Modified Scanners - worth it?

[Traveller_GG]

I know you can get longer range or quicker scanning scanners, but both come with a weight penalty.

I'm thinking that the faster scanning is the better option (takes not a huge amount of extra time to close the distance) but how much of a weight penalty is it? If you're optimising your exploration build are you going to lose too much on range for the convenience of quicker scanning?

 

[Pyrotiger]

I'd say yes it is worth it, as it doesn't add much of a weight gain at all.

54 ly - 22 jumps per 1000 ly
50 ly - 22 jumps per 1000 ly

It might be worth thinking of jumps per 1000 ly. Unless you need to reach a far-out place with one single jump, and there's jumponium for that.

 

[MrFailfactory]

I use Long Range, personally. My record thus far is scanning a star from 24k light seconds, and I find it quite nice to be able to scan most stars that are 6-8k away while scooping. Before these modifications were put in the game, it always felt to me that the closer you are to the target, the quicker the scan finished. If that is actually true, then Long Range gives you both benefits, if you keep coming closer once it starts.

In my view, Long Range is better overall, unless you are intending to inspect a lot of planets from close range. At that point, the longer range doesn't matter, because you are coming in for a close look anyway, so you might as well have the scan run faster.

Riôt

 

[goemon]

depends on

a) which ship you fly for exploration. the jumprange hit due to mass is significant on a courier, and neglectable on a conda

b) are you going anyways for a close up (me, if i only scan shinies)? - fast is your friend

c) are you going to scan all moons of a gasgiant? - fast is your friend

d) are you scanning a lot of bodies with a higher mass (me searching for pristine rings)? - longrange is your friend

 

[marx]

Another possibility worth noting is that you can use the wide angle mod with a "no stopping" approach to scanning, flying around instead. In my experience, it's fairly difficult, and only feasible on ships with good supercruise handling. Still, you might find it a refreshing take on exploration.
Otherwise, what goemon said, with one addition: a long range scanner will start scanning the little moons from much farther, and will scan them quicker from the same distance as the other scanners would.

 

[Aura Lorell]

I know you can get longer range or quicker scanning scanners, but both come with a weight penalty.

I'm thinking that the faster scanning is the better option (takes not a huge amount of extra time to close the distance) but how much of a weight penalty is it? If you're optimising your exploration build are you going to lose too much on range for the convenience of quicker scanning?

I fly an Anaconda and I'm an obsessive scanner. Given how difficult it is to turn in SC, not getting up close and personal with a GG and its moons is imperative so long range makes sense for me in my specific case. The benefit from a fast scan in this case would be offsetted by the amount of time I'd have to wait to turn and aim at a planet. This way I can have them at a distance in front of me and minimise turning.

The penalty in weight was not too bad.

A more nimble ship could probably benefit equally from fast scanner but it depends on how you go about scanning and what your habits are.

 

[iain666]

I use Long Range, personally. My record thus far is scanning a star from 24k light seconds

You need to find some bigger stars, I've done it from 90k with a stock scanner

 

[Pirin]

I know you can get longer range or quicker scanning scanners, but both come with a weight penalty.

I'm thinking that the faster scanning is the better option (takes not a huge amount of extra time to close the distance) but how much of a weight penalty is it? If you're optimising your exploration build are you going to lose too much on range for the convenience of quicker scanning?

In my opinion - no. I decided to go with non modified scanners. I usually scan only the main star, while the system map is open and look what is there. By the time i am finished looking the map, the scan is either over or almost over. If there is nothing on the map to look at i just skip the scan and make the next jump. Apart from the main star i scan only some occasional ELW, big WW or something unusual. These are rare occasions and i see no point to increase my ship's weight just for that, which will decrease my jump range for every jump i make. I would rather wait few seconds more to finish that occasional scan

 

[disorganise]

I went with the long range. And saved the additional weight by dropping to a single SRV instead of 2. But to be honest, on a clipper the difference for the heavier dss was tiny....maybe 0.3ly or something. Meanwhile....scanning from outside the gravity well....mostly.

 

[duckofdeath]

Did someone say long range scanners? \o/

Long range scanners are definitely worth it for the cherry picking kind of explorers. Not for scanning distant stars, but for cutting down on scan times on individual planets. You save roughly 10-15 seconds per planet you scan, in a normal system. That's one jump saved on every 4-5 planet you scan.
If you prefer scanning everything in systems, fast scanners are superior. Scanning all the moons around a gas giant in half the normal time? That pays off pretty fast, I'd say.

 

[Traveller_GG]

I'm leaning towards long range now as it seems that you lose huge swathes of time hauling your lardy backside out of the gravity well of planets more than mass scanning moons. I can save some weight from the 'conda if need be. Now I just need to work out how to get the bits needed

Thanks all

 

[domaq]

GG, based on what I've seen of your exploration, go with LR. I've tested both and use both. The gravity well issue is real and, in your 'conda, you will feel the difference. The LR mod will also scan faster than stock when you get to "normal" ranges. Granted, I don't scan multiple moons unless someone forces me to.
Here's where and when I use each:
Python (multi-purpose mission runner) fast scanner, 3.4t, -0.3ly
Exploraconda, LR, 2.9t, -0.02ly
AspX (explorer/passengers), LR, 3.1t, -0.4ly
Courier, no mod.

 

[Traveller_GG]

Time to wander back to the bubble. I've found myself 5.5KLY out for no good reason apart from noticing a blue super giant nearby

 

[space voyager]

Hmmmmm... I got a faster scanner but this thread does make me believe the longer range could be a better solution.

 

[Rudi Raumkraut]

In theory Ducks math is correct, you save enough time to make an extra jump every x Kylies.
I tried both on 20k stints, and if I had to use one, the long range fits better to me...
But in practice (as a cherry picker and often just traveller without looking at the sys map at all) its not worth to mod it.
If I decide to scan something, I browse the web, or make lunch or whatever, while sc'ing around the system, so it isnt any efficient at all.

And while squeezing some 0.1ly out of other modules with engineering but adding 2t to another just dont feel right for me

 

[duckofdeath]

Your practice is not the practice of everybody. I don't alt-tab away for ten minutes every time the ship spends 10 seconds scanning.
What I'm referring to is not a theory, it's simple facts. It's that much faster per scan, which means you literally saves that much time per scan. This is not a 0.1 LY god roll hunt, it's a massive time saver for anyone doing long exploration trips. Massive with a capital M.

 

[Nidhöggr]

i tried booth and booth have their good and their bads.
i realy want to have both applied to my scanners, long range is ok if you have a single planet, but it's horrible (because standard) when scanning smaller planets around a bigger planet. it takes forever...

right now scanning is still a pain in the a.. even with those mods.

 

[marx]

You save roughly 10-15 seconds per planet you scan, in a normal system. That's one jump saved on every 4-5 planet you scan.

Say, could you share your data on this for us? Back when the scanners were first introduced in the 2.3 beta, I've made some measurements, which I posted in this thread, and it seems like it might be off.

Also, one more thing to consider about fast scanners versus long range scanners: maybe it's just me, but I've found that the data (material) for the G5 long range blueprint is much easier to get than the data that's required for the G5 fast scanner blueprint. But then, that might just be rotten luck on my part.

 

[duckofdeath]

Say, could you share your data on this for us? Back when the scanners were first introduced in the 2.3 beta, I've made some measurements, which I posted in this thread, and it seems like it might be off.

Also, one more thing to consider about fast scanners versus long range scanners: maybe it's just me, but I've found that the data (material) for the G5 long range blueprint is much easier to get than the data that's required for the G5 fast scanner blueprint. But then, that might just be rotten luck on my part.

Sure can do. I made this exact comparison in a reference system. Four planets. Scanned as fast as I could with a long range modded scanner, a fast modded scanner and a stock scanner. I did a suicide between each attempt to clear my scan data.
The long range scanner completed the four scans 42 seconds faster than a stock scanner. A jump-to-jump time is 43 seconds.
Yes, it still feels like it takes forever to get something done, even with the most extreme mods, but you are in fact saving a lot of time.

Image explanation:
To the left is the accumulated scan times for the four planets indicated in the image. This is a fairly regular small A class system, or similar to a wider F class system. The percentage numbers are, for the long range, the range extension I got with my mod and for the fast scan, the scan speed improvement. Both were fairly great modded grade 5 rolls.

 

[marx]

Thanks! (Can't rep you again yet, unfortunately.) Looks like the difference in mine might have been from different flying then. You also didn't include moons there, but I'm fairly certain that those results would favour the long range scanners even more.

And yeah, one of the problems with scanning is not just that it takes a long time, but you're also basically looking at small dots. Having to fly closer wouldn't solve much on this either: it would be good to have a good reason to look at the planet ourselves without having it feel like a chore. That would require a different method of scanning though, not just this mostly-passive way of "point towards target, wait until you magically get all data".