Ships My (noob) exploration build - crashing downsides?

redstamp

redstamp
I have watched a few YouTube videos on engineering and putting builds together on Coriolis and had a go at spec-ing an exploration vessel.

I am open to constructive feedback as well as downright derision and abuse, but rather than spend nearly CR 200m building it to find out it's not flyable, I wondered if more experienced pilots had any immediate concerns?

As I know I have stripped things back to increase jump range, I am a little concerned, landing on a planet might be a tad hazardous, but don't really want to find out 2000ly from the bubble on my first high-G (or even normal Earth G) encounter. Coriolis stats are wonderful but don't seem to show me what limited thrusters will do in different G planets. And I don't even know what the G ranges might be for landlable planets either.

Thanks in advance for any help & advice.
 

cmdr chequers

cmdr chequers
redstamp said:
I have watched a few YouTube videos on engineering and putting builds together on Coriolis and had a go at spec-ing an exploration vessel.

I am open to constructive feedback as well as downright derision and abuse, but rather than spend nearly CR 200m building it to find out it's not flyable, I wondered if more experienced pilots had any immediate concerns?

As I know I have stripped things back to increase jump range, I am a little concerned, landing on a planet might be a tad hazardous, but don't really want to find out 2000ly from the bubble on my first high-G (or even normal Earth G) encounter. Coriolis stats are wonderful but don't seem to show me what limited thrusters will do in different G planets. And I don't even know what the G ranges might be for landlable planets either.

Thanks in advance for any help & advice.
Click to expand...
Dump the large 6E and 5E cargo racks there's nothing out there worth picking up anyway, fit a 2E cargo rack for your repair limpets and a fighter bay for fun , put a docking computer in place of the super cruise assist otherwise the Anaconda can be a pain to land on rocky planets.
 

Northpin

Northpin
Fit some E-rated shield boosters, at least 3, maybe more
Eventually a 2D HRP
Switch the drives to 5D and engineer them with at least G3 Dirty Drives
A 4A power plant may be needed and try to use Armored instead of overcharged for lower heat buildup
If you fit more than 3 Shield boosters, you can use low draw experimental on shield engineering (you could use it anyway)

something like this - also make sure you properly set the power priorities and dont start repairs (if needed, unless you drop in normal space)
 

Ashnak

Ashnak
Yes. Don't use an Anaconda.

If you're really set on that Anaconda, make a short trip first (say Colonia) and check if you can stand flying one for an extended time. Add that fighter bay. Never used a 'conda for extended periods, so I have no opinion on that docking computer.
You don't need two AFMUs - but you might want to get a DSS. Without it, you can't map planets and will have a hard time trying to find bio and geo signals.

My most useful explorer has been a Dolphin. Sure, less jump range than your 'conda - but much more fun to fly and can charge the next jump while scooping, if you're in a hurry. Main downside is that it's not really good for planetary stuff - no downwards visibility and weak lat thrusters mean that you have a hard time visually scanning the surface while flying low over it.
So I built myself a Phantom. Nice range, speed and visibility. Only problem was that the pancake needs a lot of flat space to land. Took it back to the shop after the first couple of planets, too much running around on foot, scrambling in the SRV, recalling the ship and swearing at the autopilot for its choice of landing places.
Currently flying a DBX. Still fast, good agility and a decent jump range. Nice downwards visibility for planetary stuff, and so far I could always set it down within less than 200 meters of every bio I found. Working on that - I still underestimate the disance from the cockpit view. Downside is of course the small fuel scoop - but while not as cold scooping as the Dolphin above, she still scoops cool enough to let me throttle down and start FSSing the system I just jumped into. Second issue with this build is that I couldn't be arxed to unlock the Colonia Engineer for armour (or fly back to the bubble to get the armour engineered), so she runs with stock armour.

FSD in both the Phantom and the DBX is the preengineered FSD V1, DSS also is the preengineered version. You could put a little more work into engineering in general, but she flies fine the way she is. The A-rated/lightweight sensors are a luxury - D-rated long range would work out to roughly the same specs, at a fraction of the power consumption. But seeing that I had the power available (and the sensors in stock somewhere), that's again one percent or two I can live without.

Condas only have one thing going for them: you can tune them to the largest jump range of any ship in the Galaxy. That is, before Fleet Carriers came along. Now, that crown goes to the carriers. And all those systems that can only be reached with an extreme jump range have already been visited, scanned and mapped.

Edit: life support. Go for A. Sure, the D is lighter. But in the case that you actually need it, you'll have to synthesize reloads for the D every 7 minutes. The A will run 25 minutes on each charge.

Edit:
redstamp said:
And I don't even know what the G ranges might be for landlable planets either.
Click to expand...
Up to 45 g, according to the latest research. Maybe you'll even find some place heavier 😁
 
Last edited:

redstamp

redstamp
cmdr chequers said:
Dump the large 6E and 5E cargo racks there's nothing out there worth picking up anyway, fit a 2E cargo rack for your repair limpets and a fighter bay for fun , put a docking computer in place of the super cruise assist otherwise the Anaconda can be a pain to land on rocky planets.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the tips - do you know if Std or Advanced docking required? Wiki just seems to say Landing Pads for advanced, but nothing about planets.
 

redstamp

redstamp
Ashnak said:
Yes. Don't use an Anaconda.

If you're really set on that Anaconda, make a short trip first (say Colonia) and check if you can stand flying one for an extended time. Add that fighter bay. Never used a 'conda for extended periods, so I have no opinion on that docking computer.
You don't need two AFMUs - but you might want to get a DSS. Without it, you can't map planets and will have a hard time trying to find bio and geo signals.

My most useful explorer has been a Dolphin. Sure, less jump range than your 'conda - but much more fun to fly and can charge the next jump while scooping, if you're in a hurry. Main downside is that it's not really good for planetary stuff - no downwards visibility and weak lat thrusters mean that you have a hard time visually scanning the surface while flying low over it.
So I built myself a Phantom. Nice range, speed and visibility. Only problem was that the pancake needs a lot of flat space to land. Took it back to the shop after the first couple of planets, too much running around on foot, scrambling in the SRV, recalling the ship and swearing at the autopilot for its choice of landing places.
Currently flying a DBX. Still fast, good agility and a decent jump range. Nice downwards visibility for planetary stuff, and so far I could always set it down within less than 200 meters of every bio I found. Working on that - I still underestimate the disance from the cockpit view. Downside is of course the small fuel scoop - but while not as cold scooping as the Dolphin above, she still scoops cool enough to let me throttle down and start FSSing the system I just jumped into. Second issue with this build is that I couldn't be arxed to unlock the Colonia Engineer for armour (or fly back to the bubble to get the armour engineered), so she runs with stock armour.

FSD in both the Phantom and the DBX is the preengineered FSD V1, DSS also is the preengineered version. You could put a little more work into engineering in general, but she flies fine the way she is. The A-rated/lightweight sensors are a luxury - D-rated long range would work out to roughly the same specs, at a fraction of the power consumption. But seeing that I had the power available (and the sensors in stock somewhere), that's again one percent or two I can live without.

Condas only have one thing going for them: you can tune them to the largest jump range of any ship in the Galaxy. That is, before Fleet Carriers came along. Now, that crown goes to the carriers. And all those systems that can only be reached with an extreme jump range have already been visited, scanned and mapped.

Edit: life support. Go for A. Sure, the D is lighter. But in the case that you actually need it, you'll have to synthesize reloads for the D every 7 minutes. The A will run 25 minutes on each charge.

Edit:

Up to 45 g, according to the latest research. Maybe you'll even find some place heavier 😁
Click to expand...
Thanks for the comprehensive guidance.

I chose the Conda for it's shear number of slots, allowing for every optional required and space to boot, but if I don't need that many, maybe will revisit your options - and as you say give it a go on a shorter trip first. And obvs the jump range, as it would just get me places quickly and make easier travel outise the galactic plane.

I assumed I needed 2 AFMUs to repair each other... is that overkill then?

Good point ref life support, although I assumed if I was on life support I would be dead anyway soon after...

Will look at the pre-engineered versions - will be much quicker to put together.

I assumed the core module sensors are pretty irrelevant unless in real space with other vessels?

Thanks for the time helping btw!
 

Imo

Imo
I personally prefer ships like the Asp Explorer or the Anaconda, as they have a large fuel tank and a good amount of internal space for storing exploration related equipment, such as a Discovery Scanner and a Detailed Surface Scanner. I then equip my ship with the best possible sensors and navigation equipment I can afford plus an srv hangar for surface expedition.
 

Ashnak

Ashnak
redstamp said:
I assumed I needed 2 AFMUs to repair each other... is that overkill then?
Click to expand...
If you manage to damage your AFMU down to 0% and still have some ship left, you can reboot&repair your ship (right side HUD) and get the AFMU up to a few %. That's enough for it to do its job - unlike thusters or powerplant, the AFMU has no degradation. It doesn't really matter, though - a disabled AFMU has no mass and uses no power - unless you have something else you'd like to have space for. But an unused cargo rack is cheaper...

redstamp said:
Good point ref life support, although I assumed if I was on life support I would be dead anyway soon after...
Click to expand...
Once upon a time, yes. However, since you now can synthesize refills for the life support, you can make it back from beagle point without a canopy as long as you have synthesis materials. Some people did...
redstamp said:
I assumed the core module sensors are pretty irrelevant unless in real space with other vessels?
Click to expand...
Pretty much yes.

Edit: and take care of your power plant. That's the only module you can't repair outside of a dock. Neither AFMU nor repair limpets are going to help you to remove damage from the power plant.
 

alexzk

A
Any way, I use Anaconda only - don't listen those DBX likers. Annie can afford everything in game for explores for never dock many years (real time) and have 1 slot left for fighter / fuel tank.
 

Northpin

Northpin
redstamp said:
I assumed I needed 2 AFMUs to repair each other... is that overkill then?
Click to expand...

Usually yes.
It's really hard to believe you'll run down an AFMU to 0 integrity.
And even if you do, doing a reboot&repair will put the AFMU back to 1% integrity. And a 1% integrity AFMU can repair other modules as good as an 100% one.

So technically you dont need more than 1.
But on the other hand, having more than one has no negative impact
 

Frankymole

Frankymole
Definitely have two AFMUs, one to repair the other.
In fact, since they weigh absolutely nothing, you may as well fill every empty slot with them, after your other modules are fitted; it will save on having to synthesise AFMU 'fuel' from materials. If you badly damage other modules by hitting star exclusion zones, dropping from SC, etc, it's the AFMU's ingredients that get used up rather than the AFMU integrity being an issue.
 

The Lawful

The Lawful
I would suggest to fit a small mining beam laser to scoop synthesis mats in case of need. And an ADC. And probably more heatsinks.

Otherwise, it's a 77ly Conda. Conda is fine for exploration if you don't mind the oil tanker attitude, took mine 35k ly out (and back) and could have gone on for ages. It had 43ly range back then.

O7,
🙃
 
Last edited:

Red Anders

Red Anders
redstamp said:
I have watched a few YouTube videos on engineering and putting builds together on Coriolis and had a go at spec-ing an exploration vessel.

I am open to constructive feedback as well as downright derision and abuse, but rather than spend nearly CR 200m building it to find out it's not flyable, I wondered if more experienced pilots had any immediate concerns?

As I know I have stripped things back to increase jump range, I am a little concerned, landing on a planet might be a tad hazardous, but don't really want to find out 2000ly from the bubble on my first high-G (or even normal Earth G) encounter. Coriolis stats are wonderful but don't seem to show me what limited thrusters will do in different G planets. And I don't even know what the G ranges might be for landlable planets either.

Thanks in advance for any help & advice.
Click to expand...

You can always tweak a build, but I've got well over a million light years of exploration mileage and I'd feel fine heading out into the black in that.

If you're worried about high G landings by the way (and you can afford the rebuy to do some practice/testing) just head to Achenar 3 if you have the Achenar permit. It's 6.odd G and will prepare you well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom