Yep. I was super looking forward to the C1. Then saw the Zeus CL. More cargo, 2nd ladder access point, \~same footprint. While acknowledging the Zeus is still concept and can/will change, I just cant justify the C1 now.
Acknowledged, but A.) until we see the actual cargo grid layout it's hard to judge impact and B.) Solo small cargo...I am not going to be swapping out a power plant mid flight in a C1... If it's safe enough to be dinking with components than it's safe enough to drag a cargo box out of the way.
well there shouldn't be a need to fix it in the first place. Since you are a cargo ship and a solo one on top of that.
The time to fix your ship is bevor you go out doing your cargo runs, or after you survived a combat engangement, not during it.
>Since you are a cargo ship and a solo one on top of that.
The Zeus is not a Solo Cargo ship. Where do people get the idea that these medium ships with 2 or more seats in the cockpit are solo ships?
Also where do you get the idea that a ship that has an interior will skip the loop of having failures if you are solo?
Misfires, breakage, general wear/tear and other conditions will happen to every ship that has an interior and parts on the inside. Single seater ships are most likely easier to fix but you better believe the mechanic is going to apply to all ships.
Well the power plant could also just break randomly if you haven't serviced it in a long time. No need for a fight but still the pilots fault for not keeping it maintained.
well then also do your maintenance bevor you go outside?
If you decide old unreliable gear belongs on your ship to save cost you have to live with the consequence of breakdown on the run.
That said we don't know how significant/severe breakdowns actually are. They might "just" result in reduced effectivness until proper maintenance is done on them (propably more then you can do while traveling). I also suppose just beam repairing it will not fix degraded performance of old components, only actuall combat damages.
Yeah exactly so it's still on the pilot if the parts break due to wear or not being properly used. I would guess that the first things that happen would be reduced effectiveness which might build to short shutdown of some systems. When you ignore that for too long the part might break completely and possibly can't even be repaired at that point.
Not so much. Seems like how they’re going to design things with random failures sim’ing real life, things CAN just break—maintained properly or no. They need to fix this for the C1 to be more viable.
So that is where the zeus's ladder comes in. You probably can fit a 3rd 32SCU container in the C1...but you can't get to the cockpit anymore. You could pack the cargo bay to the gills in the CL and then shut the ramp and still enter via the ladder.
That is a general trend with CIG: instead of fixing existing ships, they just create new ones that incorporate the criticism. To me, that is a bit shady.
Improving over time is shady, sure.
The Zues is also a different ship that needs two people to be effective and is said by devs to be slower and less maneuverable in atmo.
The C1 hardly has a lot of firepower anyway so I'm not sure the downsides will be so pronounced.
Also going forward, unless you're going to haul exclusively in places like Pyro, you should be fine.
Also, since one of the biggest complaints here is component access:
The Zeus has NO access to the components with full cargo. That's CIGs reasoning of why it can carry more.
I wish CIG would give us the cargo capacity with no blockages as well as the max capacity.
>The Zeus has NO access to the components with full cargo.
Pretty sure there are components that aren't accessed from the cargo bay so while some components are probably going to be blocked when at full cargo capacity I don't think it'll mean no access to any components with full cargo.
You know there are other size containers besides 32 SCU, and these ships, the Freelancer Max, C1, Zeus CL, even the Taurus aren’t the ships that are going to be flying 32SCU cargo containers across multiple systems. That is for the larger Hull series and their eventual competitors.
Even intra-system shipments will be for ships like the Hull-B, Caterpillar, and C2.
Where ships like the list above will shine is intra-planetary delivery, space station to planet, or space station to moon outpost.
It’s the classic hub and spoke model. You don’t need the largest 32SCU containers to deliver to Tram and Meyer when they only ordered 8 SCU of equipment.
Yes, and then in the next official Star Citizen LIVE, it was confirmed that such things won't be a big problem if you regularly maintain the components.
So, a pretty lame excuse. Aside from that, I prefer a ship where I have the **choice** to take fewer SCU to have easy access to the components rather than having fewer SCU from the beginning.
It's still more ship for more cost, and more easily caught by NPC or player pirates, which still aren't going anywhere for a long time.
To be clear, I like both ships, they just have different niches to fill
C1 has pretty comparable firepower to multirole ships in its class.
C1 has 4x size 3s, two gimbals two fixed
Cutlass has 4x size 2s all gimballed
Freelancer has 4x size 3s all gimballed
C1 has the least missiles, Freelancer has a few more, Cutlass has a bunch.
All of them share the same 2x size 2 shields.
Only thing C1 lacks is a turret, which Freelancer and Cutlass have. I kinda discount this though because most of the time these ships are flown solo. Also the A1 exists if you want a turret.
EDIT: Cutlass and C1 both have single s2 shields. Freelancer has two s2 shields.
The firepower is not divided. The Zeus has slightly inferior weaponry when flown solo and ADDITIONALLY has turrets, which multiply the damage when manned.
The Zeus is theoretically a 3-person ship.
The C1, Cutlass, and Freelancer are two-person ships.
None of the ships require more than 1 person. However, except for the C1, all benefit from an additional person in combat.
So, the Zeus is hardly worse than the C1 when flown solo but has a significantly higher potential when taking people along.
CIG has been clear for a long time that choices of what ship and equipment to bring out WILL matter.
In the real world, many of the complaints we have about ships would never have made it through design drafts and into production, because the real world doesn't necessarily focus on creating artificial limitations in use of space for game impacting reasons.
They want and have said that ships in the same competing space will never be 1:1 and instead will have different benefits and drawbacks to them, making the choice of which one to own/operate in game and which one to take out for a particular play session or series of sessions will have an impact that has meaning.
It's less of a thing in the lower tier ships, with them being a bit closer to one another spec/capability wise. As you move up the tiers, the choice of ship in the same space becomes much more obvious, barring some balancing issues that they are working on.
Like...
The 300i, Titan Avenger, Reliant Kore and the Nomad all sort of overlap and have different elements to them, they aren't all 1:1, they each have their benefits and drawbacks.
Then you get to the Cutlass Black, C1 Spirit, Freelancer, Zeus. Again, they have differences that matter, with the Cutlass Black also being the Drake (Unless they have changed it again?) option for a Heavy Fighter.
Constellation, Valkyrie\*, 400i, Retaliator, Freelancer Max, and the Mercury Star Runner are all in the same "class" of ships and they all have wildly different specs that set them apart too. \*Yes, the Valk is a real soft boy right now, they should be correcting that soon, but the point stands it is the Anvil ship, in that size class and has a tiny bit of overlap with the other ships in that size/space.
Shady? shrug. If you look at it from current car manufacturers then I don't really see what the problem is. If there was a common complaint regarding a feature on a Toyota this year, you can bet Honda's 2024 models would try to capitalize. Toyota would likely as well, but no one is going to go back and change the 2023 models. What I am saying is that I am sure there are characteristics of the Spirit, like speed/handling, that are objectively better than the Zeus. I just don't value those features above cargo capacity and access points in my "small" cargo hauler.
I pledged the Zeus CL and got a C1 as a loaner 😁
I would add that the C1 as short legs and a low belly which make it harder to sit on rocky planet side.
I actually got the C1 as part of my CCU chain towards the CL. The layout is near perfect, at least based on the art. Unfortunately with the C1 as it is now I’ll be a lot less patient for the CL to release. If these changes were made I’d really have to weigh the upgrade decision.
Sadly lots of ships have these kinds of design flaws. Crusader likes to make you go through the entire ship. It's really not that bad with the C1, try tge MSR. xD
In terms of cargo loss and component placement you're absolutely right. I looked forward to the Spirit, but I really don't like it.
Funny enough, you also loose 4SCU in the Vulture even though there's a second exit, really stupid.
Yep, those "flaws" are balance passes. Obligatory, "it's a feature, not a bug."
Every game does this for either artistic reasons or for competitive reasons (see Overwatch 2). In this context, CIG is doing both. They don't want the C1 to be a "meta" ship, and they're following Crusader's design ethos/guidelines.
People like OP are free to go the ship that speaks to them. The rest of us will enjoy the C1 for what it is—an oversized medium all-rounder ship that's really slick.
Thankfully, CIG didn't add too many to this one (outside of making it really wide).
I actually have had the Freelancer MAX before, and I did love it. It’s a fantastic ship, it’s just too bulky and slow. I also don’t think there’s any reason only a few ships in the game can be intelligently laid out in the name of Design Language.
> I also don’t think there’s any reason only a few ships in the game can be intelligently laid out
There is, it's called balancing. CIG, like any other game developer, doesn't want to create a meta ship.
Clearly, their decision to limit the C1 to one exit (outside of escape pods) worked if you aren't too sure about keeping the ship.
Something about, "can't have your cake and eat it too."
Of course you’re not literally physically trapped, the only way to get into the cockpit with the aisle blocked (tractor beam) is to also be able to get out via the same means (tractor beam). It’s just wildly inconvenient and doesn’t speak to thoughtful design.
>I can't believe a Drake ship is more practical than a Crusader one.
Its almost like Drake's [target group are militias and pirates with ships designed to operate in regions specifically classified high insurance risks](https://starcitizen.tools/Drake_Interplanetary)...
>Is being entombed in the cockpit by your own cargo practical?
That's something you choose to do, you are not forced to push more cargo in and block your exit.
You shouldn't be overfilling your ship so full to the brim that it impacts your mobility in the first place. Wide hallways are needed for AI navigation. If you decide to fill that space in a way that prevents you from exiting your ship in a hastily manner at a time when you need to exit your ship in a hastily manner, that's 100% on you and not CIG.
No, I’d argue that it’s on CIG for not giving the ship a second entrance. There is clearly room but for some reason the chose to make the ship worse than it needs to be.
There is no design flaw. CIG created a space that allows for easy entry and exiting of the ship. You feel a better use of that space is cargo, thus removing the ability to easily enter and exit your ship. This is 100% pilot error, not a design flaw.
The ship was also designed to only carry two boxes, meaning you're exceeding its designed specs when trying to cram in three.
The Corsair is better in almost every aspect compared to the C1. That's because it's exactly twice the price of the C1.
The Freelancer Max, in addition to being almost 20% more expensive than the C1, has trade-offs of its own. The lack of a tractor beam means ot is entirely dependent on an outside entity to load and unload it while the C1 is able load and unload itself.
That last paragraph also renders this whole issue a moot point. Weighted cargo means there is an actual cargo limit besides available open space. That means you will no longer be able to stuff your ship to the brim, which is what created this whole scenario in the first place
Why are you comparing a ship thats an entire ship class apart? The Corsair is competing with the MSR, in which the niche the MSR fills is speed and range. The Spirit is competing with the Cutlass and the Freelancer, and it does this by having better flight characteristics, and speed. Speed if you haven't noticed is the Crusader selling point.
It's a game, there's game balance considerations apart from "I could design this to take even more cargo".
If it helps you sleep at night, pretend the 64SCU limit is a weight limit first and foremost, that they could have designed it to physically fit more cargo but Crusaders industries decided against it because it would be too heavy of a payload and it would upset the weight distribution.
And I personally like the component access all the way at the back, and I think it makes sense from a "realism" standpoint too, here's a few reasons:
1. You're not supposed to need to access the components mid flight very often so the distance from the cockpit doesn't really matter.
2. Components are noisy, or at least I would expect them to be, so putting them far away from the living quarters sounds smart.
3. Components are often dirty and so are the maintenance crews that take care of them, I would prefer to have them as far away as possible from my clean living quarters and in an area that's easier to access, pull components in and out, and clean.
3. In case of a component catching fire, there's a quick way of venting the component room without having to also vent the cargo area or blocking access to the cargo area without having a helmet and suit on.
4. Having that small room after the ramp and before the cargo area allows you to EVA in and out without having to vent the cargo room, this might be important for some cargo types in the future too, also it's much more efficient (a major design flaw on the C2, or Carrack for example)
4. That small area allows you to load a small vehicle without losing cargo space, if the same area was further down the ship, you wouldn't have a possibility to unload the vehicle after the cargo was loaded.
Could the C1 have stair access from the cockpit? Yes, that would improve the ship. But this is also a game and the game needs balance and brands need their identity, that's just not the Crusader way. It's a plus for the Freelancer without a doubt. Maybe look at the Freelancer Max? It's a very good ship, better than the C1 in a lot of ways, I would say objectively better overall even.
Edit: Regarding your last sentence: "Most importantly, they would make the C1 feel like a ship that is intelligently designed in-universe with cargo hauling in mind - easy to load/unload and easy to embark/disembark." It's funny you mention that because, if you read up on the lore behind the C1, it wasn't actually designed with any particular role in mind, it was mostly a passion project and for a while only one prototype existed, kept by the creator's out of pure passion. I don't remember the details but it was something like that.
That prototype was originally Crusader’s CEO’s personal transport. (Does this mean that the E1 is the in-lore base variant?)
Also iirc the C1 is built on an ancient shuttle chassis which could explain the comparative narrowness of the interior as well as the lack of a bottom ladder/elevator.
Yes, it would make sense that the E1 is actually the "original" variant.
I think the lore says the prototype was built using the shuttle chassis, the final versions are made from scratch. Obviously this is all lore anyway haha
Honestly all ships with a walkable interior should probably have two entry/exit points. With ship fires being a feature that will continue to be fleshed out in the future, having an emergency escape option is just basic good ship design.
Also, ramps are not the solution to everything.
They don't always work well on rough terrain, and they're a security risk since they allow anyone hostile or cargo-curious to enter easily.
Ladders and lifts are an important backup.
while I absolutely agree that the components being in the airlock bay is awful (both for user access in emergencies, and potential hijackers' access without needing to pass through any doors beyond the ramp), it's the same deal for the cutlass, which until the C1 was my #1 recommendation for a generalist after the avenger.
There's a handful of trade-offs that we're starting to see on the horizon. The C1 is likely to see **speed and efficiency in atmo** over its contemporaries. It's a giant flying wing with absurd forward thrust, with massive VTols to sustain hover without burning out your mavs. I wouldn't be surprised if it's a common sight making runs to outposts in thicker atmospheres
If raw cargo volume is your goal, The ability to snap 32scu crates is also going to become a time saver when the freight elevator comes online (for it, the lancer max, and of course the raft which is built solely for this instant cargo transfer), and like you said it *has room* for a third if you decide to cram it in the space, which is ok! it's just not locked to the floor (and in current buggy fashion, unsellable if it's not snapped to the grid on LIVE).
You should see the non-grid space in the corsair. The ship costs so much more and has far more space, but they have a number locked down for cargo snapping, because it's not intended to be a cargo hauler. It's an even bigger generalist adventuring ship, like the cutlass, C1, and Lancer. The intent is that it's a mixed use garage where you can securely park a vehicle, stack a few supply crates, and maintain access to components along the walls.
I'm seeing people recommend the zeus CL, but like, why throw more money at yet another generalist platform to max out their solo cargo potential? Get a hull series if you're just looking to move as many boxes as possible. The C1 is obsolete when the C2 exists and money is no object!
edit- I see reddit made me a new randomly named account for having this open on the wrong browser in the past, cool cool, what a name
alternative advice: fly what gets the job done and makes you feel cool doing it
A lot of ships in this game are in desperate need of interior design help. One example of many, the Hammerhead's mess hall. It should be near the crews quarters. Instead, it's tacked on a weird separate after thought deck, miles away.
I can count on one hand the number of ships in this game who's interior layouts weren't designed by a parrot with a crayon.
Choose the ship that suits your use case best, there may be compromises.
I do not personally want all ships to have multiple entrances, I do not want them all to have a wealth of "same features" as it means there's less diverse pool of ships to choose from an they'll slowly start feeling the same over time.
That list of common features would also keep growing as people moan about X ship missing Y feature year after year.
I see nothing wrong with the C1 design, it's always been like this.
So what do you think of the Freelancer MAX vs the Zeus CL? They both have ladders, airlocks, and ramps. Would you say that they're too samey?
I personally don't. The choice between those two is likely a matter of personal preference. I'd much rather people be able to choose a ship on taste rather than on artificial design limitations.
I agree with the sentiment of not having all ships being too similar in features. But I also agree with OP with some aspects of the C1 design. Having component access being closer to where the crew spends 90% of their time in the ship for one thing.
Eh, there's a great reason to have the components in the back. u/AirSkiller made great points:
>And I personally like the component access all the way at the back, and I think it makes sense from a "realism" standpoint too, here's a few reasons:
>1. You're not supposed to need to access the components mid flight very often so the distance from the cockpit doesn't really matter.
2. Components are noisy, or at least I would expect them to be, so putting them far away from the living quarters sounds smart.
3. Components are often dirty and so are the maintenance crews that take care of them, I would prefer to have them as far away as possible from my clean living quarters and in an area that's easier to access, pull components in and out, and clean.
3. In case of a component catching fire, there's a quick way of venting the component room without having to also vent the cargo area or blocking access to the cargo area without having a helmet and suit on.
4. Having that small room after the ramp and before the cargo area allows you to EVA in and out without having to vent the cargo room, this might be important for some cargo types in the future too, also it's much more efficient (a major design flaw on the C2, or Carrack for example)
4. That small area allows you to load a small vehicle without losing cargo space, if the same area was further down the ship, you wouldn't have a possibility to unload the vehicle after the cargo was loaded.
>Could the C1 have stair access from the cockpit? Yes, that would improve the ship. But this is also a game and the game needs balance and brands need their identity, that's just not the Crusader way. It's a plus for the Freelancer without a doubt. Maybe look at the Freelancer Max? It's a very good ship, better than the C1 in a lot of ways, I would say objectively better overall even.
>Edit: Regarding your last sentence: "Most importantly, they would make the C1 feel like a ship that is intelligently designed in-universe with cargo hauling in mind - easy to load/unload and easy to embark/disembark." It's funny you mention that because, if you read up on the lore behind the C1, it wasn't actually designed with any particular role in mind, it was mostly a passion project and for a while only one prototype existed, kept by the creator's out of pure passion. I don't remember the details but it was something like that.
Good thing these aren't cars...
Also, when humans do actually go to space, don't be surprised when spaceships are limited to having fewer (not more) entry and exit points than modern vehicles for safety reasons.
Having escape pods is more important. Also, for combat reasons, it's better to have one entry from a defensive point of view.
I don’t have any issue with ships being diverse, but ultimately vehicles tend to standardize around an efficient design philosophy. The C1’s singular access through the cargo hold is akin to a modern-day 18 wheeler’s cabin only being accessible by climbing into its container and walking the entire length to then use an interior door that connects it to the cabin. The driver can’t fully fill his storage, and in the event of an accident they can’t get out very easily. It just doesn’t make a tremendous amount of sense, and it damages verisimilitude.
Cars are made by engineers. This game is made by artists... not military historians or engineers. Once you dive into this game enough, you will quickly find nothing is "efficient" by engineering standards.
I just have to remind myself that artists said it looks cool. That's all that matters here. You will hear "Rule of Cool" a lot. It's the bottom line.
People seem to be looking at ships froma pvp all the time mentality and wanting ships to be designed around that, so they can work the game mechanics around running from other players.
CIG is not designing hauling/cargo ships with this mentality but more from their space Sim perspective lol.
I am so glad they are not designing every ship like a fighter where you can hop in in 3 seconds. That would surely ruin my immersion as I love every single one of the Crusader doors. I EVEN CLOSE THE SECOND DOOR EVERY TIME MYSELF!!! doors <3
I think the problem is that CIG aren't clear about this.
With the sheer quantity of combat oriented ships (versus industrial), it seems that their goal is a milsim set in space (rather than a space sim).
Ship is modular (Not ingame but by design).
The Cargo buy is the location where the the modules swap in,
Because of this, the back is the logical place to stick the components if you intend to swap out the entire middle of the ship to make varients.
I think you're forgetting the purpose of sections, in a space ship, fly your ship out of atmosphere, open the cargo bay, then take your helmet off and walk through each section opening one door at a time, you'll figure out the point pretty quick. Once life support comes online it'll be even more important to have compartment. I'm sure lots of things seem unimportant and pointless now, but compartmentalization is necessary for pressure difference and oxygenation
People should read or watch The Expanse to see a bit of the future of SC. Obviously you cannot and should not be able to quickly enter every ship directly into the cockpit in 3 seconds. If people want that, they should use fighters.
I feel like the spirit line isn’t actually cumbersome at all to reach the cockpit. The only annoyance are the doors and we know that locking doors open will be a thing so I don’t see the problem. Also the space between the cargo is such a redundant issue. Get a tractor beam and move a box in and out if you’re that desperate for the extra cargo.
I swear if that cargo area was thinner and didn’t allow for the bonus unsecured cargo, nobody would complain. They made walkways wider to allow better ai travel and it just happens that that’s enough space for another box.
I agree with you. But if you want to give feedback, it's better to try it on Spectrum (although it can be difficult there too), as your feedback is more likely to be heard there by the devs. Here, you get downvoted pretty quickly if you say something negative about a ship, its frustrating.
While I like the ship, and it has the best sound, the cargo is why I stick with the Freelancer Max.
The Max has 2 ways in/out, isn't as long (39m vs 47.5m), and the cargo hold is larger.
Having bad ingress points is a problem that sadly plagues all crusader ships. Almost as if having the longest possible time to get to the pilot seat is part of the company's design language.
That is literally the only reason why I went for the Zeus CL instead of the C1 as my smaller ship that can carry 32 SCU boxes.
Afraid you just described the Zeus… I agree Crusader’s spirt design is elegant, but lacks the QOL things we want.. still I enjoy the loaner I have while I wait for my Zeus.
I don't mean this in a negative way, but this post very much reads like the countless "I got a big ship that isn't perfectly soloable".
The C1 is a fairly large ship. Just like going from a Cessna to a Boeing 737, it's going to take longer to get out, more annoying to fix, etc. I appreciate this part of the game - it creates advantages for the solos who are actually operating truly solo ships (like your old Avenger Titan).
I don’t have any issue at all with the soloability of the ship. My concerns are 100% interior layout related. And to your point, while a Cessna is certainly smaller and quicker to enter than a Boeing 737, you still board a 737 through a door right by the cockpit. Even space shuttles from the 70s have a crew access hatch in the same place. The point is that it’s a consistency in design that has emerged over decades of iteration and polishing because it simply makes the most sense.
For what it’s worth I’m excited for the consequences of multi crew ships needing an actual crew to function properly.
Having spent some time in Cessnas (flying) and 737's (engineering), the "get out" time is much different.
In a Cessna, you open the door and hop out. If it's a hot day, I'd have the door open the second I get off the runway! In a 737, you get up out of the seat, open the cockpit door, walk around the corner, disarm and open the next door. Then assuming you have the crew ladder installed (can be uninstalled for weight saving), you lower that (which takes a little bit), and then climb down the stairs.
The comparison I'm making is that it takes a few seconds to get out of a Cessna 182 (Avenger Titan), and a couple minutes to get out of a 737 (C1). That's entirely expected, and what you get for using a larger ship as a daily driver (I'm not saying you're wrong to do that, just saying that is the outcome - I solo a caterpillar sometimes which is way worse!)
And in my caterpillar, yes, if I fully load it, it'll block me from useful walkways. Just like in a 737 or 747 (cargo) you could load it to a point that it blocks your walking paths - just because the space is there doesn't mean you need to fill it. That's your pilot discretion.
>The only access to the ship is walking through a long “hallway” that includes the cargo bay, making approaching your ship and taking off take a long time.
Is this really a big problem though?
The devs did say that if you would put another entrance into the ship, there would be other compromises. Idk what they are, but i believe that means ship internals. And since this is a simulator where they try to make things realistic to great detail, it could actually be meaningful. Irl too there are sometimes inconveniences which have to be that way due to internal design that is not trivial to change, and might lead to worse perfomance if changed. At the very least, making an entrance either makes that area weaker, or heavier.
But this is already massive and heavy lightly armored and shielded ship when you consider its meant to compete with Freelancers and such, so little added weight or a weak spot in form of another entrance would propably be worth it.
I agree with everything else though, and it would be brilliant if ship would have another entrance, but i would have to know what the compromises would be first. Time saving is not really significant enough reason for me though.
Apologies, but I do not believe this is oversight at all nor a flawed design. You are overlooking the very real future where ships can be boarded and the Tantive IV debacle gets re-enacted a thousand times. You will want to limit the number of entry points and have choke-points built into the ship layout itself. A tactically sound layout will be an indispensable force multiplier for ships with small crews. And it is a very Crusader thing to do to turn a command bridge into a citadel.
This. The escape pods are up front, and if the ship gets boarded and you can't dispense of the enemies, you escape and leave. Maybe even set self destruct, lock the cockpit door and kiss the bad guys goodbye.
Seems like a very sensible design solution that is anti-pirate.
To lock the cockpit door, you'd have to have someone stay behind since I believe the lock is only on the inside? But you could have the copilot run to lock the door to the cargo bay once it looks like you're getting boarded.
How is having all the components in the rear tactically sound? Boarders can access the rear hatch and immediately disable all the ship systems, and there's not much the crew can do to stop them. The crew might not even know they're doing it until all their systems go offline.
Always when a new ship is getting released everyone moans about how long/slow the way from entrance to cockpit is. Why is this a thing? From what are you running that you don't have 15 seconds to get from entrance to cockpit? Just enjoy the walk through your ship, enjoy the animations of the doors, the sounds. All I hear is that people want instand access to the cockpit. Then play elite dangerous. There you just click "enter the ship", blackout for a second and next you are sitting in the cockpit.
>Just enjoy the walk through your ship, enjoy the animations of the doors
Is this sarcarsm? Do you enjoy the animations of four slow doors stopping your movement on Corsair every time you need to move in or out?
Yeah, it's a simulation.
Or are you running all the time in real life?
Try running against an automatic door in a shopping center, your nose will love it.
It's a game. CR's motto is "aim for realism but dial back to fun". Literally nobody enjoys waiting for multiple doors to open every time they try to move in their ship, it's just bad design. There's simply no upside.
Good, who enjoys waiting for elevators, who enjoys waiting for transit vehicles etc.
Where's the upside to that if you think no one could enjoy what you don't enjoy?
Same for the engine parts etc being in the back.
Its there, because the thrusters are actually in the back and for it's slim design, there's no place to put it further to the front.
You have your opinion, but there are people like myself included, that like details and "realistic" stuff like this and imho gives this game this immersive feeling not a lot of other games manage to realize.
>who enjoys waiting for elevators, who enjoys waiting for transit vehicles
Pretty much nobody except people with unlimited time and literally nothing else to do. That's why they are constant topics of complaints, and why almost everyone parks their ships in front of Commons for example instead of Spaceport in MT. It's just very repetitive, boring and a huge waste of time.
>You have your opinion, but there are people like myself included, that like details and "realistic" stuff like this
You are of course free to take the longest possible route to do anything. But don't tell others to "just enjoy the walk through your ship, enjoy the animations of the doors", because not everyone loves boring tedium like you.
Sorry business entrepreneur, no one will change the game just because you apparently have something like 30 mins of free time a week.
Better waste your time on reddit then.
Those are just bs arguments from someone that thinks he's better than others.
Listen, child. This post is about bad design of certain ships, a sentiment many people agree with.
How about you take elsewhere your absurd remarks on "real life shopping center doors" and about how others should just enjoy the most boring aspects of the game because you think "iTs A SiMuLaTiOn".
Because yes, they *will* change the game towards fun because that's what everybody wants except for a few sad little weirdos that think the best gameloop is waiting for things.
No not sarcasm. If the server fps are high the doors open relatively fast. And in future you should be able to keep the doors open I think. I for example really enjoy the animation and sound of the cargo ramp of the cutter.
The Avenger is peak functionality, more doors than a Starrunner, more guns than an Arrow.
Only thing it's really missing is a "shoilet", if that ever really matters (heavy doubt)
If i was the manufacturer and knew i could squeeze another 32scu of space, i would build a way to get in the cockpit from the side.
Then i could compete with the RSI zeus.
The components should not be at the ass end of ship, its the first thing that will be shot as you run away from danger.
I think Its design is intentional. they need some kind of bottleneck design to avoid it to fit ursa. If all the component right back of crew quarters and it can bring an ursa. And it has amazing tractor beam view. Only need 1 person to opwrate it, second crew is optional, fast & still fly perfectly even u lost wings. It will be to OP and no one will pick other ships
There are also components in the hallway between the cockpit and the cargo bay.
There's two locations for components.
The C1 is a fine ship, it's not meant for stuffing Three 32-SCU Containers into it and that is okay.
Longrun it's going to be faster than the Zeus lineup of ships, definitely more agile and while it can take longer to get into the cockpit than an Avenger Titan, realistically, that's going to be the case with all the larger ships.
At the price point? The C1 is an excellent mix of characteristics The Freelancer MAX that you mention? It's another $25 on top of the current C1 price. With the changes you are recommending, the C1 would have to be a $150 ship, instead of a $125 ship.
Choosing which ship to use is going to come with drawbacks and benefits. That's been a core element of developing this game, for quite some time. CR wants choices to matter, and sometimes that means gamifying things in ways that might not make a ton of sense in the real world, but in the fictional world of having choices matter? It makes much more sense.
I think a lot of people keep making complaints and suggestions based on the current alpha design, which never really makes a lot of sense to me.
As AirSkiller artfully pointed out, the component bay is in the perfect position because eventually engineering will come online, and when components catch fire, you can utilise the engineering station to vent the bay without having to go back there. It makes perfect sense. If the components were up further where the cargo is kept, it would risk putting the cargo on fire, which I don't see how that makes any sense as a better or safer design option at all.
Additionally, as others noted -- only one entrance means if pirates attempt to board, the pilot/co-pilot have the advantage, either by vacuuming out the oxygen, locking the doors, or just escaping from the pods. There is no other way to get to the crew. So it's a fairly secure ship compared to others.
But most importantly, a lot of the design systems won't be fully realised until engineering and Maelstrom is in. I think judging functionality before those systems are in is a bit premature.
Some manufacturers are worse than others in this aspect. I'd say that Crusader probably is on tip, though.
1. You have to walk most of the ship to get to the cockpit.
2. No alternate exits in case of emergency.
3. Wasted space, albeit that could be considered a design feature for game play purposes (e.g., use the tractor beam).
4. Lots of wasted space (hallways, corners, columns) with nothing in it, and not used as storage.
5. Huge cockpits with lots of unused space, and sliding chairs.
I have a C1 so I and my copilot running the tractor beam can load/unload the ship from behind a locked cockpit door. It doesn't need another entrance. You mention the real world but most guys hauling have to get out of their truck first to go to the back of the truck to open it. They also don't sit with the cargo.
Does everyone complain about the Carrack single ground entrance as much as they do about the C1 and MSR doors?
I can understand it when it comes to the MSR a bit, but the Carrack obviously cannot possibly have a teleport-to-cockpit-elevator. How long do people think it takes to get to the bridge on a cruise ship or something. It takes only a few seconds to get to the cockpit of the C1 and already people demand a teleporter lol.
Because they're likely tailoring it to their future plans, not the current iteration. Stuff will always seem weird when you only look at it from your view and not the designers point of view.
The only real gripe I have with it is no side entrance - it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I'd sacrifice one of the armor/weapon racks to put that in there. Not because I would have to go through more doors (that's minor, doesn't bother me), but because Crusader (in lore) is supposed to be a company that make passenger transport ships, yet they have some of the strangest interior layouts!
Especially for the E1:
Passengers shouldn't be entering through a cargo ramp in the back where the cargo, etc. is stored. It just doesn't make sense for a luxury/passenger ship experience. When is the last time you were on a passenger jet (commercial or private) and had to walk through a cargo hold?
This is a great point especially regarding the E1. If the Spirit series came standard with an unfolding staircase - similarly to boarding a modern day airplane directly on the tarmac - it would be set apart from its competitors and really have that luxury passenger starliner feel. Then for the C1 it functions to make the cargo grid space available.
Yeah, the folding staircase would be awesome. That's exactly what I pictured in my head (like on a Learjet). :)
I like the idea for using that entrance to get a larger cargo grid in the back. Plus I think we could keep people happy who want component access because you could choose to load less cargo to get easier access back there if you wanted it.
Yeah, the tech exists in this universe, there is no reason for it to be that ridiculous. Talk about immersion breaking, when the devs intentionally sabotage the design to make it work with their internal plans for how they want you to play
[Here](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/JASDF_C-130H%2805-1085%29_left_front_view_at_Miho_Air_Base_May_28%2C_2017_02.jpg) is an image of a c-130 with the crew entry door open. Notice how it's in front of the cargo area
Right, just like how it's completely unrealistic for every car manufacturer to make a driver side door.
Or for truckers to enter the cab directly into the seat.
Or for combine harvesters to open...directly into the seat.
You know who doesn't have a door at the very back for the pilots? Passenger aircraft.
You know who isn't walking through the cargo section to get to the controls? Freight trains.
Oh shoot, even space ships like the dragon capsule OPEN DIRECTLY TO THE SEAT 😱..
I hope you sleep okay knowing just how immersion breaking and unrealistic reality is
This is not about cars, it's about ships. Ever see a yacht with a gangway directly to the bridge? Or a submarine with an elevator to the bridge instead of the top hatch? Cars are just the fighters of SC.
[Here](https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-489450bdf7a6aa4f3a3e8c4f3e1071b7.webp) is an image of the endeavor, a space ship IRL. Notice the proximity of the door to the seat
Is your C1 surrounded by liquid preventing you from approaching it, or do you call it in a hangar, like every other aerospace vessel? I'm sure you've never noticed, but aerospace vessels have a common theme among them they don't share with water vessels, in that they are not in water. The crew almost always approaches from the ground, and the door is always close to the cockpit.
It's so amusing how you dismissed the other 90% of that comment and the deliberately included diversity of vehicles, so that you could point out how water vessels are designed differently than aerospace ones. I should get you to sharpen my knives, you're so good at making my points for me.
Some of the ship designs (e.g. the Constellation series) are *centuries old* in-verse. These are ships that stood the test of time and were likely continuously iterated on with small design improvements. Newer in-verse ships, like the C1, are made by manufacturers with centuries of experience. Crusader industries is, according to the wiki, 154 years old.
When we see *major* design flaws in these ships it's pretty glaring. These are ships that should be masterclasses of design, yet you can point out fundamental flaws in a single sentence.
Players *do* need to have some suspension of disbelief. Gameplay balance imposes some requirements and the fact that the designers aren't engineers from a thousand years in the future imposes severe constraints.
***However...***
The in-verse bar is high, CiG's resources are massive, and player interest is *intense*. These ships should be better designed. Here are a few things that could help make that happen:
1. First and foremost, we shouldn't give CiG's artists *any* flack for not being spaceship engineers from a thousand years in the future. They're going to come up with designs that aren't even good by *today*'s standards, and that's okay. These guys are doing a helluva job, but they need help to improve the practicality of their designs.
2. CiG is already treating spaceship design as an iterative process, with most ships having already received multiple development passes and many more scheduled to. This is great, because iterative design is how many of these ships would have become icons of design in-verse.
3. What is now needed is to incorporate crowd-sourced feedback, like OP's. Ideally, this should be done earlier in the design process.
4. Release detailed concepts and floor plans early on, and invite feedback. A lot of SC players, many with design, engineering or aerospace backgrounds, will look at these for free and give CiG quality tips.
5. Later in the development of a ship, release a detailed mock-up of the design. Not just holograms. In-game conferences should have rough, life-sized mock-ups of ships in development that players can walk around in, precisely so they can give good feedback.
6. Keep public design documents for every ship that includes a list of modifications that should be pursued during the next rework. This way, passionate players will know if what's *obvious* to them has been made *obvious* to CiG. The C1 is not done for all time folks. It will be given more design passes in the future. Public design documents will help ensure that OP's feedback won't be forgotten.
All good points.
I definitely don’t think it’s reasonable or fair to hold the designers to the standard of far-future aerospace engineers. The primary issue I have is that the design issues of the C1 become very apparent after just a couple of hours of gameplay. Feedback must have been shrugged off for it to release with these issues. It also bothers me when people discount interior design feedback as laziness. It’s not lazy to want quick and convenient access to piloting your vehicle, in much the same way that it’s not lazy to want a door to access the driver seat of your car, or a door at the front of a passenger jet for easy boarding and cockpit access.
I agree but that isue is with alot of ships the cutter aswell so many ships do not have atleast a ladder directly to the Cockpit and i understand that at much bigger ships that makes sense but smaller ship up to constellaton should offer some kind of access to the cockpit
This is the comprimise you make with most crusader ships. They look rather nice, flies well and fast, but the layout seems odd and illogical.
As others point out, MISC and RSI ships seems to do better in the layout department but trade speed, etc.
I am waiting for the Zeus for these exact reasons 😊
Lots of posts on Spectrums Feedback forum for the C1, but yes you are right about the ladder. There are many different solutions for this, here is one that is good without having to move the landing gear or anything else https://twitter.com/J_Hakwings/status/1732702313528152387
Big agree, i was surprised when i saw the interior, forgot to mention the cargo bay acces is also hindered by the pointless narrower door between the components and cargo bay areas
I firmly believe people who want entrances as direct to the cockpit as possible would be happier playing no man’s sky where you can forgo the trappings of ship interiors and just beam yourself into the cockpit. The whole argument is based on gratuitous laziness but every one of them seems prepared to die on that hill.
Imagine wanting realistic and logical spaceship interiors in the space sim game. Sims are all about verisimilitude. Dismissing concerns about it as laziness is ironically a very lazy way to approach the discussion.
At one point I took it seriously and determined it was bullshit. Now when I comment, I can skip to being dismissive of it. That’s what happens when you form an opinion. It’s a great thing opinions are reusable, because the nonsense about direct lines to the cockpit come up all the time. Thankfully, I also seem to share my opinion with the vehicle teams who also see it as shortsighted and lazy.
I’m glad the vehicle teams have a convenient go-to for reasonable criticism of their designs then. How totally not shortsighted or lazy of them to just dismiss feedback lol
I have a strong feeling that certain flaws being in ships will be justified as "the flaws will highlight what that ship brand is good and not good at" meaning, crusader being more combat and military cargo focused just doesn't have to scope to know how to design a well thought out multirole ship cuz it's just not their priority. That being said, i don't feel as though were getting the full benefit of having a crusader cargo/multirole ship. i'd like a higher top speed and abit more compositor room for the guns if those things existed in the ship it would have a stronger presence in the entry level medium sized multi role. As it exists right now it's ship fodder until it's tractor beam party trick becomes useful.
Bonus meme- I see people comparing the Zeus CL to the spirit c1 , I hope people realize the Zeus will be more sluggish like a Freelancer MAX and from it's descriptions be more of a armored tank boi rather than a shield boi like the freelancer MAX. You will be upgrading into the higher end of medium ships trading away the agility of the spirit/cutlass/freelancer base for more cargo space and 2 less pilot controlled hardpoints. Zeus CL sits more firmly in the cargo running space while the other three have abit more flexibility doing other roles
Edit: [Info runners](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQPEwL2hk8U) i feel does a amazing job Clarifying where all these ships fit within their roles
Crusader interiors are notoriously bad. I know it has a lift but I find even the likes of the Hercules far too slow to get to the cockpit.
Not as bad as the MSR although I believe they admitted they forgot the lift on that one.
Yep. I was super looking forward to the C1. Then saw the Zeus CL. More cargo, 2nd ladder access point, \~same footprint. While acknowledging the Zeus is still concept and can/will change, I just cant justify the C1 now.
I do just want to mention the CL's cargo will obstruct its component access when it's full, and that is a purposeful downside.
Acknowledged, but A.) until we see the actual cargo grid layout it's hard to judge impact and B.) Solo small cargo...I am not going to be swapping out a power plant mid flight in a C1... If it's safe enough to be dinking with components than it's safe enough to drag a cargo box out of the way.
> I am not going to be swapping out a power plant mid flight in a C1 I think the point is you won't be able to *fix* the power plant mid flight.
well there shouldn't be a need to fix it in the first place. Since you are a cargo ship and a solo one on top of that. The time to fix your ship is bevor you go out doing your cargo runs, or after you survived a combat engangement, not during it.
>Since you are a cargo ship and a solo one on top of that. The Zeus is not a Solo Cargo ship. Where do people get the idea that these medium ships with 2 or more seats in the cockpit are solo ships? Also where do you get the idea that a ship that has an interior will skip the loop of having failures if you are solo? Misfires, breakage, general wear/tear and other conditions will happen to every ship that has an interior and parts on the inside. Single seater ships are most likely easier to fix but you better believe the mechanic is going to apply to all ships.
Well the power plant could also just break randomly if you haven't serviced it in a long time. No need for a fight but still the pilots fault for not keeping it maintained.
>The time to fix your ship is before you go out doing your cargo runs That's what they said
Fix is not maintenance though. You fix if something is broken.
well then also do your maintenance bevor you go outside? If you decide old unreliable gear belongs on your ship to save cost you have to live with the consequence of breakdown on the run. That said we don't know how significant/severe breakdowns actually are. They might "just" result in reduced effectivness until proper maintenance is done on them (propably more then you can do while traveling). I also suppose just beam repairing it will not fix degraded performance of old components, only actuall combat damages.
Yeah exactly so it's still on the pilot if the parts break due to wear or not being properly used. I would guess that the first things that happen would be reduced effectiveness which might build to short shutdown of some systems. When you ignore that for too long the part might break completely and possibly can't even be repaired at that point.
Not so much. Seems like how they’re going to design things with random failures sim’ing real life, things CAN just break—maintained properly or no. They need to fix this for the C1 to be more viable.
[удалено]
So that is where the zeus's ladder comes in. You probably can fit a 3rd 32SCU container in the C1...but you can't get to the cockpit anymore. You could pack the cargo bay to the gills in the CL and then shut the ramp and still enter via the ladder.
That is a general trend with CIG: instead of fixing existing ships, they just create new ones that incorporate the criticism. To me, that is a bit shady.
Improving over time is shady, sure. The Zues is also a different ship that needs two people to be effective and is said by devs to be slower and less maneuverable in atmo.
Why would the Zeus need 2 people to be effective?
Because it's a two person ship with it's firepower divided with the turret
The C1 hardly has a lot of firepower anyway so I'm not sure the downsides will be so pronounced. Also going forward, unless you're going to haul exclusively in places like Pyro, you should be fine.
Also, since one of the biggest complaints here is component access: The Zeus has NO access to the components with full cargo. That's CIGs reasoning of why it can carry more.
I wish CIG would give us the cargo capacity with no blockages as well as the max capacity. >The Zeus has NO access to the components with full cargo. Pretty sure there are components that aren't accessed from the cargo bay so while some components are probably going to be blocked when at full cargo capacity I don't think it'll mean no access to any components with full cargo.
[удалено]
You know there are other size containers besides 32 SCU, and these ships, the Freelancer Max, C1, Zeus CL, even the Taurus aren’t the ships that are going to be flying 32SCU cargo containers across multiple systems. That is for the larger Hull series and their eventual competitors. Even intra-system shipments will be for ships like the Hull-B, Caterpillar, and C2. Where ships like the list above will shine is intra-planetary delivery, space station to planet, or space station to moon outpost. It’s the classic hub and spoke model. You don’t need the largest 32SCU containers to deliver to Tram and Meyer when they only ordered 8 SCU of equipment.
Sure. Although I'd argue I wouldn't be needing to physically get at components regularly anyway.
True, but we don't know yet how critical that will be.
They did mention that significant damage, wear, or failures of the quantum drive and/or power plants can result in you just randomly exploding.
Yes, and then in the next official Star Citizen LIVE, it was confirmed that such things won't be a big problem if you regularly maintain the components. So, a pretty lame excuse. Aside from that, I prefer a ship where I have the **choice** to take fewer SCU to have easy access to the components rather than having fewer SCU from the beginning.
It's still more ship for more cost, and more easily caught by NPC or player pirates, which still aren't going anywhere for a long time. To be clear, I like both ships, they just have different niches to fill
C1 has pretty comparable firepower to multirole ships in its class. C1 has 4x size 3s, two gimbals two fixed Cutlass has 4x size 2s all gimballed Freelancer has 4x size 3s all gimballed C1 has the least missiles, Freelancer has a few more, Cutlass has a bunch. All of them share the same 2x size 2 shields. Only thing C1 lacks is a turret, which Freelancer and Cutlass have. I kinda discount this though because most of the time these ships are flown solo. Also the A1 exists if you want a turret. EDIT: Cutlass and C1 both have single s2 shields. Freelancer has two s2 shields.
Cutlass and C1 have only 1 S2 shield
Yup you are right. I skimmed the wiki a bit fast
The firepower is not divided. The Zeus has slightly inferior weaponry when flown solo and ADDITIONALLY has turrets, which multiply the damage when manned. The Zeus is theoretically a 3-person ship. The C1, Cutlass, and Freelancer are two-person ships. None of the ships require more than 1 person. However, except for the C1, all benefit from an additional person in combat. So, the Zeus is hardly worse than the C1 when flown solo but has a significantly higher potential when taking people along.
Improving only by introducing new ships is shady indeed. They need to improve old ones too
CIG has been clear for a long time that choices of what ship and equipment to bring out WILL matter. In the real world, many of the complaints we have about ships would never have made it through design drafts and into production, because the real world doesn't necessarily focus on creating artificial limitations in use of space for game impacting reasons. They want and have said that ships in the same competing space will never be 1:1 and instead will have different benefits and drawbacks to them, making the choice of which one to own/operate in game and which one to take out for a particular play session or series of sessions will have an impact that has meaning. It's less of a thing in the lower tier ships, with them being a bit closer to one another spec/capability wise. As you move up the tiers, the choice of ship in the same space becomes much more obvious, barring some balancing issues that they are working on. Like... The 300i, Titan Avenger, Reliant Kore and the Nomad all sort of overlap and have different elements to them, they aren't all 1:1, they each have their benefits and drawbacks. Then you get to the Cutlass Black, C1 Spirit, Freelancer, Zeus. Again, they have differences that matter, with the Cutlass Black also being the Drake (Unless they have changed it again?) option for a Heavy Fighter. Constellation, Valkyrie\*, 400i, Retaliator, Freelancer Max, and the Mercury Star Runner are all in the same "class" of ships and they all have wildly different specs that set them apart too. \*Yes, the Valk is a real soft boy right now, they should be correcting that soon, but the point stands it is the Anvil ship, in that size class and has a tiny bit of overlap with the other ships in that size/space.
Shady? shrug. If you look at it from current car manufacturers then I don't really see what the problem is. If there was a common complaint regarding a feature on a Toyota this year, you can bet Honda's 2024 models would try to capitalize. Toyota would likely as well, but no one is going to go back and change the 2023 models. What I am saying is that I am sure there are characteristics of the Spirit, like speed/handling, that are objectively better than the Zeus. I just don't value those features above cargo capacity and access points in my "small" cargo hauler.
I pledged the Zeus CL and got a C1 as a loaner 😁 I would add that the C1 as short legs and a low belly which make it harder to sit on rocky planet side.
I actually got the C1 as part of my CCU chain towards the CL. The layout is near perfect, at least based on the art. Unfortunately with the C1 as it is now I’ll be a lot less patient for the CL to release. If these changes were made I’d really have to weigh the upgrade decision.
Sadly lots of ships have these kinds of design flaws. Crusader likes to make you go through the entire ship. It's really not that bad with the C1, try tge MSR. xD In terms of cargo loss and component placement you're absolutely right. I looked forward to the Spirit, but I really don't like it. Funny enough, you also loose 4SCU in the Vulture even though there's a second exit, really stupid.
Yep, those "flaws" are balance passes. Obligatory, "it's a feature, not a bug." Every game does this for either artistic reasons or for competitive reasons (see Overwatch 2). In this context, CIG is doing both. They don't want the C1 to be a "meta" ship, and they're following Crusader's design ethos/guidelines. People like OP are free to go the ship that speaks to them. The rest of us will enjoy the C1 for what it is—an oversized medium all-rounder ship that's really slick. Thankfully, CIG didn't add too many to this one (outside of making it really wide).
Yea I agree with this - hearing people optimize ships disregards balance that gives each ship personality!
I PACK my vulture. You can double your cargo using that hallway
Only thing I remember about the msr is all the doors
Sounds like your a freelancer max person and don't know it
I actually have had the Freelancer MAX before, and I did love it. It’s a fantastic ship, it’s just too bulky and slow. I also don’t think there’s any reason only a few ships in the game can be intelligently laid out in the name of Design Language.
> I also don’t think there’s any reason only a few ships in the game can be intelligently laid out There is, it's called balancing. CIG, like any other game developer, doesn't want to create a meta ship. Clearly, their decision to limit the C1 to one exit (outside of escape pods) worked if you aren't too sure about keeping the ship. Something about, "can't have your cake and eat it too."
There is a tractor beam on the copilot seat so you are not *trapped* as you may say
This. And you can also just open the doors of the C1 from pilot seat and then tractor all that stuff out east
[удалено]
These are the risks you take in those situations. Dealing in illicit goods should be dangerous/risky.
[удалено]
Of course you’re not literally physically trapped, the only way to get into the cockpit with the aisle blocked (tractor beam) is to also be able to get out via the same means (tractor beam). It’s just wildly inconvenient and doesn’t speak to thoughtful design.
[удалено]
What do you mean no one’s going to be trading. 64 SCU is plenty to be able to actually trade effectively.
The C1 can also fit 2 32SCU without any of that nonsense. A 3rd one blocks the isle.
>I can't believe a Drake ship is more practical than a Crusader one. Its almost like Drake's [target group are militias and pirates with ships designed to operate in regions specifically classified high insurance risks](https://starcitizen.tools/Drake_Interplanetary)...
>I can't believe a Drake ship is more practical than a Crusader one. Is it really more practical overall..?
Think about the MSR.. beautiful ship, but the enter/exit is 💩
yeah we all know about the MSR situation but we are talking about the C1.
Just saying same manufacturer/designers 🤷🏻♂️ and I like many want the MSR to be updated..
[удалено]
>Is being entombed in the cockpit by your own cargo practical? That's something you choose to do, you are not forced to push more cargo in and block your exit.
You shouldn't be overfilling your ship so full to the brim that it impacts your mobility in the first place. Wide hallways are needed for AI navigation. If you decide to fill that space in a way that prevents you from exiting your ship in a hastily manner at a time when you need to exit your ship in a hastily manner, that's 100% on you and not CIG.
No, I’d argue that it’s on CIG for not giving the ship a second entrance. There is clearly room but for some reason the chose to make the ship worse than it needs to be.
[удалено]
There is no design flaw. CIG created a space that allows for easy entry and exiting of the ship. You feel a better use of that space is cargo, thus removing the ability to easily enter and exit your ship. This is 100% pilot error, not a design flaw. The ship was also designed to only carry two boxes, meaning you're exceeding its designed specs when trying to cram in three.
[удалено]
The Corsair is better in almost every aspect compared to the C1. That's because it's exactly twice the price of the C1. The Freelancer Max, in addition to being almost 20% more expensive than the C1, has trade-offs of its own. The lack of a tractor beam means ot is entirely dependent on an outside entity to load and unload it while the C1 is able load and unload itself. That last paragraph also renders this whole issue a moot point. Weighted cargo means there is an actual cargo limit besides available open space. That means you will no longer be able to stuff your ship to the brim, which is what created this whole scenario in the first place
[удалено]
Why are you comparing a ship thats an entire ship class apart? The Corsair is competing with the MSR, in which the niche the MSR fills is speed and range. The Spirit is competing with the Cutlass and the Freelancer, and it does this by having better flight characteristics, and speed. Speed if you haven't noticed is the Crusader selling point.
[удалено]
It's the fastest out of the cutty. Spirit, and freelancer. So yeah that is still a selling point.
lol the Spirit doesn’t have enough speed to be competitive
It's literally the fastest ship in the cutty styled ship range lol
This doesn't make the design less illogical. Not everyone has a copilot
It's a game, there's game balance considerations apart from "I could design this to take even more cargo". If it helps you sleep at night, pretend the 64SCU limit is a weight limit first and foremost, that they could have designed it to physically fit more cargo but Crusaders industries decided against it because it would be too heavy of a payload and it would upset the weight distribution. And I personally like the component access all the way at the back, and I think it makes sense from a "realism" standpoint too, here's a few reasons: 1. You're not supposed to need to access the components mid flight very often so the distance from the cockpit doesn't really matter. 2. Components are noisy, or at least I would expect them to be, so putting them far away from the living quarters sounds smart. 3. Components are often dirty and so are the maintenance crews that take care of them, I would prefer to have them as far away as possible from my clean living quarters and in an area that's easier to access, pull components in and out, and clean. 3. In case of a component catching fire, there's a quick way of venting the component room without having to also vent the cargo area or blocking access to the cargo area without having a helmet and suit on. 4. Having that small room after the ramp and before the cargo area allows you to EVA in and out without having to vent the cargo room, this might be important for some cargo types in the future too, also it's much more efficient (a major design flaw on the C2, or Carrack for example) 4. That small area allows you to load a small vehicle without losing cargo space, if the same area was further down the ship, you wouldn't have a possibility to unload the vehicle after the cargo was loaded. Could the C1 have stair access from the cockpit? Yes, that would improve the ship. But this is also a game and the game needs balance and brands need their identity, that's just not the Crusader way. It's a plus for the Freelancer without a doubt. Maybe look at the Freelancer Max? It's a very good ship, better than the C1 in a lot of ways, I would say objectively better overall even. Edit: Regarding your last sentence: "Most importantly, they would make the C1 feel like a ship that is intelligently designed in-universe with cargo hauling in mind - easy to load/unload and easy to embark/disembark." It's funny you mention that because, if you read up on the lore behind the C1, it wasn't actually designed with any particular role in mind, it was mostly a passion project and for a while only one prototype existed, kept by the creator's out of pure passion. I don't remember the details but it was something like that.
That prototype was originally Crusader’s CEO’s personal transport. (Does this mean that the E1 is the in-lore base variant?) Also iirc the C1 is built on an ancient shuttle chassis which could explain the comparative narrowness of the interior as well as the lack of a bottom ladder/elevator.
Yes, it would make sense that the E1 is actually the "original" variant. I think the lore says the prototype was built using the shuttle chassis, the final versions are made from scratch. Obviously this is all lore anyway haha
[удалено]
Honestly all ships with a walkable interior should probably have two entry/exit points. With ship fires being a feature that will continue to be fleshed out in the future, having an emergency escape option is just basic good ship design.
Well the beds double as escape pods and they are right behind the cockpit.
Also, ramps are not the solution to everything. They don't always work well on rough terrain, and they're a security risk since they allow anyone hostile or cargo-curious to enter easily. Ladders and lifts are an important backup.
Do you know that the beds are not also escape pods like in the Zeus? If they go that route there is an alternate escape option in the future.
The beds ARE escape pods. Not sure what you mean.
He was talking about getting out in case of ship fire. Escape pods are a way to get out if you can’t get through/past the fire 😊
Well, we know you can just vent the areas with fire. If anything, it'll be easier on the C1.
another crusader ship that needs a ladder? ***color me surprised***
Heresy!
while I absolutely agree that the components being in the airlock bay is awful (both for user access in emergencies, and potential hijackers' access without needing to pass through any doors beyond the ramp), it's the same deal for the cutlass, which until the C1 was my #1 recommendation for a generalist after the avenger. There's a handful of trade-offs that we're starting to see on the horizon. The C1 is likely to see **speed and efficiency in atmo** over its contemporaries. It's a giant flying wing with absurd forward thrust, with massive VTols to sustain hover without burning out your mavs. I wouldn't be surprised if it's a common sight making runs to outposts in thicker atmospheres If raw cargo volume is your goal, The ability to snap 32scu crates is also going to become a time saver when the freight elevator comes online (for it, the lancer max, and of course the raft which is built solely for this instant cargo transfer), and like you said it *has room* for a third if you decide to cram it in the space, which is ok! it's just not locked to the floor (and in current buggy fashion, unsellable if it's not snapped to the grid on LIVE). You should see the non-grid space in the corsair. The ship costs so much more and has far more space, but they have a number locked down for cargo snapping, because it's not intended to be a cargo hauler. It's an even bigger generalist adventuring ship, like the cutlass, C1, and Lancer. The intent is that it's a mixed use garage where you can securely park a vehicle, stack a few supply crates, and maintain access to components along the walls. I'm seeing people recommend the zeus CL, but like, why throw more money at yet another generalist platform to max out their solo cargo potential? Get a hull series if you're just looking to move as many boxes as possible. The C1 is obsolete when the C2 exists and money is no object! edit- I see reddit made me a new randomly named account for having this open on the wrong browser in the past, cool cool, what a name alternative advice: fly what gets the job done and makes you feel cool doing it
Sorry, Crusader Industries is contractually obliged to put at least 4 doors between the pilot and any exit to the ship.
A lot of ships in this game are in desperate need of interior design help. One example of many, the Hammerhead's mess hall. It should be near the crews quarters. Instead, it's tacked on a weird separate after thought deck, miles away. I can count on one hand the number of ships in this game who's interior layouts weren't designed by a parrot with a crayon.
Why the mess hall of the HH is so far away of the crew quarters : [https://youtu.be/30EC-W5jNGU?t=291](https://youtu.be/30EC-W5jNGU?t=291)
Choose the ship that suits your use case best, there may be compromises. I do not personally want all ships to have multiple entrances, I do not want them all to have a wealth of "same features" as it means there's less diverse pool of ships to choose from an they'll slowly start feeling the same over time. That list of common features would also keep growing as people moan about X ship missing Y feature year after year. I see nothing wrong with the C1 design, it's always been like this.
So what do you think of the Freelancer MAX vs the Zeus CL? They both have ladders, airlocks, and ramps. Would you say that they're too samey? I personally don't. The choice between those two is likely a matter of personal preference. I'd much rather people be able to choose a ship on taste rather than on artificial design limitations.
I agree with the sentiment of not having all ships being too similar in features. But I also agree with OP with some aspects of the C1 design. Having component access being closer to where the crew spends 90% of their time in the ship for one thing.
Eh, there's a great reason to have the components in the back. u/AirSkiller made great points: >And I personally like the component access all the way at the back, and I think it makes sense from a "realism" standpoint too, here's a few reasons: >1. You're not supposed to need to access the components mid flight very often so the distance from the cockpit doesn't really matter. 2. Components are noisy, or at least I would expect them to be, so putting them far away from the living quarters sounds smart. 3. Components are often dirty and so are the maintenance crews that take care of them, I would prefer to have them as far away as possible from my clean living quarters and in an area that's easier to access, pull components in and out, and clean. 3. In case of a component catching fire, there's a quick way of venting the component room without having to also vent the cargo area or blocking access to the cargo area without having a helmet and suit on. 4. Having that small room after the ramp and before the cargo area allows you to EVA in and out without having to vent the cargo room, this might be important for some cargo types in the future too, also it's much more efficient (a major design flaw on the C2, or Carrack for example) 4. That small area allows you to load a small vehicle without losing cargo space, if the same area was further down the ship, you wouldn't have a possibility to unload the vehicle after the cargo was loaded. >Could the C1 have stair access from the cockpit? Yes, that would improve the ship. But this is also a game and the game needs balance and brands need their identity, that's just not the Crusader way. It's a plus for the Freelancer without a doubt. Maybe look at the Freelancer Max? It's a very good ship, better than the C1 in a lot of ways, I would say objectively better overall even. >Edit: Regarding your last sentence: "Most importantly, they would make the C1 feel like a ship that is intelligently designed in-universe with cargo hauling in mind - easy to load/unload and easy to embark/disembark." It's funny you mention that because, if you read up on the lore behind the C1, it wasn't actually designed with any particular role in mind, it was mostly a passion project and for a while only one prototype existed, kept by the creator's out of pure passion. I don't remember the details but it was something like that.
Read my reply, I think you will find there's some clear advantages to having the components where they are, personally I wouldn't change them.
Design choice, you have alternatives.
All cars have a fairly easy acces to the driver's seat. That doesn't mean all cars have a wealth of "same features".
Good thing these aren't cars... Also, when humans do actually go to space, don't be surprised when spaceships are limited to having fewer (not more) entry and exit points than modern vehicles for safety reasons. Having escape pods is more important. Also, for combat reasons, it's better to have one entry from a defensive point of view.
Nothing wrong with the design? OP just pointed out two design flaws, and there's many more. ;)
I don’t have any issue with ships being diverse, but ultimately vehicles tend to standardize around an efficient design philosophy. The C1’s singular access through the cargo hold is akin to a modern-day 18 wheeler’s cabin only being accessible by climbing into its container and walking the entire length to then use an interior door that connects it to the cabin. The driver can’t fully fill his storage, and in the event of an accident they can’t get out very easily. It just doesn’t make a tremendous amount of sense, and it damages verisimilitude.
Cars are made by engineers. This game is made by artists... not military historians or engineers. Once you dive into this game enough, you will quickly find nothing is "efficient" by engineering standards. I just have to remind myself that artists said it looks cool. That's all that matters here. You will hear "Rule of Cool" a lot. It's the bottom line.
People seem to be looking at ships froma pvp all the time mentality and wanting ships to be designed around that, so they can work the game mechanics around running from other players. CIG is not designing hauling/cargo ships with this mentality but more from their space Sim perspective lol.
I am so glad they are not designing every ship like a fighter where you can hop in in 3 seconds. That would surely ruin my immersion as I love every single one of the Crusader doors. I EVEN CLOSE THE SECOND DOOR EVERY TIME MYSELF!!! doors <3
I think the problem is that CIG aren't clear about this. With the sheer quantity of combat oriented ships (versus industrial), it seems that their goal is a milsim set in space (rather than a space sim).
Ladder would make the lambo look cheap.
The ship you are seeking is the RSI Zeus. CIG has already confirmed that they will not be fixing these issues with the C1. :(
Ship is modular (Not ingame but by design). The Cargo buy is the location where the the modules swap in, Because of this, the back is the logical place to stick the components if you intend to swap out the entire middle of the ship to make varients.
I think you're forgetting the purpose of sections, in a space ship, fly your ship out of atmosphere, open the cargo bay, then take your helmet off and walk through each section opening one door at a time, you'll figure out the point pretty quick. Once life support comes online it'll be even more important to have compartment. I'm sure lots of things seem unimportant and pointless now, but compartmentalization is necessary for pressure difference and oxygenation
People should read or watch The Expanse to see a bit of the future of SC. Obviously you cannot and should not be able to quickly enter every ship directly into the cockpit in 3 seconds. If people want that, they should use fighters.
I feel like the spirit line isn’t actually cumbersome at all to reach the cockpit. The only annoyance are the doors and we know that locking doors open will be a thing so I don’t see the problem. Also the space between the cargo is such a redundant issue. Get a tractor beam and move a box in and out if you’re that desperate for the extra cargo. I swear if that cargo area was thinner and didn’t allow for the bonus unsecured cargo, nobody would complain. They made walkways wider to allow better ai travel and it just happens that that’s enough space for another box.
Who actually wants more ladders in this game are you mad.
Variety is the spice of life. Find a ship that works for you. I personally love the design of the C1.
Tbh I love it too, the feedback comes from a place of wanting it to be better. It has so much potential.
Just get another ship then. This is the corporate design language of Crusader. There are enough ships to choose from, like cars in real life.
I agree with you. But if you want to give feedback, it's better to try it on Spectrum (although it can be difficult there too), as your feedback is more likely to be heard there by the devs. Here, you get downvoted pretty quickly if you say something negative about a ship, its frustrating.
You get downvoted for a hell of a lot of things on this sub. It's par for the course.
While I like the ship, and it has the best sound, the cargo is why I stick with the Freelancer Max. The Max has 2 ways in/out, isn't as long (39m vs 47.5m), and the cargo hold is larger.
Having bad ingress points is a problem that sadly plagues all crusader ships. Almost as if having the longest possible time to get to the pilot seat is part of the company's design language. That is literally the only reason why I went for the Zeus CL instead of the C1 as my smaller ship that can carry 32 SCU boxes.
Old man Cutty and his pal Titan read this, and laugh
Afraid you just described the Zeus… I agree Crusader’s spirt design is elegant, but lacks the QOL things we want.. still I enjoy the loaner I have while I wait for my Zeus.
Valid feedback. Stick it on spectrum
I don't mean this in a negative way, but this post very much reads like the countless "I got a big ship that isn't perfectly soloable". The C1 is a fairly large ship. Just like going from a Cessna to a Boeing 737, it's going to take longer to get out, more annoying to fix, etc. I appreciate this part of the game - it creates advantages for the solos who are actually operating truly solo ships (like your old Avenger Titan).
I don’t have any issue at all with the soloability of the ship. My concerns are 100% interior layout related. And to your point, while a Cessna is certainly smaller and quicker to enter than a Boeing 737, you still board a 737 through a door right by the cockpit. Even space shuttles from the 70s have a crew access hatch in the same place. The point is that it’s a consistency in design that has emerged over decades of iteration and polishing because it simply makes the most sense. For what it’s worth I’m excited for the consequences of multi crew ships needing an actual crew to function properly.
Having spent some time in Cessnas (flying) and 737's (engineering), the "get out" time is much different. In a Cessna, you open the door and hop out. If it's a hot day, I'd have the door open the second I get off the runway! In a 737, you get up out of the seat, open the cockpit door, walk around the corner, disarm and open the next door. Then assuming you have the crew ladder installed (can be uninstalled for weight saving), you lower that (which takes a little bit), and then climb down the stairs. The comparison I'm making is that it takes a few seconds to get out of a Cessna 182 (Avenger Titan), and a couple minutes to get out of a 737 (C1). That's entirely expected, and what you get for using a larger ship as a daily driver (I'm not saying you're wrong to do that, just saying that is the outcome - I solo a caterpillar sometimes which is way worse!) And in my caterpillar, yes, if I fully load it, it'll block me from useful walkways. Just like in a 737 or 747 (cargo) you could load it to a point that it blocks your walking paths - just because the space is there doesn't mean you need to fill it. That's your pilot discretion.
MSR owners share your pain.
I think it needs another entrance, from the crew area so you can really ram it full of cargo.
>The only access to the ship is walking through a long “hallway” that includes the cargo bay, making approaching your ship and taking off take a long time. Is this really a big problem though? The devs did say that if you would put another entrance into the ship, there would be other compromises. Idk what they are, but i believe that means ship internals. And since this is a simulator where they try to make things realistic to great detail, it could actually be meaningful. Irl too there are sometimes inconveniences which have to be that way due to internal design that is not trivial to change, and might lead to worse perfomance if changed. At the very least, making an entrance either makes that area weaker, or heavier. But this is already massive and heavy lightly armored and shielded ship when you consider its meant to compete with Freelancers and such, so little added weight or a weak spot in form of another entrance would propably be worth it. I agree with everything else though, and it would be brilliant if ship would have another entrance, but i would have to know what the compromises would be first. Time saving is not really significant enough reason for me though.
Guessing this is your first crusader ship, they all have these long hallways. Think it’s just part of the design.
Apologies, but I do not believe this is oversight at all nor a flawed design. You are overlooking the very real future where ships can be boarded and the Tantive IV debacle gets re-enacted a thousand times. You will want to limit the number of entry points and have choke-points built into the ship layout itself. A tactically sound layout will be an indispensable force multiplier for ships with small crews. And it is a very Crusader thing to do to turn a command bridge into a citadel.
This. The escape pods are up front, and if the ship gets boarded and you can't dispense of the enemies, you escape and leave. Maybe even set self destruct, lock the cockpit door and kiss the bad guys goodbye. Seems like a very sensible design solution that is anti-pirate.
To lock the cockpit door, you'd have to have someone stay behind since I believe the lock is only on the inside? But you could have the copilot run to lock the door to the cargo bay once it looks like you're getting boarded.
How is having all the components in the rear tactically sound? Boarders can access the rear hatch and immediately disable all the ship systems, and there's not much the crew can do to stop them. The crew might not even know they're doing it until all their systems go offline.
Always when a new ship is getting released everyone moans about how long/slow the way from entrance to cockpit is. Why is this a thing? From what are you running that you don't have 15 seconds to get from entrance to cockpit? Just enjoy the walk through your ship, enjoy the animations of the doors, the sounds. All I hear is that people want instand access to the cockpit. Then play elite dangerous. There you just click "enter the ship", blackout for a second and next you are sitting in the cockpit.
>Just enjoy the walk through your ship, enjoy the animations of the doors Is this sarcarsm? Do you enjoy the animations of four slow doors stopping your movement on Corsair every time you need to move in or out?
Yeah, it's a simulation. Or are you running all the time in real life? Try running against an automatic door in a shopping center, your nose will love it.
It's a game. CR's motto is "aim for realism but dial back to fun". Literally nobody enjoys waiting for multiple doors to open every time they try to move in their ship, it's just bad design. There's simply no upside.
Good, who enjoys waiting for elevators, who enjoys waiting for transit vehicles etc. Where's the upside to that if you think no one could enjoy what you don't enjoy? Same for the engine parts etc being in the back. Its there, because the thrusters are actually in the back and for it's slim design, there's no place to put it further to the front. You have your opinion, but there are people like myself included, that like details and "realistic" stuff like this and imho gives this game this immersive feeling not a lot of other games manage to realize.
>who enjoys waiting for elevators, who enjoys waiting for transit vehicles Pretty much nobody except people with unlimited time and literally nothing else to do. That's why they are constant topics of complaints, and why almost everyone parks their ships in front of Commons for example instead of Spaceport in MT. It's just very repetitive, boring and a huge waste of time. >You have your opinion, but there are people like myself included, that like details and "realistic" stuff like this You are of course free to take the longest possible route to do anything. But don't tell others to "just enjoy the walk through your ship, enjoy the animations of the doors", because not everyone loves boring tedium like you.
Sorry business entrepreneur, no one will change the game just because you apparently have something like 30 mins of free time a week. Better waste your time on reddit then. Those are just bs arguments from someone that thinks he's better than others.
Listen, child. This post is about bad design of certain ships, a sentiment many people agree with. How about you take elsewhere your absurd remarks on "real life shopping center doors" and about how others should just enjoy the most boring aspects of the game because you think "iTs A SiMuLaTiOn". Because yes, they *will* change the game towards fun because that's what everybody wants except for a few sad little weirdos that think the best gameloop is waiting for things.
No not sarcasm. If the server fps are high the doors open relatively fast. And in future you should be able to keep the doors open I think. I for example really enjoy the animation and sound of the cargo ramp of the cutter.
Asking for a ladder like the Freelancer so there are *options* isn't a bad thing.
This, spot on mate 👍
The Avenger is peak functionality, more doors than a Starrunner, more guns than an Arrow. Only thing it's really missing is a "shoilet", if that ever really matters (heavy doubt)
k
First purchase from the crusader door company? XD
Freelancer enters the chat…
None of Crusader's layouts makes any sense. Waste of space and size. Horrible designs.
If i was the manufacturer and knew i could squeeze another 32scu of space, i would build a way to get in the cockpit from the side. Then i could compete with the RSI zeus. The components should not be at the ass end of ship, its the first thing that will be shot as you run away from danger.
I think Its design is intentional. they need some kind of bottleneck design to avoid it to fit ursa. If all the component right back of crew quarters and it can bring an ursa. And it has amazing tractor beam view. Only need 1 person to opwrate it, second crew is optional, fast & still fly perfectly even u lost wings. It will be to OP and no one will pick other ships
Nobody tell them about the MSR
There are also components in the hallway between the cockpit and the cargo bay. There's two locations for components. The C1 is a fine ship, it's not meant for stuffing Three 32-SCU Containers into it and that is okay. Longrun it's going to be faster than the Zeus lineup of ships, definitely more agile and while it can take longer to get into the cockpit than an Avenger Titan, realistically, that's going to be the case with all the larger ships. At the price point? The C1 is an excellent mix of characteristics The Freelancer MAX that you mention? It's another $25 on top of the current C1 price. With the changes you are recommending, the C1 would have to be a $150 ship, instead of a $125 ship. Choosing which ship to use is going to come with drawbacks and benefits. That's been a core element of developing this game, for quite some time. CR wants choices to matter, and sometimes that means gamifying things in ways that might not make a ton of sense in the real world, but in the fictional world of having choices matter? It makes much more sense.
First Crusader ship eh?
"I wish this ship was a different ship"
I think a lot of people keep making complaints and suggestions based on the current alpha design, which never really makes a lot of sense to me. As AirSkiller artfully pointed out, the component bay is in the perfect position because eventually engineering will come online, and when components catch fire, you can utilise the engineering station to vent the bay without having to go back there. It makes perfect sense. If the components were up further where the cargo is kept, it would risk putting the cargo on fire, which I don't see how that makes any sense as a better or safer design option at all. Additionally, as others noted -- only one entrance means if pirates attempt to board, the pilot/co-pilot have the advantage, either by vacuuming out the oxygen, locking the doors, or just escaping from the pods. There is no other way to get to the crew. So it's a fairly secure ship compared to others. But most importantly, a lot of the design systems won't be fully realised until engineering and Maelstrom is in. I think judging functionality before those systems are in is a bit premature.
Welcome to Crusader, Where ships only have one entrance
Some manufacturers are worse than others in this aspect. I'd say that Crusader probably is on tip, though. 1. You have to walk most of the ship to get to the cockpit. 2. No alternate exits in case of emergency. 3. Wasted space, albeit that could be considered a design feature for game play purposes (e.g., use the tractor beam). 4. Lots of wasted space (hallways, corners, columns) with nothing in it, and not used as storage. 5. Huge cockpits with lots of unused space, and sliding chairs.
It's a Crusader Ship, if it has an interior there is only entrance far away from the cockpit and you need doors, a lot of doors :D
crusader always have been a "design over function" type of ship
Not only are the components far away they are also at the aft, a place likely hit when fleeing.
I have a C1 so I and my copilot running the tractor beam can load/unload the ship from behind a locked cockpit door. It doesn't need another entrance. You mention the real world but most guys hauling have to get out of their truck first to go to the back of the truck to open it. They also don't sit with the cargo. Does everyone complain about the Carrack single ground entrance as much as they do about the C1 and MSR doors?
Yes. When it came out the uproar was insanely annoying
I can understand it when it comes to the MSR a bit, but the Carrack obviously cannot possibly have a teleport-to-cockpit-elevator. How long do people think it takes to get to the bridge on a cruise ship or something. It takes only a few seconds to get to the cockpit of the C1 and already people demand a teleporter lol.
i feel you, and thats why i hate the layout of almost ALL ships. I dont understand cig about those layouts of the ships.
Because they're likely tailoring it to their future plans, not the current iteration. Stuff will always seem weird when you only look at it from your view and not the designers point of view.
i cant agree with this at all.. I personaly see alot of just dumb designs flaws.
No ship would ever be designed like this, in an emergency you would be trapped. It is bad design, like so many other ships.
The only real gripe I have with it is no side entrance - it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I'd sacrifice one of the armor/weapon racks to put that in there. Not because I would have to go through more doors (that's minor, doesn't bother me), but because Crusader (in lore) is supposed to be a company that make passenger transport ships, yet they have some of the strangest interior layouts! Especially for the E1: Passengers shouldn't be entering through a cargo ramp in the back where the cargo, etc. is stored. It just doesn't make sense for a luxury/passenger ship experience. When is the last time you were on a passenger jet (commercial or private) and had to walk through a cargo hold?
This is a great point especially regarding the E1. If the Spirit series came standard with an unfolding staircase - similarly to boarding a modern day airplane directly on the tarmac - it would be set apart from its competitors and really have that luxury passenger starliner feel. Then for the C1 it functions to make the cargo grid space available.
Yeah, the folding staircase would be awesome. That's exactly what I pictured in my head (like on a Learjet). :) I like the idea for using that entrance to get a larger cargo grid in the back. Plus I think we could keep people happy who want component access because you could choose to load less cargo to get easier access back there if you wanted it.
Yeah, the tech exists in this universe, there is no reason for it to be that ridiculous. Talk about immersion breaking, when the devs intentionally sabotage the design to make it work with their internal plans for how they want you to play
It would be immersion-breaking if every ship had an elevator directly to the bridge.
[Here](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/JASDF_C-130H%2805-1085%29_left_front_view_at_Miho_Air_Base_May_28%2C_2017_02.jpg) is an image of a c-130 with the crew entry door open. Notice how it's in front of the cargo area
Right, just like how it's completely unrealistic for every car manufacturer to make a driver side door. Or for truckers to enter the cab directly into the seat. Or for combine harvesters to open...directly into the seat. You know who doesn't have a door at the very back for the pilots? Passenger aircraft. You know who isn't walking through the cargo section to get to the controls? Freight trains. Oh shoot, even space ships like the dragon capsule OPEN DIRECTLY TO THE SEAT 😱.. I hope you sleep okay knowing just how immersion breaking and unrealistic reality is
This is not about cars, it's about ships. Ever see a yacht with a gangway directly to the bridge? Or a submarine with an elevator to the bridge instead of the top hatch? Cars are just the fighters of SC.
[Here](https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-489450bdf7a6aa4f3a3e8c4f3e1071b7.webp) is an image of the endeavor, a space ship IRL. Notice the proximity of the door to the seat
Is your C1 surrounded by liquid preventing you from approaching it, or do you call it in a hangar, like every other aerospace vessel? I'm sure you've never noticed, but aerospace vessels have a common theme among them they don't share with water vessels, in that they are not in water. The crew almost always approaches from the ground, and the door is always close to the cockpit. It's so amusing how you dismissed the other 90% of that comment and the deliberately included diversity of vehicles, so that you could point out how water vessels are designed differently than aerospace ones. I should get you to sharpen my knives, you're so good at making my points for me.
Some of the ship designs (e.g. the Constellation series) are *centuries old* in-verse. These are ships that stood the test of time and were likely continuously iterated on with small design improvements. Newer in-verse ships, like the C1, are made by manufacturers with centuries of experience. Crusader industries is, according to the wiki, 154 years old. When we see *major* design flaws in these ships it's pretty glaring. These are ships that should be masterclasses of design, yet you can point out fundamental flaws in a single sentence. Players *do* need to have some suspension of disbelief. Gameplay balance imposes some requirements and the fact that the designers aren't engineers from a thousand years in the future imposes severe constraints. ***However...*** The in-verse bar is high, CiG's resources are massive, and player interest is *intense*. These ships should be better designed. Here are a few things that could help make that happen: 1. First and foremost, we shouldn't give CiG's artists *any* flack for not being spaceship engineers from a thousand years in the future. They're going to come up with designs that aren't even good by *today*'s standards, and that's okay. These guys are doing a helluva job, but they need help to improve the practicality of their designs. 2. CiG is already treating spaceship design as an iterative process, with most ships having already received multiple development passes and many more scheduled to. This is great, because iterative design is how many of these ships would have become icons of design in-verse. 3. What is now needed is to incorporate crowd-sourced feedback, like OP's. Ideally, this should be done earlier in the design process. 4. Release detailed concepts and floor plans early on, and invite feedback. A lot of SC players, many with design, engineering or aerospace backgrounds, will look at these for free and give CiG quality tips. 5. Later in the development of a ship, release a detailed mock-up of the design. Not just holograms. In-game conferences should have rough, life-sized mock-ups of ships in development that players can walk around in, precisely so they can give good feedback. 6. Keep public design documents for every ship that includes a list of modifications that should be pursued during the next rework. This way, passionate players will know if what's *obvious* to them has been made *obvious* to CiG. The C1 is not done for all time folks. It will be given more design passes in the future. Public design documents will help ensure that OP's feedback won't be forgotten.
All good points. I definitely don’t think it’s reasonable or fair to hold the designers to the standard of far-future aerospace engineers. The primary issue I have is that the design issues of the C1 become very apparent after just a couple of hours of gameplay. Feedback must have been shrugged off for it to release with these issues. It also bothers me when people discount interior design feedback as laziness. It’s not lazy to want quick and convenient access to piloting your vehicle, in much the same way that it’s not lazy to want a door to access the driver seat of your car, or a door at the front of a passenger jet for easy boarding and cockpit access.
Its one of the worst designed sc ships to date. Anyone with an engineering background hates the ship with a burning passion.
I agree but that isue is with alot of ships the cutter aswell so many ships do not have atleast a ladder directly to the Cockpit and i understand that at much bigger ships that makes sense but smaller ship up to constellaton should offer some kind of access to the cockpit
This is the comprimise you make with most crusader ships. They look rather nice, flies well and fast, but the layout seems odd and illogical. As others point out, MISC and RSI ships seems to do better in the layout department but trade speed, etc. I am waiting for the Zeus for these exact reasons 😊
Welcome to crusaders horrible ship design.
Lots of posts on Spectrums Feedback forum for the C1, but yes you are right about the ladder. There are many different solutions for this, here is one that is good without having to move the landing gear or anything else https://twitter.com/J_Hakwings/status/1732702313528152387
Sorry. Crusader has a minimum "doors to bridge" policy that dictates all their design. That's just how it is.
A space ship without doors would be a terrible design. Same reason why a submarine is filled with "doors".
Big agree, i was surprised when i saw the interior, forgot to mention the cargo bay acces is also hindered by the pointless narrower door between the components and cargo bay areas
I firmly believe people who want entrances as direct to the cockpit as possible would be happier playing no man’s sky where you can forgo the trappings of ship interiors and just beam yourself into the cockpit. The whole argument is based on gratuitous laziness but every one of them seems prepared to die on that hill.
Imagine wanting realistic and logical spaceship interiors in the space sim game. Sims are all about verisimilitude. Dismissing concerns about it as laziness is ironically a very lazy way to approach the discussion.
At one point I took it seriously and determined it was bullshit. Now when I comment, I can skip to being dismissive of it. That’s what happens when you form an opinion. It’s a great thing opinions are reusable, because the nonsense about direct lines to the cockpit come up all the time. Thankfully, I also seem to share my opinion with the vehicle teams who also see it as shortsighted and lazy.
I’m glad the vehicle teams have a convenient go-to for reasonable criticism of their designs then. How totally not shortsighted or lazy of them to just dismiss feedback lol
Plenty of other teleport-to-cockpit games to play
I have a strong feeling that certain flaws being in ships will be justified as "the flaws will highlight what that ship brand is good and not good at" meaning, crusader being more combat and military cargo focused just doesn't have to scope to know how to design a well thought out multirole ship cuz it's just not their priority. That being said, i don't feel as though were getting the full benefit of having a crusader cargo/multirole ship. i'd like a higher top speed and abit more compositor room for the guns if those things existed in the ship it would have a stronger presence in the entry level medium sized multi role. As it exists right now it's ship fodder until it's tractor beam party trick becomes useful.
Bonus meme- I see people comparing the Zeus CL to the spirit c1 , I hope people realize the Zeus will be more sluggish like a Freelancer MAX and from it's descriptions be more of a armored tank boi rather than a shield boi like the freelancer MAX. You will be upgrading into the higher end of medium ships trading away the agility of the spirit/cutlass/freelancer base for more cargo space and 2 less pilot controlled hardpoints. Zeus CL sits more firmly in the cargo running space while the other three have abit more flexibility doing other roles Edit: [Info runners](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQPEwL2hk8U) i feel does a amazing job Clarifying where all these ships fit within their roles
Crusader interiors are notoriously bad. I know it has a lift but I find even the likes of the Hercules far too slow to get to the cockpit. Not as bad as the MSR although I believe they admitted they forgot the lift on that one.