Federal dropship Hull Mass

Star-Hunter

S
I have been really satisfied and like how the playable ships in E:D are implemented, mostly utility oriented construction and believable design. Additionally, almost every ships design reflects its capabilities, but there are two notable exceptions:

-Federal dropship Hull Mass (compared to Anaconda)
how can a ship that is smaller, less armored, has fewer hardpoints AND has smaller internal modules and compartments (not to mention the anacondas mechanisms that supposed to move cargo around the bay) have around 30% higher hull mass than the anaconda ?

- Python cargo space (compared to Type-7 and Clipper)
I was not aware that E:D had spacial compression technology :), as it is smaller than the Type7 and yet it has larger internal modules and compartments and can potentially carry the same cargo. How exactly? I thought the Lacon Type series were space trucks that are literally cargo-bays with thrusters and a cockpit
 

Monk

Monk
The drop ship doesn't even have superior armor...your right it does seem odd...perhaps it is considered a trade in material quality for the price? IDK, I'm grasping at straws

Compared to a Clipper, the Python does appear to have more usable space. A big empty wedge versus the tighter lines and curves of the clipper.
 

Star-Hunter

S
well i did wrote that the FD is less armoured :-D
so it really does not make any sense i hope the thread gets some attention and a dev can answer these questions

well the clipper is significantly bigger than the python but internal volume can be similar i agree, also its more luxurious so i suppose there is more stuff in it
but compared to the Type7 its really strange

i will try and post some pictures for comparison
 

Slythe

Slythe
My guess is that's it's intended to be some sort of passenger ship and should be compared with the more glamorous Orca, Dolphin and Beluga.
 

Kiblams

Kiblams
Star-Hunter said:
I do understand that, but that does not really explain how is it 45% heavier than an anaconda
Click to expand...

The mass you are looking at is the chassis completely empty, the default Anaconda comes in at 1,066 tonnes and the Federal Dropship only 776 tonnes.

Though i tend to agree with you on the oddness fo te base Anaconda, they have made some very interesting buffs to the base chassis on that one.
 

Star-Hunter

S
exactly, its not the operational mass that is off as that highly depends on the fitted module sizes, but the bare hull mass.

this hull mass is supposed to be the basic armor, hard points and the infrastructure of the ship.

i just noticed that the orca is also 580t which is the same as the FD. however, the orca is almost twice the size of the FD and is a luxury liner so its more or less understandable (armour replaced by luxury equipment). although, i think luxuries should be modular and classified as internal modules, but thats for another discussion
 

Cmdr Trav ElEr

C
it's hull mass even exceeds the optimal mass of the largest shield generator it can install. Resulting in a massive hit on effective shield.....

seriously sad state of affairs
 

Monk

Monk
Cmdr Trav ElEr said:
it's hull mass even exceeds the optimal mass of the largest shield generator it can install. Resulting in a massive hit on effective shield.....

seriously sad state of affairs
Click to expand...

Oh wow, never thought of that...how can this be the case? It should at least come within a hair of the optimal mass when modestly equipped.

I'm pretty darn happy I've gone with the Empire in light of this.
 

Monk

Monk
But that price difference though...I think we can see that the real differentiation is cost. Spend more money get better stats.

Though, some explanation for why you can't equip an appropriate shield would be appreciated
 

Star-Hunter

S
well, i have never seen a relativistic equation that states:

more money == less mass

the problem is not that the Anaconda is much better (for that price its just natural) but it just does not make sense for it to be even lighter
the FD is still heavier with the same modules fitted

The Anaconda is Twice as armoured and shielded (in the above example) while still lighter

that really does not make sense
 

Monk

Monk
Star-Hunter said:
well, i have never seen a relativistic equation that states:

more money == less mass

the problem is not that the Anaconda is much better (for that price its just natural) but it just does not make sense for it to be even lighter
the FD is still heavier with the same modules fitted

The Anaconda is Twice as armoured and shielded (in the above example) while still lighter

that really does not make sense
Click to expand...

One could argue, that for the higher price, you are getting a better quality of materials. Stronger yet lighter hull.

For example, I have a standard sports car and then there is a premium sports car that cost 10x more. The more expensive sports car is going to be much lighter b/c the frame is built with strong yet lighter material.
 

Kiblams

Kiblams
Monk said:
One could argue, that for the higher price, you are getting a better quality of materials. Stronger yet lighter hull.

For example, I have a standard sports car and then there is a premium sports car that cost 10x more. The more expensive sports car is going to be much lighter b/c the frame is built with strong yet lighter material.
Click to expand...

I agree, a perfect example is carbon fibre cycles, much more expensive and crazy light. Continuing the example of carbon fibre; it can be made to be incredibly strong and resistant in certain loads due to the layering that is used in its construction, formula 1 car monococks are carbon fible and crazy durable in crashes.

The same techniques with futuristic materials could easily make strong yet light armour plating and structures, while being incredibly expensive.
 

Star-Hunter

S
Yeah you are probably right. still 45% more hull mass for half a ship feels wrong.

based solely on numbers it would mean 75% decrease in density while almost doubling armour effectiveness
(coarse calculation)
 

Ceekay

Ceekay
The FD's additional mass is probably down to cheaper materials e.g. steel instead of titanium (Ti is 65% the density of steel and a similar strength) that and the FD is designed to get troops and equipment onto a planetary surface and unload them without station facilities, so the cargo handing equipment could account for a substantial amount of the "unexplained" mass.
I suppose it could even be considered a throwaway ship, get the load delivered and if the battle is won another FD will pick up the survivors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom