2 Ships docked to the same Asteroid

[mellojoe]

What happens when two ships grab the same asteroid? Are they considered docked together? Can you transfer fuel between the two ships? Does the throttle control both ships? Does the RCS / SAS work on both ships simultaneously?

Does anyone know?

[Red Iron Crown]

From what we know so far, it's just like docking two ships to a third ship, they merge together into one craft, with fuel transfer possible and RCS/SAS centrally controlled.

[Tex]

That is SUPER weird. Can you imagine pumping fuel into a huge space rock and have it magically come out the other side? XD

[Red Iron Crown]

Even funnier, I think you could claw a Kerbal with two ships and transfer fuel through the Kerbal. I don't want to think about the...plumbing involved in that transfer.

[timsfitz]

We don't know yet if fuel will transfer.

[Caelib]

From my understanding of what I've seen, think of the "C.L.A.W." as just a glorified docking port. Object A clawed to Object B = Object AB clawed to Object C = Object ABC.

[AlphaBeta]

This is making me think about docking a bunch of craft to an asteroid, making it some sweet space station!

[RoCkEtZoMbIe]

We don't know yet if fuel will transfer.

I personally hope the claw can not transfer fuel. If it does, that will be the first time in the history of this game i will be thoroughly disappointed at Squads decision. I truly love and. i mean LOVE every time we get new parts, but if the claw can transfer fuel i will hate it.

[Rickenbacker]

I personally hope the claw can not transfer fuel.

It can, as has been stated many times by Squad. But the good news is that no-one is forcing you to use it for fuel transfers!

[Scotius]

Then you can start hating already, because during marathon it was explicitly shown that Claw does allow for ship-to-ship fuel transfer. Just like any other docking port.

[Kasuha]

We don't know yet if fuel will transfer.

We know. It will.

I personally hope the claw can not transfer fuel. If it does, that will be the first time in the history of this game i will be thoroughly disappointed at Squads decision. I truly love and. i mean LOVE every time we get new parts, but if the claw can transfer fuel i will hate it.

Whether the Claw allows fuel crossfeed or not is irrelevant. You can always transfer fuel between two fuel tanks of a single ship. And nobody is saying the fuel flows through any parts which are in between these tanks, it is just transferred.

[FITorion]

I personally hope the claw can not transfer fuel. If it does, that will be the first time in the history of this game i will be thoroughly disappointed at Squads decision. I truly love and. i mean LOVE every time we get new parts, but if the claw can transfer fuel i will hate it.

It can. That is well known.

What is unknown is if the asteroid can or can't.

[RoCkEtZoMbIe]

O i c. Well that's lame, but anyways i guess I'll just have to see what its like when we get it. Don't knock it until you try it huh.

[Guest]

Asteroid probably also can, as this how fuel transfer in KSP works. Personally, I hope that they someday implement something like KAS, and then fuel transfer will be subject to the same rules as normal flow.

[Kasuha]

Asteroid probably also can, as this how fuel transfer in KSP works. Personally, I hope that they someday implement something like KAS, and then fuel transfer will be subject to the same rules as normal flow.

TBH I prefer current system to having KAS in game and having to pull fuel hoses by EVA kerbals to refuel. That'd be totally no fun for me.

[CaptainKipard]

Even funnier, I think you could claw a Kerbal with two ships and transfer fuel through the Kerbal. I don't want to think about the...plumbing involved in that transfer.

That made me lol.

In case some of you don't know, a reduction to absurdity is a type of logical argument that seeks to dismiss a statement by taking it to it's logical extreme.

The above while hilarious, is also a perfect demonstration of that and provides a decent example of why claw fuel transfer should not be a thing. So does fuel transfer through an asteroid.

I don't know how the code looks, but I assume it would take more effort to stop Kerbals and asteroids from being fuel conduits, than recoding the claw.

[Sandworm]

Transfer through/into an asteroid is not a feature. That's just squad spin. Their fuel transfer system is based on the active vessel. Any part in the active vessel can transfer any resource to any other part. It's not a matte of 'allowing' asteroids to transfer fuel. They would have to write code to specifically disallow them from doing so.

The real truth is that the entire fuel-transfer concept is absurd. Moving propellants from one part of a ship to another is all but unheard of in the real world. The piping, pumps, connectors, pressure systems, bladders, scrubbers, insulation ... moving rocket fuel isn't like pumping diet coke. IMHO squad should disallow fuel transfers except through designated parts designed for the purpose.

[Kasuha]

Nobody's saying the fuel goes through that Kerbal ... or Claw, or I-beam, or anything. We can imagine there are invisible EVA Kerbals flying around hauling the fuel in buckets if we wish. The speed of the transfer kinda corresponds to that.

Fuel transfer is inconvenient enough as it is, with all the clicking and time you need to wait for the fuel to transfer. I don't think it should be made any more inconvenient. This is not where we should strive for realism, really.

[CaptainKipard]

I don't think it should be made any more inconvenient.

That's not happening.

This is not where we should strive for realism, really.

And I think we should.

Nobody's saying the fuel goes through that Kerbal ... or Claw, or I-beam, or anything. We can imagine there are invisible EVA Kerbals flying around hauling the fuel in buckets if we wish.

Forcing players to use their imagination to overcome this absurdity is a poor excuse. As a game developer it's Squads job to provide an immersive experience. There's jut no debating that fact.

[magico13]

I'm not a huge fan of the claw being able to transfer fuel either. It makes it too OP imo. Station Science adds a docking port that disallows any fuel transfer through it, even with the right-click menus. It shouldn't be too hard for Squad to implement something similar, though it is unlikely they will. I'll probably just use the claw for grabbing debris and stranded ships, but not for fuel transfer. That's the nice things about this game, you can play it however you want

[Nemrav]

I think the main reason of using docking ports will be that its precise, and that means easier modulation as far as translation goes......

oh well, now that i've read it, a Kerbal shall be used to transfer fuel between 2 claws......

[magnemoe]

It can. That is well known.

What is unknown is if the asteroid can or can't.

You can manual transfer fuel between any part of a ship. Ships who are docked are one ship. As the docking will be radial it will not be an automatic transfer however power and rcs will be shared.

For realism you can use KAS and draw fuel lines, I think kas fuel lines work like regular fuel lines so you draws fuel like the ones you place in wab.

[Red Iron Crown]

Nobody's saying the fuel goes through that Kerbal ... or Claw, or I-beam, or anything. We can imagine there are invisible EVA Kerbals flying around hauling the fuel in buckets if we wish. The speed of the transfer kinda corresponds to that.

Fuel transfer is inconvenient enough as it is, with all the clicking and time you need to wait for the fuel to transfer. I don't think it should be made any more inconvenient. This is not where we should strive for realism, really.

I agree with the second half of your post, but the first half is mental gymnastics to justify the current system. Of course the fuel doesn't actually flow through any intervening part, the program simply subtracts from one fuel counter and adds to another. This level of abstraction was desirable and adequate when docking ports were the only way to join ships. We could imagine that the ship parts contained internal plumbing to transfer fuel, which is a reasonable suspension of disbelief, I think.

Now that we have docking with non-mechanical parts, that abstraction strains credulity. Obviously an asteroid or kerbal has no plumbing to feed fuel through, and we shouldn't have to invent imaginary EVAs to justify how fuel transfer is simulated.

I'm not sure what the best system would be, as I share your desire to keep fuel transfers no more complicated than they are now. But I also want the system to be somewhat believable, too, which the claw breaks for me.

[Merinsan]

For everyone protesting about being able to transfer fuel "through" the claw, why do you not care that you can also transfer fuel "through" girders, decouplers, structural panels, etc.

The simple fact is you are transferring from one part of a ship to another, simply because it's the same ship. If it was not possible, it would ruin the possibility of doing a lot of cool things that should work, which would not be so fun.

[Red Iron Crown]

For everyone protesting about being able to transfer fuel "through" the claw, why do you not care that you can also transfer fuel "through" girders, decouplers, structural panels, etc.

The simple fact is you are transferring from one part of a ship to another, simply because it's the same ship. If it was not possible, it would ruin the possibility of doing a lot of cool things that should work, which would not be so fun.

It strains credulity and breaks immersion less when man-made mechanical parts, even simple ones, can transfer fuel through them. It is obvious that an asteroid or kerbal shouldn't allow transfer through them; it requires less suspension of disbelief to think a girder might have a small fuel line running along it.