New ship: Panther Clipper
- Thread starter Rubbernuke
- Start date
I've been thinking how uncomfortable the command chair actually is whenever seeing screenshots. It looks as if it's set in the middle of the aisle. Could have used an elevated platform up front.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
After doing a bit of Engineering on my decidedly trade only outfitted PCMkII, I took it out for a few CG deliveries last night - although slower than the Cutter, I prefer the handling of the new ship.
Full tank jump range of c.48LY/32LY empty/laden (1,152t cargo) with corresponding ranges to tank empty of 488LY/325LY makes it a bit more than a bit of a cargo hauling beast.
In comparison my trade Cutter was c.52LY/39LY (688t cargo) and 271LY/202LY - which means that, in its current configuration (without a fuel scoop), my PCMkII carries 67% more cargo up to 60% further on a tank of fuel (without resorting to economic routing).
Full tank jump range of c.48LY/32LY empty/laden (1,152t cargo) with corresponding ranges to tank empty of 488LY/325LY makes it a bit more than a bit of a cargo hauling beast.
In comparison my trade Cutter was c.52LY/39LY (688t cargo) and 271LY/202LY - which means that, in its current configuration (without a fuel scoop), my PCMkII carries 67% more cargo up to 60% further on a tank of fuel (without resorting to economic routing).
The large fuel tank allowing for much larger coverage without a fuel scoop is really handy. I have a colonized system that's over 300 Ly from ShinDez (which is my main base of oprations), and I couldn't fly either the Type-9 nor the Cutter there without having to make a refueling stop (trying to find a system with large landing pads) or a fuel scoop, but with the Panther Clipper it wasn't a problem at all.
(There were also problems building the system in question because certain materials were only available at the closest colonization megaship, which is too far to reach on one tankful with either of those other ships. While I have yet to check with the Panther Clipper, I think it will be able to make the distance easily with its stock fuel tank, without having to sacrifice any cargo space or having to make refueling stops.)
8A Dirty Drag G5 is the way to go, makes it flying like a breeze. Mine goes 396 boost which is sufficient, in particular as the PD does not drain that easily and that is only G3 atm. PP has plenty of power headroom, G5 armoured, and a size 6 Prism + several boosters seems sufficient. 1152t cargo with size 4 FSD booster. Most parts I already had lying around in module storage. Packed with Packhounds and Pacifiers for now, and here we go.
One nice thing seems to be it gets out of the starport or construction site mass lock zones much quicker than the Cutter and can sustain boost for longer, but maybe I'm wrong here. Plus, the ADC didn't crash it into the construction site's struts as it commonly does with the Cutter, well, only tried on a single attempt though. But the best thing is I can finally get rid of the Cutter's boost sound I've profoundly come to hate by now
O7,
Last edited:
Size comparision.
I really like this ship, but I accept the fact this is (visually) smaller version of how we remember historical and legendary PC Mk 1, and that's totally fine!
And I did one for exploration and exobiology (it has everything like two SRVs, limpets, and Fighter Hangar and still can do 50 Ly jump), but it is hard to land, and I don't mean just like usual big ship, just like it is some issue with landing indicator or smth. I am not sure. (And I have to compare exobio version of Beluga, Type-7, Imperial Clipper, Corvette and did even Type-9 and 10).
And it doesn't boost it deploys a nuke behind the ship
I really like this ship, but I accept the fact this is (visually) smaller version of how we remember historical and legendary PC Mk 1, and that's totally fine!
And I did one for exploration and exobiology (it has everything like two SRVs, limpets, and Fighter Hangar and still can do 50 Ly jump), but it is hard to land, and I don't mean just like usual big ship, just like it is some issue with landing indicator or smth. I am not sure. (And I have to compare exobio version of Beluga, Type-7, Imperial Clipper, Corvette and did even Type-9 and 10).
And it doesn't boost it deploys a nuke behind the ship
Last edited:
It's irksome. We have a very narrow view, that's made artificially more narrow because our chair is like 300 feet away from the ship console. Frontier! You did that on purpose!
Nice. I sit right on 1200t cargo, same as hull mass. Balanced, as all things should be.
It is early access not jump start, non of the EA ships were engineered.
That would eliminate class 8 shields or fuel scoop from the build options as well as being greedy.
Does anyone else have issues getting a FSD overcharge in a neutron star? I was trying last night for maybe 5 minutes to get the boost but it never applied? Gave me the warnings and the damage just not the boosted jump range.
I checked just white dwarf and had no issues
Believe me... Temple, TX in the summer is no holiday!That's no boycott, that's holidays. I am in the same terrible situation.
(My wife ist somewhat annoyed I play with coriolis since yesterday evening...
Size comparision.
I really like this ship, but I accept the fact this is (visually) smaller version of how we remember historical and legendary PC Mk 1, and that's totally fine!
And I did one for exploration and exobiology (it has everything like two SRVs, limpets, and Fighter Hangar and still can do 50 Ly jump), but it is hard to land, and I don't mean just like usual big ship, just like it is some issue with landing indicator or smth. I am not sure. (And I have to compare exobio version of Beluga, Type-7, Imperial Clipper, Corvette and did even Type-9 and 10).
And it doesn't boost it deploys a nuke behind the ship
View attachment 435480
Agreed. The PC2 really should fill the landing pad completely and I see no reason it was not made that way. It should be at least as long as the Anaconda and as wide as the T9.
That's a fair point. I'm currently flying mine shieldless, just like my T9 was/is. Maxxing out the cargo is what I prefer for haulers. I'm not the biggest fan of hauling, so anything that lowers the number of trips is good.
It's already tall and quite chunky. If it filled the landing pad and was taller than it is already, it would not get through the mail-slot. We already have carriers, a ship that cannot land at any pad.
The main body could be taller, as tall as the rear nacelles go.
While my hype for the ship is still extinguished, I went through and purchased the basic edition as I have disposable income. The ship really isn't as big as I was hoping, it could have been so much more chonkier. However, I think I have to accept the fact that this is probably the largest cargo capacity they are going to release into the game.
All that aside, it feels like they at some point had the PC with a higher turn characteristic and forgot to change the G-force camera shift rate, causing the player view to lead instead of lag.
Any commander with a minute in the bridge can feel it, along with the claustrophobic FOV, there seems to be quite a few issues. The boost sound is nice at least.
All that aside, it feels like they at some point had the PC with a higher turn characteristic and forgot to change the G-force camera shift rate, causing the player view to lead instead of lag.
Any commander with a minute in the bridge can feel it, along with the claustrophobic FOV, there seems to be quite a few issues. The boost sound is nice at least.
Did you remember to add a fuel scoop, you can't overcharge without one.
I'd like more big too, but I don't believe Frontier is going to offer a monster ship with 3000t cargo or whatever, that's virtually unable to use a station mail slot, given it's taken 10 years for PC to eventuate.
Helps to be realistic. Get out and take a walk around it, it's a real big nugget as it is. Cutter is a flying burrito with wings, type-9 is a thin block of cheese by comparison.
Last edited: