jedidia
shoemaker without legs
Not if you don't want it...
The longer I develop, the more I appreciate it if I have control over a thing, even if it means a bit more work at times. See here, for example.Doing a CoG shift to account for attachments is not difficult, and can even be offered optional to the user. Imagine you'd have to account for balancing the load in the XR5, for example, or in the universal cargo deck. It might be a nice feature for die-hard realiteers, but nothing I'd want to deal with by default...
Nope. You can even fire thrusters of an attached vessel and it won't influence the parent vessel unless the possibility is accounted for in the code.
Which brings me to another "advantage" of attachment points (at least when doing most of the things you'd want to use attachments for): parent-child relations.
IMS currently does use dock ports for cargo (since those craft aren't intended to land anyways), but it's only a stop-gap until I get the time to implement a real cargo handling system with attachment points. I'd never use dock ports for cargo handling as a first choice, you just don't have enough control, not enough flexibility, get long docking ports list, and frankly I just can't see a single advantage of using docking ports except that it is more comfortable to use with the scenario editor (major reason why IMS uses them at all, and much trouble did I have with them, dear God!). This could be better rectified by a new scenario version, but vessels like the XR series bring along their own payload spawning routines anyways.
