Panther Clipper with Magical Cargo Racks?

[Chroniclerope]

That's how it begins.

Remember the first SCO drives? Only E, plain.
Then soon, slowly, introduced all classes, then the possibility of engineering, then the magic ones from Titan elements...

That's how my Tardis cargo racks will develop - all classes, for all the ships, with no ship preparations - just with a caveat: in them, only cargo and fuel.

You keep mentioning tardis cargo racks, but the ships as they are are far larger than their cargo capacity. A single unit of cargo is a 1x1x2 meter capsule, and the ships are absolutely enormous compared to that, they can physically stock thousands already. If the type 9 was a perfect brick, if would have 449,402.504 m3 of volume, compared to the volume of its max potential cargo, 1580. Lets knock off 50% of that volume for it not being a perfect brick, the ships hull, internal modules, passageways, sleeping quarters, etc. Now our half size is 224,701 m3, and 1580 m3 of that is only .7% of the space. By volume, the T-9 can with this extremely conservative and rough cut number hold 112,350 tons of cargo. So, obviously, cargo volume isnt the restriction, there is no tardis situation.

Clearly, in universe, if we wanted a better cargo ship, a larger FSD and Engine cluster would be designed. Mass has always been the issue, not volume, So not giving the PC a new class of FSD and engine is just lazy, in and out of universe.

 

[Rat Catcher]

Clearly, in universe, if we wanted a better cargo ship, a larger FSD and Engine cluster would be designed. Mass has always been the issue, not volume, So not giving the PC a new class of FSD and engine is just lazy, in and out of universe.

There is an absolute lack of enthusiasm by many contributors here for anything other than incremental change in new ships and their abilities, for the sake of balance, or some other reason that they consider important to prevent any kind of 'power creep'.

If the same attitude existed today in the real world we'd still be driving Ford Model T's and cargo ships might max out at 1,000 tons and aircraft 2 seater biplanes...
Of course, the real world will manufacture bigger & better as it makes business sense... Apparently a games world has to ignore such logic.

FD do peruse the forum, and with a topic as 'hot' as the PC, would likely be taking some feedback from player contributions to the topic... As the majority of the contributions equated to "anything between 1,000 - 1,500t would be fantastic!", with a few outliers wanting 2.5k or (me, of course) even greater. It would have been easy to decide that having a huge ship mostly vacant space is what players want.

 

[DjVortex]

Remember the first SCO drives? Only E, plain.

They were actually C-rated.

 

[Rat Catcher]

They were actually C-rated.

I'd forgotten that too!

 

[r09u3]

If you look at a standard cargo rack it's 50% empty space between the canisters. If you put the canisters in a honeycomb pattern you could fit a lot more. It's not magic just geometry.

 

[Doctor Dread]

They were actually C-rated.

Yep, thank you. I knew they were something lower, C, E, something...

But now one more thing comes back: they were only Class 5 (or was it 4? let's say it was 5). So the SCO came weird, as only 5C, not engineerable. Voila guys, have fun with this SCO thingy.
Then, after a while, they introduced all classes and sizes.
Then their engineering etc...

Same will happen with these Optimized Racks. This is just the start, testing the waters, like it was with C5 SCO. They will be purchasable (or engineerable) in all sizes, for all the ships. With the limitation of "works only for cargo and fuel" to prevent tanking for combat roles.

 

[DjVortex]

Same will happen with these Optimized Racks. This is just the start, testing the waters, like it was with C5 SCO. They will be purchasable (or engineerable) in all sizes, for all the ships. With the limitation of "works only for cargo and fuel" to prevent tanking for combat roles.

I think you have a confusion here. The "optimized cargo racks" are not for outfitting cargo racks and fuel tanks. They are just cargo racks, not some kind of "make this optional module slot special" module.

The optimized racks can only be outfitted in the special optional slots that only the Panther will have. The limitation you talk about there is not related to the optimized cargo racks, it's related to the special optional slots in the ship. Those special optional slots can only be outfitted with cargo racks (including the optimized ones) and fuel tanks, and the optimized racks themselves can only be put into those special slots, nowhere else.

If they were to change the mechanics of outfitting in the future such that optimized cargo racks would come in all sizes and could be put in any optional slot of any ship, that would mean effectively increasing the cargo capacity of all ships by 50%.

I highly doubt they will be doing that. I'm not sure I myself would even want that. Let the Panther Clipper be special. Don't remove its one feature that makes it stand out from all the other ships and makes it superior to them.

 

[Frankymole]

Anyone who is buying a PC for Arx is launching out of Shinrata Dezrah

Depends. Later on in the game people won't be buying it for Arx. That's the vast majority.

 

[Dillon Fallon]

If you look at a standard cargo rack it's 50% empty space between the canisters. If you put the canisters in a honeycomb pattern you could fit a lot more. It's not magic just geometry.

Honestly, who designs square cargo racks for hexagonal cargo containers...

Wait, what's that? Manufacturers of said cargo racks who want you to buy more of them? Ship manufacturers who want you to buy a T-9 instead of a T-7? Station service providers who make money of refuelling, repairing and maintaining your ship from multiple trade runs? Rigged it is, the whole system is rigged! Shakes fist at capitalism

 

[Dillon Fallon]

Depends. Later on in the game people won't be buying it for Arx. That's the vast majority.

Plus, a lot of the modules from people's trade Cutters will be transferrable. Why keep that hanging around when the PC should do exactly the same job but bigger.

 

[Morbad]

Fussing over the geometry of canister placement in medium or large ships in Elite: Dangerous is like arguing about where to put your one tool shelf in an empty bomber hangar.

Mass is the only limiting factor for larger ships/modules. If one needs an explanation for how these canisters allow you to fit two golf balls instead of one in the back of your 2.5 ton pickup truck, it's because the bed liner was upgraded from wet toilet paper to dry toilet paper. It's a structural integrity thing. These new cargo bays and the racks that go in them are able to keep the extra mass from ripping loose.

 

[Aashenfox]

We told them we wanted a panther clipper, they gave it to us, we told them we wanted at least 1000t shielded, they gave it to us. Now you wanna quibble about how that number was implemented? Mercy...

 

[Helmut Grokenberger]

We told them we wanted a panther clipper, they gave it to us, we told them we wanted at least 1000t shielded, they gave it to us. Now you wanna quibble about how that number was implemented? Mercy...

I'd post that "first day at the gallows" meme, but I know it's not, so...

 

[Aashenfox]

I'd post that "first day at the gallows" meme, but I know it's not, so...

Why do you think I took a 7 year break from the forum

 

[Helmut Grokenberger]

7 year break

Oh that's hyperbole for sure. I know you hung around here, and I only joined 6 years ago.

 

[Aashenfox]

Oh that's hyperbole for sure. I know you hung around here, and I only joined 6 years ago.

hehe, lets check brb...

Yeh, you right, I was super active until 2021, after that I make about 20 posts a year 2021...damn bro, feels like along time ago.

 

[Dillon Fallon]

hehe, lets check brb...

Yeh, you right, I was super active until 2021, after that I make about 20 posts a year 2021...damn bro, feels like along time ago.

I can't speak for everyone, but there was a lot of time dilation weirdness between 2020 and 2022. Anything between those years doesn't count IMO.

 

[aRJay]

Yep, thank you. I knew they were something lower, C, E, something...

But now one more thing comes back: they were only Class 5 (or was it 4? let's say it was 5). So the SCO came weird, as only 5C, not engineerable. Voila guys, have fun with this SCO thingy.
Then, after a while, they introduced all classes and sizes.
Then their engineering etc...

Same will happen with these Optimized Racks. This is just the start, testing the waters, like it was with C5 SCO. They will be purchasable (or engineerable) in all sizes, for all the ships. With the limitation of "works only for cargo and fuel" to prevent tanking for combat roles.

The C class SCO drives were released in all sizes, I remember buying one of each size plus some multiples of useful sizes, which took a bit of decision making as I didn’t have that much space left in my ~200 modules storage. Then they had the breakthrough for all grades as well as sizes and it was start all over time.

To be honest I would much rather these optimised racks don’t go down that route, or at least do so at a much slower pace and only on brand new ships.

 

[gbjbaanb]

Will the new enhanced cargo racks be able to be fitted into an Imperial Cutter?

no, but I can imagine them bringing out Alliance merchant navy, with ranks to grind, and a Alliance Cruiser that is a multirole corvette/cutter/hauler that will take them and be even more OP in order to sell the new ship.

 

[gbjbaanb]

Probably turning in his grave with how DnD is currently.

Mind you, it was thought that the Monk class was OP and progression was not played correctly. And iirc, the monk class dropped?

it wasn't that bad - unlike the Bard which was the true OP class.

But then 5e said "hold my beer" and turned the thief into a general purpose killing-machine ninja.

but it is a tenent of games that, in order to keep interest, everything new must be better than everything else until the game is so full of better that it becomes a parody of itself.