I literally have no clue what you're talking about. Do you mean from takeoff time to being back in space? It takes literally SECONDS. I'm seriously about to log into the game and stopwatch this because either one of us is crazy, or we have radically different ideas about what a "lifetime" is.
New ship: Panther Clipper
- Thread starter Rubbernuke
- Start date
Yeah but still. You point the nose up until you're lined up on 90 degrees. Hit boost, I think by the time the first boost is over you're out of mass lock. Then you hit the SCO boost and you're in space in seconds.
Like.....am I crazy or something????
You're not wrong. In this case at least
The problem with that is that all the real estate in the and near the edges of my powerplay area is already taken. I have no desire to move a few hundred lightyears out where it would take years to expand the power into. Even now it would take somewhere in the range of 500 man-hours to expand my power through the ~30 ly gap, plus more to create fortification redundancies.
Even when not considering Powerplay, neglecting a system with something like 17 orbital and 28 surface slots, with 7 landable planets of which 4 have 4+ surface slots is just throwing away a lot of potential.
Anyhoo, back to the Panther Clipper. I really hope it has better lateral thrust than Cutter and somewhat OK-ish speed (~350...400 m/s boost fully loaded). It's way too easy to slam the Cutter into ground even on 0.3 G planets--the vertical thrust simply seems to lose all power in hard turns, even when I keep the speed in blue and pitch slightly above 0°. 2000 tons of cargo unshielded would be ideal. It probably will have heavy enough hull to require a class 6 shield generator at minimum, more likely class 7 minimum--even then lost cargo space is proportionally small. I predict that price in credits will be north of 200 millions. Maybe 230 millions, so ~10% more expensive than Cutter. Then again, Mandalay surprised me with its 17 million price tag--I expected it to be more expensive than Phantom.
Panther Clipper. What to do with me Cutter??
Sell it for a T9
But honestly, Cutter vs. Panther will be the same choice. Compared to the T9, it will have more tons to carry, but the same flying style and limitations, if not more. Cutter, on the other hand, is a flexible multirole that excels at a lot of things, flies fast, can do AX combat (wait for it!), turns like a brick but not as bad as the other options, jumps decently and happens to be able to carry a lot of cargo if stripped down (up to 780t). T9++ style ships vs the Cutter decisions will always end the same. Two ships, different roles, for bulk cargo take the crate and not the jet.
O7,
Last edited:
Go to any of the past frontier unlocks and past twitch streams and read the comments for 5 mins. You must be new here.
Cutter will still be the top large miner and smuggling ship probably. I can't imagine the Panther Clipper will be something you want to take dancing with asteroids...Panther Clipper. What to do with me Cutter??
My top large miner is the Type-10. (period)
No, you just moved the goalposts from the official forums to live-stream comments.
By that I mean getting from a surface installation back to my carrier which is always orbiting on the other side of the planet.
Hi
I'm not expecting anyone to agree with me btw. but as the ship is travelling in forward motion there's a lot of dead space between the back of those thrusters and where the rear (cargo racks?) finish, I personally see it as a bit odd. If the rear fuselage extended in a thin band rearwards a bit so's the rear of the ship was more inline with those extended thrusters in forward flight there'd be enough room there to instal a few more cargo racks. It would balance up what some people have hinted as the nose of the ship projecting too far forward. At least to my way of thinking in flight at any rate with this rough description the ship would appear more balanced graphically.
When landed, if the rear fuselage wasn't originally extended too far back (just encompassing maybe a couple more cargo racks) the general graphic effect between the front and rear of the ship still wouldn't be too extreme compared with those thruster positions when landed. The only negative effect here though is when landed would the extra length of the total fuselage exceed the landing pad length.
That was one of my initial thoughts too when looking at the new ship, (the 'detached cargo bits') because of the colour difference and graphics from the rest of the ship I also naturally assumed (I know you shouldn't especially if you've got no real info from the designer) those darker objects formed part of the cargo rack system.
I'm not complaining about the design of the ship in general, it's really good, but as one or two other posters have remarked there could possibly be areas of design that might appear better. The ship might probably not be in it's 'finished' state as it's obviously not ready to be released yet, as in we haven't got an exact release date yet.?...so it might go through some more graphical (and actual final specifications) adjustments before release.
Jack
I'm not expecting anyone to agree with me btw. but as the ship is travelling in forward motion there's a lot of dead space between the back of those thrusters and where the rear (cargo racks?) finish, I personally see it as a bit odd. If the rear fuselage extended in a thin band rearwards a bit so's the rear of the ship was more inline with those extended thrusters in forward flight there'd be enough room there to instal a few more cargo racks. It would balance up what some people have hinted as the nose of the ship projecting too far forward. At least to my way of thinking in flight at any rate with this rough description the ship would appear more balanced graphically.
When landed, if the rear fuselage wasn't originally extended too far back (just encompassing maybe a couple more cargo racks) the general graphic effect between the front and rear of the ship still wouldn't be too extreme compared with those thruster positions when landed. The only negative effect here though is when landed would the extra length of the total fuselage exceed the landing pad length.
That was one of my initial thoughts too when looking at the new ship, (the 'detached cargo bits') because of the colour difference and graphics from the rest of the ship I also naturally assumed (I know you shouldn't especially if you've got no real info from the designer) those darker objects formed part of the cargo rack system.
I'm not complaining about the design of the ship in general, it's really good, but as one or two other posters have remarked there could possibly be areas of design that might appear better. The ship might probably not be in it's 'finished' state as it's obviously not ready to be released yet, as in we haven't got an exact release date yet.?...so it might go through some more graphical (and actual final specifications) adjustments before release.
Jack
Goal post never got moved, don't be ridiculous. Those are their documented communication channels. Stop being lazy and disingenuous.
Last edited by a moderator:
There's the difference. I don't care about Powers (maxed out LYR and forgot about all that stuff) but making nice systems for myself, for my fun with my nonaligned alt. Then the playing field is much muuuch wider and gameplay more pleasant.
Anyways, I like the new ship very much. It has to be a bit clumsy but so what? We've all learned to fly both T9 and Cutter, so we will master this one too. The only thing important is the cargo space.
Last edited:
It's not really worth bothering with. Everyone knows that people have been asking for the Panther-Clipper since day one, and the idea that they haven't is in any case a really strange argument for "I want an OP one-dimensional ferry to make colonisation much easier rather than ask for rebalances to colonisation". The Panther-Clipper absolutely shouldn't be sacrificed on the altar of colonisation and relegated to just 'solving' one particular current day problem. It'd be like going back to when Engineers was an enormous RNG grind and ransacking Frontier lore to add a single OP ship that obtained 4 times as many materials, instead of what they did – making Engineers more accessible.
Asking for =/= screaming hysterically for.
I NEVER said nobody ever asked for it.
Completely agree, I'm fine with it kicking butt in multiple areas. I'm all for new ships and I'm not one of these "balance" guys that cry to the heavens if something is a little better than something else.
Apparently, not everyone...
(at least in pedantry)
ugh
God I hope you're wrong, that would be insanely depressing if you're right. A much awaited behemoth shorted before it even has a chance to fly.
Yeah nothing pushes game developers to really knock something out of the park than a playerbase that has such pitifully low expectations, ugh.
Something hauling a "little bit" more than the Cutter isn't worth the ARX. And if we don't damn well hold the line and make that clear, than they WILL do the bare minimum and deliver that to us.