Well the Anaconda is in fact a Cargoship
Federal dropship Hull Mass
- Thread starter Star-Hunter
- Start date
Well the Anaconda is in fact a Cargoship
this is actually a good point
Does the armour value determine the health pool of the craft?
Does the armour value determine the health pool of the craft?
This was my thinking too, but upon looking at the stats on edshipyard, it is clear the dropship has more weight but less armor than the Ananconda
Drop Ship: 580 T Hull Mass only, 300 Armor
Anaconda: 400 T Hull Mass only, 525 Armor
yes this is my main problem, coupled with the fact that the Anaconda is the largest ship in game
i have no idea, havent seen any explanation. It is still maneuverable, good for drifting. However, you are right that it hurts its jump range.
Maybe that's the only reason; to limit it's range? It's a short range troop ship? It should have a lot more armour to compensate.
Never flown a Conda but the Dropship has amazing hull endurance (that's without reinforcements, a.k.a. ballast)! Also, if it weren't so gosh darn heavy it probably wouldn't drift and I wouldn't love it so much 
But yeah, I agree, the hull mass vs. the Conda is funny.
But yeah, I agree, the hull mass vs. the Conda is funny.
Less advanced materials used in construction and more robust landing gear.
It's heavy and doesn't have enough internal volume for a larger generator. It's not supposed to have strong shields.
Never flown a Conda but the Dropship has amazing hull endurance (that's without reinforcements, a.k.a. ballast)! Also, if it weren't so gosh darn heavy it probably wouldn't drift and I wouldn't love it so much
But yeah, I agree, the hull mass vs. the Conda is funny.
The sad part is, hull endurance does not protect its Power plant.
Yep. Makes hull strength kind of pointless doesn't it. I still love me Dropship though.
The spaced ceramic armor in many modern MBTs is substantially less dense than rolled homogeneous steel used in WWII tanks, yet offers vastly more protection against many threats.
Even if there is no difference in the composition, a larger portion of the Anaconda's mass is likely devoted to protection, while a dropship may have more devoted to undercarriage and similar areas required for frequent planetary landings.
Only because it's powerplant is somewhat better placed. Weight/hull ratio has nothing to do with this.
It's not a problem. The assumption that every ship needs to have similar amounts of it's hull mass devoted to protection is.
An ice breaker and a battlecruiser may have similar hull mass. Guess which one has no armor, and which one has a lot of armor? Now which one has a stronger hull in other areas? Fire a shell that would bounce off the battlecruiser's main belt at an icebreaker of similar size and you may well sink the icebreaker. Drive a battlecruiser through pack ice and you'll tear the front of the ship off. Different placement and purpose of the materials used to construct them.
Deleted member 38366
D
--- Deleted ---
Last edited by a moderator:
I understand game balance reasons, but what bothers me is the fact that every ship and their properties in game are "Believably Realistic". All except this.
IT is supposed to be a military ship, i dont think they would skip on material quality.
also, thats just the point, WHY is it heavier? Its not additional armor.
and IT IS heavier by almost 50%, and robust landing gear cant be that heavy.
It's one of the few ships that has distinct wings (three in fact perhaps it's made by Fokker... Triplane... see image ) for some aerodynamic lift
Joking aside a ship designed for atmospheric reentry is going to be significantly different in structural design, wing structure would have to be substantial as it'd have to maneuver in atmosphere to avoid flak and missiles,
) for some aerodynamic lift
Joking aside a ship designed for atmospheric reentry is going to be significantly different in structural design, wing structure would have to be substantial as it'd have to maneuver in atmosphere to avoid flak and missiles,
But they are not remotely similar. FD is a lot smaller (almost half size) and heavier by half. Thats what i dont understand.
In your comparison it would be a Destroyer vs Battleship where the battleship is lighter. it does not make any sense. I would accept it if they had similar hulls, but they do not.
- - - Updated - - -
It's one of the few ships that has distinct wings (three in fact perhaps it's made by Fokker... Triplane... see image
https://i.imgur.com/4cKzBtJ.jpg
Joking aside a ship designed for atmospheric reentry is going to be significantly different in structural design, wing structure would have to be substantial as it'd have to maneuver in atmosphere to avoid flak and missiles,
I highly doubt that when planetary landings arrive, you wont be able to land in an Anaconda.
Part of it must be the cost, an FD is sub 20 mil and a Conda is almost 150 mil for "similar" class ships, the extra 130 mil or so can buy a lot of lightness and technology, a current day example would be Carbotanium (I didn't make it up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbotanium) for the same strength it'll be more than 60% lighter than a cheap steel structure of the same size and volume.
A similar approach can be taken with armor, adding more steel plate to existing structure will enhance the level of protection but it's very inefficient compared to spaced composite armor like Chobham (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chobham_armour) used in modern battle tanks, so for the FD add more pig iron plate and for the Conda some exotic super armor.
A similar approach can be taken with armor, adding more steel plate to existing structure will enhance the level of protection but it's very inefficient compared to spaced composite armor like Chobham (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chobham_armour) used in modern battle tanks, so for the FD add more pig iron plate and for the Conda some exotic super armor.
Dropship is designed to carry personel. Life support and living quarters for many people is heavy and takes up internal space. In addition, she is a low budget ship, for her size. That means cheaper, heavier, weaker materials.
The Conda and Python are expensive, top of the range traders. High tech materials, large empty spaces. This also explains why Python is more compact than a T7 - the T7 costs nothing to repair because she is made of heavy, cheap materials, powered by over-large low quality engines. Also, the T7 is designed poorly, too high for a medium pad. Maybe pad sizes only came in small and large when the T7 was designed, or maybe the engineers at Lakon were having an off day
The Conda and Python are expensive, top of the range traders. High tech materials, large empty spaces. This also explains why Python is more compact than a T7 - the T7 costs nothing to repair because she is made of heavy, cheap materials, powered by over-large low quality engines. Also, the T7 is designed poorly, too high for a medium pad. Maybe pad sizes only came in small and large when the T7 was designed, or maybe the engineers at Lakon were having an off day
Last edited: