing pads due to how they work.
what do the test landing pads do?