Had to double check myself - turns out it was down.
No. No. Absolutely not. It has a roll rate equivalent to its pitch roughly at 30 degrees and it is extremely absymal (it’s even worse in supercruise). Like you think the Cutter turns bad, the T9 I’ve seen it described as an arthritic beached whale and I am very inclined to agree to that, experiencing it myself.
It’s still a bit on the low side for Cutter-type speeds with whatever the top end might be, being how I recall or vaguely think that the gear down cuts speed roughly in half. Maybe slightly above T9 IF that footage was captured with a stock E rated build, but probably not that much faster.
PC having hull mass somewhere between T9 and Cutter seems likely. Cutter is pretty much Empire's answer to Federal Corvette, so it's tuned for combat with strong hull. T9 is a utilitarian, cheap ship and the engineering department probably didn't go all-out on reducing mass wherever possible. PC is a high-end ship and SCO tuned hull is necessarily engineering heavy, so it makes sense it's lighter than Cutter even if it is a much larger ship because it doesn't need to fight in conflict zones and engineers could afford to optimize the hull structure to their heart's content. But even then it couldn't be lighter than T9 because it's simply a much larger ship. 900...1000 tons seems reasonable, resulting in around 26...27 ly jumprange when fully loaded and using the pre-engineered SCO drive.
i am not so sure... its not like we the player base are united.
I went out and found them when I was bored of doing other stuff and stored them on a carrier. I try and often fail at keeping my hanger as poorly filled as possible, and only have the ships I use most with the SCO drive.
I am enjoying this discussion so much that the requested tonnage stays under the wild demands of some players but is critisised again as being too high because of space magic
Where do you think we're storing all of those mats and data recordings at?!!!
In the post you responded to I was talking about cargo-restricted slots rather than the 'efficient' cargo rack – I talked about the special cargo rack about a page later I think, and agreed that having '8776' restricted makes more sense to me than '87' restricted plus special cargo rack. At first glance the only difference between the two is that the way they've done is less maximum fuel, but that's completely irrelevant.Why not just up the cargo size rather than some hand wavium idea ? Are we going down the specialised weapons rack route if you put plasma on this ship you get another one ?
We don't get any extra for the military slots with many people wanting to get rid of them , the reserved passenger slots came and gone .
I just don't like the hand wavium spacey wacey oh if you put a 7 cargo in here we give you an extra 64 t and if you put an 8 in you get 128 ? Why not add another 6 and 7 and lock them unless the 7 and 8 are being used as cargo . Makes sense no makey up stuff or "magic" .
But these are justu thoughts . I hold Elite as quite factual in the broadest sense. And it just affects my silly sensibilities.
And I still won't pay for early access noatter whose echo chamber it is
And we got a Panther-Clipper which has 192t extra space by an unusual mechanism. Question is, why on earth would they come up with a mechanism like that rather than just add another 7 and another 6? The only reason I can really think of is that it wasn't easy to do, which points a bit to them having planned the Panther out with a ship interior.
And that's why I had really hoped for the size 8 FSD to finally show up.
Given that mailslot jams with NPCs don't at all depend on the ship you're flying, and that the Cutter is by no means a great realspace maneuvering ship for docking maneuvers, this sounds like you're trying to sour grapes yourself out of the purchase. It's by no means required to want to buy the Panther Clipper, and nobody is going to hold anyone accountable for purchasing or not purchasing (perhaps), but I don't think this kind of "it's going to be a lousy ship, I just know it in my bones" advanced complaining is useful.
The fact that the PCII has a size 7 FSD, probably means we will never see a class 8 FSD used in the game.
Yea, that one was my greatest wish. The oldschool mk1. had a class 8 hyperdrive, it would be very strange if the mk2 didn´t have it.
Probably to stop the ridiculous stacking of SCBs when people inevitably do combat builds.
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
