|
Finally saved up enough money for an asp explorer. The view in this thing is phenomenal. I need to do some space trucking so I can buy one of those fancy 100 million credit space boats.
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 13:57 |
|
|
Helter Skelter posted:The X65 was also from before MadCatz bought them, and in general was a cool as hell stick that was just too weird to live.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
Hamelekim posted:Finally saved up enough money for an asp explorer. The view in this thing is phenomenal. I need to do some space trucking so I can buy one of those fancy 100 million credit space boats. And thus, another Robigo Han Solo was born
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
IAmTheRad posted:Is there a good entry-level not insanely expensive FAS build out there? Doesn't need to be A ranked, but I would like something with power that's not the Vulture to fly for a bit. There are so many ways to make an awesome FAS. This is just north of ~30M depending on what discounts you can get access to, so not too crazy (that comes from the military armour and A-grade power mostly), and will still wreck things: http://coriolis.io/outfit/federal_assault_ship/06D6C5A5D6A4D4C1e1e1s1s00040404B22d2b---.AwRj4yqA.AwiMIyso If that's still too rich, the FSD could be downgraded, that's non-essential for fighter-ing. The weapons are flexible as long as you're not looking at plasma/rails. Priority to upgrade would probably be the thrusters.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
http://coriolis.io/outfit/federal_assault_ship/05A6B5D5D5A4D4C1e1e272700000k04B26o2b292724.AwRj4yqA.CwBhwJhKEYbCjEGYziA= 34 mil
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
IAmTheRad posted:Is there a good entry-level not insanely expensive FAS build out there? Doesn't need to be A ranked, but I would like something with power that's not the Vulture to fly for a bit. like others have said, it's hard to break the bank with the FAS unless you are wanting to go straight for A grade thrusters and A grade powerplants first thing. So my only suggestion (which both linked builds show) is to have at least C grade thrusters minimum (1.8 million) for the sake of your sanity, especially if you want to to planetary stuff. There is a notable difference in handling going from C to A thrusters even on low gravity worlds, but A thrusters cost 15 million more. I'm personally still only using a C grade powerplant and I have way more than enough power for all my toys (very certain I'd still be fine with a D plant), so the only reason I'd want a bigger power plant right now is for more convenient heat while scooping or I start to go hog wild with power drainy toys.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
The top and bottom large hardpoints don't converge terribly well, so it might be worth considering an asymmetrical loadout if you're going for gimbals. I've never found one I'm happy with though, so I just put fixed bursts in the large slots and fixed flaks in the mediums.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
Hah nice, just noticed that if you're fuel scooping you can watch your dotted lines get filled up on the star maps. I'm space maddening my way to Thor's Eye.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 03:05
|
|
|
I'm thinking about getting an Anaconda for exploration, mainly because it can carry more spares and provisions Talk me out of it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 04:11
|
|
|
Insert name here posted:If they made a new X65 with a little bit of play/slack in the stick I'd buy one in a heartbeat.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 04:34
|
|
|
Tippis posted:I'm thinking about getting an Anaconda for exploration, mainly because it can carry more spares and provisions I've got mine in reserve for when the fighter bays comes out so I can just jump in, park it then scoot around scanning. Isn't there an app that tracks your journey? What was that called?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 05:07
|
|
|
WebDog posted:Seven minute wait at stars to fill a really large tank and horrid turn speeds as you explore a system, that's kind of the downside. EDDiscovery As for the downsides, so it's pretty much what one might expect from a huge barge of a ship? No real hidden surprises that will sour the deal out of nowhere?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 05:12
|
|
|
WebDog posted:Seven minute wait at stars to fill a really large tank and horrid turn speeds as you explore a system, that's kind of the downside. I thought the launchable fighters were going to be AI controled.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 05:16
|
|
|
WebDog posted:Seven minute wait at stars to fill a really large tank and horrid turn speeds as you explore a system, that's kind of the downside. The turn speed in supercruise is the only downside, I have no idea what kind of patheticly tiny fuel scoop you were running to make you think it takes forever to fill up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 05:18
|
|
|
Yeah a class 6 scoop does some major scoopage.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 05:25
|
|
|
Kramjacks posted:Yeah a class 6 scoop does some major scoopage. For true comedy a 7A scoop will fill the tank faster than you can get out of scooping range.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 05:31
|
|
|
Astroniomix posted:The turn speed in supercruise is the only downside, I have no idea what kind of patheticly tiny fuel scoop you were running to make you think it takes forever to fill up. As for fighters, I'm under the impression they are to operate like the SRV - is there any actual info on them?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 06:10
|
|
|
Helter Skelter posted:While I can see why you might want that, that would kind of defeat the point of it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 06:30
|
|
|
Kramjacks posted:I thought the launchable fighters were going to be AI controled. Way I heard it, if you have no friends, you can either launch the fighters out under AI control or launch yourself out in a fighter and leave your main ship under AI control/have it jump out when you launch and recall it back in afterwards. If you have another player on board your ship, though, you can have them hop into your fighter while you keep piloting your primary ship.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 11:46
|
|
|
WebDog posted:It was more like stuff as many fuel tanks into the ship as possible and using a slightly cheaper scoop :v That's not a weakness of the ship, that's you deliberately fitting the ship badly. And even then you have to almost completely drain the tank for that to happen as it only takes about 7 seconds to scoop up enough fuel to make a max range jump with a 7B scoop.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 16:06
|
|
|
I can see not wanting to use the biggest parts slot on your ship for a fuel scoop, but even a 4C only takes 2 minutes to fill up an Anaconda's standard fuel tank. Of course, if you pack extra fuel tanks into your ship so it can hold more fuel, it's obviously going to take more time to fill up from empty. Not sure why you'd want to do that, though, there's zero point in carrying extra fuel tanks if you're also carrying a scoop
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 16:43
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:I can see not wanting to use the biggest parts slot on your ship for a fuel scoop, but even a 4C only takes 2 minutes to fill up an Anaconda's standard fuel tank. There are some briar patches that require more than the ship's standard fuel tank to be able to navigate but I've yet to encounter anything that would warrant more than 100 tons of fuel (there also isn't really anything else useful to put in the anaconda's class 7 slot as far as exploration goes, so there's no reason to not put at least a 7C scoop (it'll scoop more than a 6A scoop at 1/5 the cost).
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:I can see not wanting to use the biggest parts slot on your ship for a fuel scoop, but even a 4C only takes 2 minutes to fill up an Anaconda's standard fuel tank. I'd go a step further than that. While I understand the temptation, when exploring your largest slot should ALWAYS be your fuel scoop, the highest letter grade you can afford. You're going to have a rough time, otherwise. There's really no wiggle room on that, people min/max their jump ranges for a reason: if you're sticking more than a pinky toe outside the bubble, having to make 50+ jumps per kly isn't fun. Painframe's right about tanks too, they hurt you a lot more than they help (again, jump range, the weight of all that fuel makes a big difference in your per-jump reach and doesn't gain you any practical advantage once you learn to map for scoopable stars). The only time you should ever be fitting fuel tanks in your internals is if you downsized the main fuel tank in an effort to increase jump range, but don't want to cut your reserves by a full 50% (something like this). If you're carrying more than your ship's normal amount of fuel, you done goofused. Astroniomix posted:There are some briar patches that require more than the ship's standard fuel tank to be able to navigate but I've yet to encounter anything that would warrant more than 100 tons of fuel (there also isn't really anything else useful to put in the anaconda's class 7 slot as far as exploration goes, so there's no reason to not put at least a 7C scoop (it'll scoop more than a 6A scoop at 1/5 the cost). The solution to this isn't more fuel, it's smarter navigation. When you're close to half empty, pull up your galmap and see if there's a scoopable star that you have enough fuel to divert to. If you make sure to do this before dropping below 50%, you can always double back to your last scoopable and then go around the dark patch. I've made it to the far rim doing this, and I only had to actually double back once. Having a respectable jump range lets you easily hop across most troublesome regions before you hit that 50% mark (and I'm in an asp, you'll have an even easier time in an anaconda). Tl;dr: don't fit fuel tanks unless it's for boot scootin' around the bubble. Unsinkabear fucked around with this message at 17:04 on Apr 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
Your Loyal Vizier posted:
There are some briar patches that contain no scoopable stars at all for over 300ly in any direction, and you can always go around them but if you want to actually explore them you're going to need the fuel to get to the deeper sections.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
So I've been flying a clipper for about 3 days now, and a ship this large really has no business handling this well. I guess the fairly lovely shield strength is due to this, but I don't really mind, seeing how I can always just boost away and recharge, as nothing except another clipper can really catch up. Maybe a stripped down cobra, but lol at stripped cobras in combat. I *really* like this ship. The jump range is rather unfortunate and its only real downside, but still plenty good enough for navigating the bubble. That said, does anyone know if size 8 military armour exists? I can't seem to find it anywhere. fake edit: joystick  Insert name here posted:I'm not asking for a lot of range, just something like the F-16 IRL where they added something like a half inch diameter of play (after originally having the stick not move) to make it more comfortable to use and easier to judge how much pressure you're applying. The stick does bend a bit because obviously there's no such thing as a completely stiff material, but yeah, It's not like the new F-16 stick, there's no intentional play in it. Mine bends by about half a cm from center during normal use. My story with x65 is, I got to try one for about 15 minutes and hated it. But then a couple years later, they were on sale really cheap where I live after they got discontinued (just under 200 euros shipped) and a friend of mine wanted a decent joystick cause his logitech wingman extreme finally died. So I bought the x65 and gave him my old x52 pro. I figured, "if I hate it, I can ebay it to some sucker abroad for twice the price I bought it at and it'll still look cheap to him". The thing is though, after an hour or two of using it, I kinda just stopped noticing it doesn't move. After a couple days it became natural, even more so than a normal joystick IMO. The stupendous ranges of range it supports is really really good too, and it has 4 sensitivity settings. In flight sims, I use 3 and 5kg max pull on x/y axes, in space games 2/3kg (because constantly pulling at 5kg gets tiring and max deflection is pretty much a constant thing in space games). Coupled with zero deadzone, basically anything between "light touch" and "pulling real loving hard" is a different input. Not dissimilar to having a joystick on the ground with a long extender pipe, to give a lot larger motion range. Last but not least, the mouse ministick is an actual stick with a decent amount of motion range, not just a nub. There is a pretty hefty downside though. To get good use out of it, you pretty much need to bolt it down onto something. An x52 you just pop on the table and fly, x65 not so much unless you're willing to go to much higher sensitivity (at which point, an x52 is probably same difference, but much cheaper). It does come with a set of velcro strips, but that's not all that good since there's still plenty of play in the velcro if you pull hard and you'll lose a ton of accuracy. At this point, I just hope mine keeps working because there's no way to get one for a good price any longer and the warthog+force sensing mod for it costs like $1000 too 
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
Truga posted:So I've been flying a clipper for about 3 days now, and a ship this large really has no business handling this well. I guess the fairly lovely shield strength is due to this, but I don't really mind, seeing how I can always just boost away and recharge, as nothing except another clipper can really catch up. Maybe a stripped down cobra, but lol at stripped cobras in combat. I *really* like this ship. Plop in a reference system and this page should tell you - https://eddb.io/station?m=790&i=1
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
Astroniomix posted:There are some briar patches that require more than the ship's standard fuel tank to be able to navigate but I've yet to encounter anything that would warrant more than 100 tons of fuel (there also isn't really anything else useful to put in the anaconda's class 7 slot as far as exploration goes, so there's no reason to not put at least a 7C scoop (it'll scoop more than a 6A scoop at 1/5 the cost). On the other hand, that kind of works both ways: there's little else to fit in all those other slots. I suppose you could tripple/quadruple up on the AFMUs for even more more redundancy, but with the advent of synthesising, that really shouldn't be necessary. There's no cargo that's worth picking up and carrying around for a few kiloparsecs,. As horribly as you may drive, do you really need 6 or 9 SRVs? Scoop at the top end, scanners at the bottom (and maybe a docking computer so the trip doesn't meet an embarrassing end when you come back a month later and have forgotten how to approach a mailslot). In the middle, a shield and SRVs for planetary landings, and redundant AMFUs for when you still mess up. On an Anaconda, all of that still leaves a bunch of empty slots. So why not fuel? The whole “you can always scoop/navigate around” also works both ways: you don't have to run with a full tank, but as with everything else you stuff in there, it's always nice to have the option to just brute-force your way through patches of junk stars.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
Lima posted:Plop in a reference system and this page should tell you - https://eddb.io/station?m=790&i=1 Woah, thanks, that site owns. I can even search by that 15% off guy
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
Tippis posted:On the other hand, that kind of works both ways: there's little else to fit in all those other slots. I suppose you could tripple/quadruple up on the AFMUs for even more more redundancy, but with the advent of synthesising, that really shouldn't be necessary. There's no cargo that's worth picking up and carrying around for a few kiloparsecs,. As horribly as you may drive, do you really need 6 or 9 SRVs? It all depends on how much effort you want to put into it, I wouldn't do more than a single extra C5 tank as I have yet to find anything that would require more than 64 tons of fuel to navigate when using efficient jumps.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
Astroniomix posted:It all depends on how much effort you want to put into it, I wouldn't do more than a single extra C5 tank as I have yet to find anything that would require more than 64 tons of fuel to navigate when using efficient jumps. True enough, even if the fields of brown dwarves seem endless if you start heading away from the main disc or centre.  It's probably just the old EVE thinking still plaguing me: don't leave an empty slot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
Astroniomix posted:It all depends on how much effort you want to put into it, I wouldn't do more than a single extra C5 tank as I have yet to find anything that would require more than 64 tons of fuel to navigate when using efficient jumps. gently caress fuel, I prepared this monster to start travelling to the other side of the galaxy (I'm starting over the next few days, I'm just waiting on some new paintjobs I've bought today. When they're there, I'm painting my ship and off I go.) It took me several weeks of min-maxing until I ended up with a compromise I felt satisfied with.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
Libluini posted:gently caress fuel, I prepared this monster to start travelling to the other side of the galaxy (I'm starting over the next few days, I'm just waiting on some new paintjobs I've bought today. When they're there, I'm painting my ship and off I go.) Why the undersized tanks? Is it so that you don't accidentally overfill and have to truck around space for hours while it drains?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
Libluini posted:gently caress fuel, I prepared this monster to start travelling to the other side of the galaxy (I'm starting over the next few days, I'm just waiting on some new paintjobs I've bought today. When they're there, I'm painting my ship and off I go.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
Libluini posted:gently caress fuel, I prepared this monster to start travelling to the other side of the galaxy (I'm starting over the next few days, I'm just waiting on some new paintjobs I've bought today. When they're there, I'm painting my ship and off I go.) Stupid ignorant question. Why the docking computer for the deep space exploration conda? Just because you could? Do they work for planetary landings or something? tooterfish posted:Please record your first attempt at landing with those undersized thrusters. I've never flown a Conda, but that weighs less unladen than stripped down FAS with A grade Thrusters/FSD and no internals would, and 6 tons more than an FAS with class D thrusters (those wacky hull mass defaults). So in theory it sounds okay? Or is this another case of ED's numbers being magical bullshit that don't necessarily mean anything/More reliant on a ships's thruster top speed than your optimal mass? Section Z fucked around with this message at 21:52 on Apr 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
Section Z posted:Stupid ignorant question. Why the docking computer for the deep space exploration conda? Just because you could? Do they work for planetary landings or something? I'm thinking about putting one in mine because they don't weigh anything, there's little use for the extra slot, and as mentioned, once you haven't seen a mailslot for a month, you might be out of practice in trying to squeeze something that large through it. It would be awfully sad if the trip would end with you getting stuck in the station grating and blown up for obstructing traffic. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
Tippis posted:I'm thinking about putting one in mine because they don't weigh anything, there's little use for the extra slot, and as mentioned, once you haven't seen a mailslot for a month, you might be out of practice in trying to squeeze something that large through it. It would be awfully sad if the trip would end with you getting stuck in the station grating and blown up for obstructing traffic. Reading this, and the mere thought of stepping back into my Type-7 after this long gives sudden painful clarity to that desire.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
Tippis posted:Why the undersized tanks? Is it so that you don't accidentally overfill and have to truck around space for hours while it drains? I did some math and this way I get 37+ jump range, but still 3 jumps at full tank. It's also still enough fuel to truck around for half an eternity with economic hops, so I can get through dry patches. With the class 7 fuel scoop, I can travel blazingly fast until I hit a patch of unscoopable stars, but for those I added the extra fuel tank to get a nice medium between 16 and 32 tons. The first gives me only two jumps at max range, which was too dangerous for me (if I use a level 3 jump booster, this would probably drain almost the entire tank in one go), the second dragged down my jump range too much for my liking. tooterfish posted:Please record your first attempt at landing with those undersized thrusters. I plan to! By the way, there's a reason I didn't went with ultimate (but suicidal) option of using class 4 thrusters. Again I did some comparisons and as long as Frontier's magical numbers aren't too different from what I can look at, D6 thrusters on my stripped-down Anaconda are almost the same as D5 thrusters on my Explo-Asp. In theory, this means I should be safe when landing, as long as I'm very careful. Section Z posted:Stupid ignorant question. Why the docking computer for the deep space exploration conda? Just because you could? Do they work for planetary landings or something? Yes, the docking computer is basically there because I've done enough launches to know I'm not really good at piloting a large whale like this one. And with weak shields, undersized thrusters and no boost, no way in hell will I pilot this thing manually through the mail slot from the outside. And I'll make sure to do a test landing shortly after launch, so if I crash and burn hilariously, at least I know immediately: I need better thrusters.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
Section Z posted:Stupid ignorant question. Why the docking computer for the deep space exploration conda? Just because you could? Do they work for planetary landings or something? Section Z posted:I've never flown a Conda, but that weighs less unladen than stripped down FAS with A grade Thrusters/FSD and no internals would, and 6 tons more than an FAS with class D thrusters (those wacky hull mass defaults). So in theory it sounds okay? Or is this another case of ED's numbers being magical bullshit that don't necessarily mean anything/More reliant on a ships's thruster top speed than your optimal mass? The video I posted earlier of the guy who crashed his Asp in a third of a g, he most likely had D thrusters. Those have 630t optimal mass, and the average exploration Asp probably weighs around 320t or so. The ratio is actually better here, so it's probably not going to plummet. It might not be quite as manoeuvrable as you want it to be though, and the undersized capacitor doesn't have enough charge for a single "oh poo poo" boost. I'm interested to see how it goes tbh.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
tooterfish posted:Because after more than a few weeks out you forget how to dock your ship. I did a lot of planetary landings with D-thrusters on my Asp, so I have at least some experience with landings under bad thrust. The only time I had problems when I was trying to land on a high-G world (something like 2-3 g, I don't remember the exact number) and forgot that my button for the Up-thrusters is unreliable. I was pressing down for several seconds before I noticed I wasn't actually slowing down and needed an emergency boost to even get slow enough to survive my crash landing. (This taught me not to rely on my hosed up old joystick when coming in hard and fast)
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 13:57 |
|
|
Libluini posted:I did some math and this way I get 37+ jump range, but still 3 jumps at full tank. It's also still enough fuel to truck around for half an eternity with economic hops, so I can get through dry patches. With the class 7 fuel scoop, I can travel blazingly fast until I hit a patch of unscoopable stars, but for those I added the extra fuel tank to get a nice medium between 16 and 32 tons. The first gives me only two jumps at max range, which was too dangerous for me (if I use a level 3 jump booster, this would probably drain almost the entire tank in one go), the second dragged down my jump range too much for my liking. With that size scoop, I'm guessing that even a quick drive-by can easily put you over weight for a planned long jump if you don't have strict upper limits. And from what I hear people saying, the conda will happily dip into quick drive-bys on its own after a jump unless you put the brakes on. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 22:21
|
|