Cargo aircraft as a new logistic option

Post your ideas and suggestions how to improve the game.

Moderator: ickputzdirwech

Post Reply
SPolygon
Burner Inserter
Burner Inserter
Posts: 17
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 8:22 pm
Contact:

Cargo aircraft as a new logistic option

Post by SPolygon »

I was thinking about this for a while now, and I want to know how other people would feel about this;
Cargo aircraft as a ultra-long range, fast, (very) end-game logistic option.
What I propose is a whole new concept of transportation of items in the game. The current aircraft mods already allow most of what I imagine, which includes multiple types of aircraft and even requiring some sort of runway to take off.
However, what I imagine is automation of this concept. A way to lay out airports and set up automated aircraft lines between them.
Building such airport could be composed of laying down 'invisible tracks' that mark where the runway is and the 'taxiways' are.
There could be multiple types of aircraft; small ones that could be utilized for quick and relatively easy exploration of your surroundings, looking for enemy bases or searching for resource patches.
Such a plane would not necessarily have to be an end-game element, as it would not be weaponized or heavily armored (could be damaged by ranged attacks), and would not really give you a large advantage.
Further in the tech tree, a small cargo plane would be positioned.
This plane would be slower than the small one, but would offer a larger cargo hold and the possibility of switching to autopilot, so automated cargo lines could be set up.
More in the end-game spectrum, a large cargo plane would be available for research.
I would imagine this would be the only plane that would have a cargo hold size comparable to a cargo wagon.

Aircraft characteristics

I will now more in-depth explain how I imagine the aircraft functioning, and will mostly be referring only to the large cargo plane;
The aircraft would have a very high fuel burn when compared to trains - that would result in them being much less fuel efficient than trains (much less range for the same amount of fuel).
You'd also have to be very careful about making sure that all your planes are properly fueled, as if a plane runs out of fuel in-flight, its autopilot would stop functioning and it would fall down in a straight line, destroying any (destructible) object in its path while taking appropriate damage. If it gets destroyed during the crash, its contents would get spread around the crash site, maybe with a chance of some getting lost. In case of such a crash happening over the water, the plane and everything in its hold would be lost.
The same crash would also be triggered if its health goes under a certain threshold during the flight - e.g. if it takes too much damage while flying over enemy bases.

Damage

Now, I want to talk more about the planes getting damaged by aliens.
What I would imagine is an altitude attribute that each plane would have. A small plane could only climb a bit over the trees, so it would be very vulnerable to ranged enemy attacks from spitters and worms, or even enemy players.
Larger planes would be able to climb much higher, with the largest one having its cruise altitude so high that there would be little to no chance of it getting damaged in-flight.
Of course, to make it less OP, a plane would take some time climbing/descending, so even the large plane could get heavily damaged by enemies during its initial climb or final approach - the large plane would also require more time to climb/descend than the small one.
Of course, a (crash)landed plane would be vulnerable to the same types of damage as other vehicles, producing a large and damaging explosion in case of its destruction.

Airports

It this segment, I will explain how I imagine the airports being built more in-depth.
As I already mentioned, some kind of invisible tracks could be implemented to make it easier (and more UPS friendly) to set up airports.
There are two main ways of airport building on my mind, one being easier to implement in the game but less realistic and with a very fixed design, and the other one (possibly) more challenging to code in but with much more design flexibility and more similar to the complexity of Factorio logistics.
1) "Runways only"
This I think would be simple to implement, as all that would be required to make a functioning "airport" would be clearing a strip of land and drawing a single runway. The plane would then land from one end, unload/load/refuel on the other end, then perform a 180 degree turn and take off from the same end it landed through.
This would also be easier to handle by multiple planes; a plane waiting for a free spot in the airport would just circle around until any grounded plane leaves.
The biggest drawback of this option would be the fact that only one plane could use the airport at a time. This, however, could be considered as a good thing by some, as it would make the planes much less OP.
2) Modular airports
I was thinking about this a bit more. I am no coder myself, and don't really know how Factorio handles pathfinding and AI, but I believe I have at least some basic understanding how such algorithms work and how to keep the CPU usage and complexity of the code down.
A new type of 'track' could be introduced, either invisible, or maybe using a sort of concrete texture. Planes would use this track while on the ground. Some sort of signals could be introduced, so the AI of the planes would not have to predict where other planes will be etc.
This would also allow for the existence of multiple stations in a single airport, massively increasing the plane capacity of a single airport.
Also, the player could design the airport so it would fit his current needs much more.
Let me explain it chronologically and from the perspective of the plane itself;
A newly crafted plane would be placed by the player somewhere on the mentioned track in the airport. Then the schedule for the plane would be created and autopilot would be turned on. While on the ground, the plane would use a pathfinder similar to a train. To transition into air, a long and straight segment of a track would be needed, that would allow the plane to accelerate and eventually take off. A larger plane would require a longer runway.
After takeoff, the plane would gradually gain altitude and speed until reaching its cruise state. It would also smoothly turn towards its next destination, where the same process would occur in reverse.

Game balance

Overall, I do not think that addition of this kind of air transport would break any aspects of the game.
The planes would compete only with very long and low capacity train lines, something that rarely exists in Factorio as trains offer a superior capacity.
This, however, would open up new possibilities, such as very far away uranium mines, as they do not exactly require a high capacity route and would benefit from the fast speed of the planes.
The increased speed of aircraft over trains would also make them the perfect fit for ammo or fuel suppliers to outposts thanks to their faster reaction speed.
And, of course, it would be easier for the player to move around his outposts.

But the main reason I posted it here was to get reactions and opinions of others, and maybe some suggestions on how you'd imagine a similar concept.

thedarkbunny
Inserter
Inserter
Posts: 46
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 10:46 pm
Contact:

Re: Cargo aircraft as a new logistic option

Post by thedarkbunny »

Initial thoughts:
  • Why have invisible tracks at all? If we're assuming that aircraft don't (usually) re-path while in flight, pretty much all of the pathfinding simplifies to a couple of arcs that can be calculated once and cached for future planes.
  • Much like the old "bots die when they run out of battery" system, combining "planes will automatically enter a holding pattern when they can't get to their preferred runway" with "planes crash when out of fuel" sounds like a good way to make the entire system frustrating and accident-prone. Might be better to have planes "claim" a destination runway before takeoff.
  • Plane collisions don't really have to be a thing, at least in the air. It's not really possible to judge aircraft height in a 2D game, so most potential collisions can be abstracted away to "they didn't crash because they were at different heights and/or because I said so"
  • I'm not sure how hard it is to make a plane be armored differently at different altitudes, but it sounds like a challenge. The bigger challenge is probably getting the biter/spitter AI to engage or ignore planes as required.

bobucles
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 1669
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2015 10:37 pm
Contact:

Re: Cargo aircraft as a new logistic option

Post by bobucles »

Why flying trains? Trains already satisfy all the long range logistics you will ever need. Ever.

User avatar
eradicator
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 5206
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2016 9:03 am
Contact:

Re: Cargo aircraft as a new logistic option

Post by eradicator »

bobucles wrote:Why flying trains? Trains already satisfy all the long range logistics you will ever need. Ever.
Well. Laying down a 10000 tile track is pretty time consuming. Not that i believe something as low-throughput / high maintenance as a plane would work in a factorio setting. Sure there are some tiny edge cases where it might be useful, but are those worth the effort? The real solution would be some sort of much easier track laying. Maybe a remote-controlled track-laying automatic train that can be directed from map view?

Engimage
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 1067
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 10:02 am
Contact:

Re: Cargo aircraft as a new logistic option

Post by Engimage »

Runways, taxiways... Those are too complex for the task. Pre-laying "invisible tracks" is not something that would simplify the task.
Simple air transport which would replace trains will only have negative impact on the game (just read bots vs belts threads) but this one will impact trains instead of belts.
So I am sure this will never happen as it is too complex to be added as a feature before release and will not positively impact the game itself.

Aeternus
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 835
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 2:10 am
Contact:

Re: Cargo aircraft as a new logistic option

Post by Aeternus »

Why not use blimps instead? Airships are slower so less problems with relative speed (trains will be faster), and they can moor anywhere, so no messing around with taxiways.
It would be an option for difficult to reach mines or low frequency stations.

SPolygon
Burner Inserter
Burner Inserter
Posts: 17
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 8:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Cargo aircraft as a new logistic option

Post by SPolygon »

PacifyerGrey wrote:Runways, taxiways... Those are too complex for the task. Pre-laying "invisible tracks" is not something that would simplify the task.
Simple air transport which would replace trains will only have negative impact on the game (just read bots vs belts threads) but this one will impact trains instead of belts.
So I am sure this will never happen as it is too complex to be added as a feature before release and will not positively impact the game itself.
The problem with bots is that they can challenge both the convenience and capacity of belts, because they are relatively easy to produce and maintain and with a bit of research they can have much higher throughput than belts.
That would not be the case with aircraft, as they would be much faster, but with a much, MUCH lower throughput than a train with even a single wagon.
The intention behind the suggestion was that sometimes you have a far away mine or oil field with a small output. In that case, it would not be very viable to run a train there, as it would either wait a very long time or travel with a lot of unused space.
A plane with a small cargo hold would present itself as a more viable option.
Aeternus wrote:Why not use blimps instead? Airships are slower so less problems with relative speed (trains will be faster), and they can moor anywhere, so no messing around with taxiways.
It would be an option for difficult to reach mines or low frequency stations.
That makes sense, yeah. I would, however, imagine a blimp being much slower than trains

Zavian
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 1641
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 2:57 am
Contact:

Re: Cargo aircraft as a new logistic option

Post by Zavian »

You could always add planes that are only used for player transport and player resupply (ie the player can ask a plane to deliver him something. It would probably only be able to carry 1-4 stacks, and might auto-request whatever the player has requested from the logistics network it's the airport). That way it won't compete with trains for long distance transport of resources, but could be a faster/more convenient option for the player when a long way from base.

FasterJump
Fast Inserter
Fast Inserter
Posts: 192
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 11:43 am
Contact:

Re: Cargo aircraft as a new logistic option

Post by FasterJump »

There is already a "small plane" in the old campaign. Unfortunately the recipe is not available in normal modes. Would have been so good to explore the map. Even better than a spidertron, in my opinion.
So, please make plans for the plane so we can make the plane and plan our expansion.
Attachments
small_plane2.png
small_plane2.png (969.22 KiB) Viewed 3631 times

Post Reply

Return to “Ideas and Suggestions”