Andy
	I've seen printouts of starbases / outposts with full cave coverage for a -98% profile, put up a hiport and get this reduced to -80%. My question is why isn't the sensor profile reduced to 0%. Surely a hiport acts like a beacon and should make the starbase more visible? Andy
David Bethel
	Hiports just add there mass to the outpost's profile reguardless of caves. If you think hiports need to stickout more than other things then first we have to work out what it is... then we need to alter the ammoun of profile mass that it adds....
Andy
	Yeah I do think hiports need to be more visible as you can't cover them with caves and therefore should be a beacon for the starbase / outpost. Adding 500,000MU to their profile mass would sort this out. Alternatively have a flag that states if the starbase / outpost has a hiport make it automatically visible. Is that possible?
finalstryke
	QUOTE (Andy @ Sep 9 2003, 10:43 AM) Yeah I do think hiports need to be more visible as you can't cover them with caves and therefore should be a beacon for the starbase / outpost. Adding 500,000MU to their profile mass would sort this out. Alternatively have a flag that states if the starbase / outpost has a hiport make it automatically visible.  Is that possible? I think the first of these would be better (not sure about an exact number of MUs though). This might allow for future attempts to make / research stealth hiports or something with a lower profile? Then again... all that stress might mean it was just easier to do without a hiport and just get the ships to land / deliver / takeoff instead.
David Bethel
	Hiports now have an target area of 5000 (they are still 1000mus) and so when they are put up a caved outpost the profile rises to 0%. So you still have to have sensors to stop the outpost but its certainly must easier now. Since the Scan profile of a starbase is based on the target area on the components stealth / lower profile hiports are possible (as are lots of other research branches that anyone cares to do).
Andy
	This is a nice mix. Almost blind cargo ships ie 3 sensors should not automatically see the outpost. Maybe 500000Mu was a little over optimistic.
Frabby
	The problem is that by definition, hiports, unlike any other type of complex except perhaps shuttle ports, cannot be hidden in caves on the ground. It is even arguable wether the complex is a part of the starbase proper. Perhaps the construction of a hiport should follow the rules for Platform constructions instead, i.e. build a hiport control complex/surface terminal and put a big structure into orbit. Depending on type and tech level of the hiport in quesion these structures could have variable parameters regarding sensor profile, damage treshold etc.
Andy
	I would assume that a hiport although the bulk is outside the starbase is still going to have to have some sort of offloading capacity within the starbase itself, plus the great big pin holding it down so it dosn't fly off ;o). What I'm saying is do we need a control complex for the hiport? For offloading / loading ships / cargo I would say no as then shuttle ports would also need one as they also offload / load cargo. I would suggest the control complex is part of the hiport complex itself. If you extend the idea of a hiport to become an orbital platform with a link to the planet in question, then it should be able to have orbital maintenance and recreation facilities. That's going to need a control complex.
David Bethel
	QUOTE The problem is that by definition, hiports, unlike any other type of complex except perhaps shuttle ports, cannot be hidden in caves on the ground. It is even arguable wether the complex is a part of the starbase proper. Just to note that hiports are not covered by caves, no matter how many caves you have the senore profile of a hidden starabse with an op is 0%. Note sure if that what you ment but i just posted for clarity.
Andy
	Yep I understood. The post was really a reply to Stephan and whether hi-ports needed control complexes. My arguement was not at the moment until such time as you start adding maintenacne / recreation to the orbital part of the hiport. Andy
David Bethel
	QUOTE such time as you start adding maintenacne / recreation to the orbital part of the hiport Thats not going to happen anyhow - orbital docks cover this - or a outpost/starbase in orbit. I belive AFT have a 'zero G' maintenance facility somewhere from what richard has mentioned (and thats the only reason for it)
Mica Goldstone
	QUOTE (Frabby @ Sep 9 2003, 04:03 PM) Perhaps the construction of a hiport should follow the rules for Platform constructions instead, i.e. build a hiport control complex/surface terminal and put a big structure into orbit. Depending on type and tech level of the hiport in quesion these structures could have variable parameters regarding sensor profile, damage treshold etc. I remember this discussion from a few years back. Hiports are actually small relatively discrete docks in space anchored to the planet by a thorlium strengthened carbon fullerine 'rope' that need only be a few metres in diameter and is actually lighter than air on account of being mostly vacuum. The rope need not stand out like a sore thumb although by the same token will not be indistinguishable to background space. Remember, a hiport is only a 1000mu's in mass and not painted in dayglo therefore having it five times more obvious than a standard complex seems reasonable. As it uses winches, something goes up as something comes down it is fast and efficient, but cannot be used to link an orbital outpost as the mass of even a single complex would be too dangerous when attached to the link.