That's exactly what I do on some ships. And It's exactly the same with the Low Emissions Powerplant. You can have an "all positive" thruster and powerplant by going grade 1 on them.
PSA: Clean Drive Tuning is NOT for Explorers
- Thread starter Konnivar
- Start date
That's exactly what I do on some ships. And It's exactly the same with the Low Emissions Powerplant. You can have an "all positive" thruster and powerplant by going grade 1 on them.
Thank you for the replies fellas. It's appreciated.
This. On exploration builds its more about optimization and balance than having the highest class modules and mods. Less is oftentimes more.
Last edited:
I like being Clean. 
The idea of checking out lower grade mods for risk/reward is a quite valid one. Just make sure of all the listed parameters in the blueprint.
It also saves grinding.
The idea of checking out lower grade mods for risk/reward is a quite valid one. Just make sure of all the listed parameters in the blueprint.
It also saves grinding.
Take a look at the spread for Clean drives vs. Dirty drives again; dirty drives consume less power than clean at every grade. Based on the data I collected (which admittedly excludes planetary performance) there is little reason to select clean drives over Dirty drives; especially on ships that can also fit a low emissions power plant mod. The effect of a low emissions power plant is so much greater on heat generation than thruster mod choice.
This whole thread is good research done in the name of justifying a prior presumption. Namely that heat management is a priority for Explorers, so minimizing heat generation matters. That in order to tackle that heat, you might need heat sinks, which add weight, so minimize heat. That heat is so important, you need to add low emissions to the power plant to tackle it.
But heat doesn't matter. It's a complete irrelevance. If you're overheating as an explorer, you're not doing it correctly.
Later on, if we ever get atmospheric or gas giant flying, thrust and heat might be important attributes... maybe there are even rocky worlds out there right now that might prove challenging if you're trying to land on them... but the place you refuel on every type of star is identical; it's right on the edge of the visible corona. Outside of that, you don't gain any heat. If you're overheating, you're likely too close. The only time I've dangerously overheated at the edge of fuel scooping is when I've been flying too fast near particularly energetic stars... and all I need to do to tackle that is fly upwards for a second and wait for the cool down.
And if you have larger range, you've a better choice of cooler stars to try and fuel from anyway.
Fuel scoops, as mentioned, have no weight, so take the largest you can and you lower the time you gain heat.
Let's say you do screw up and get far too close to a far too hot star; Auto Field-Maintenance Units are completely weightless. Just power everything else down, power those on, repair what you can and carry on. Why would you need Heat Sinks, which take range off every jump, instead of these which repair the damage from the very occasional accident? I've managed to go to Sagittarius A* and back with only taking 1% hull damage before, an the old Cmdr Nutter Asp Build, from before we even had Engineers to reduce our heat. And that 1% was only because I got lazy and forgot to throttle down on a system jump.
You don't even need that much power. Here's my stripped down explorer build, 70.07ly with no scanners, 68/69 if I add scanners, shields and a vehicle bay as well. Notice only a 2A power plant, which with re-rolling until I got a secondary weight reduction is now only 1.2t... but by choosing power output, I can run with a 7A fuel scoop, all the scanners and a small shield for accidental bumps instead into planets or the station when I leave/return. Why would I chose low emissions instead of this? I went on a 20,000ly ish wander on that build, to numerous nebula in the outer arms, the Zurara, and back again without taking any damage at all on this build.
I really, really don't get why you're so convinced Heat management matters to explorers...?
I have only grade 3 drive tuning unlocked so I often fit up multiple versions of the same drives.
My Cobra IV clean drives has much better efficiency AND less power usage. Yeah they go slower than my Dirty drives but hey if I fit my low emissions PP I can almost constantly fire my rails guns without over heating. With the DD I get a few volleys off then I get heat warnings.....
The key here is when looked at as a singular module there is little argument between them but when coupled with the overall fit out of the ship the choices are a little more muddied.
I use clean drive a LOT as well as dirty. I swap and change depending on how my ship/fit performs and reacts.
Clean drive can easily be used for explorer....There are too many out there that use them happily to be able to argue against it. Lets face it if the difference was so clear cut in favour of DD then CLean would have been smashed long ago by the min/maxing crowd. After all it is what they do very well.
Good research mate but unfortunately this is one area where there are too many variable to completely rule out a module without a whole load more variable set ups.
The biggest reason why a low emissions plant is so good for exploration is that it allows you to begin charging your FSD while still in the fuel scooping corona of a star, saving 5-10 seconds per jump. While that isn't a lot of time, if you're trying to get somewhere quickly that is 500+ jumps away, 5-10 seconds turns into 40-80 minutes of saved time. Low emissions powerplants (and possibly drive choice) have a big affect while near the surface of planets as well; it's pretty easy to overheat while charging the FSD to the next jump if you aren't careful. Of course, these things are also dependent on the ship in question; for example the DBX can scoop indefinitely and has the best thermal capacity of all ships.
Equipping a low emissions power plant and attempting to get a cool running ship isn't a necessity of Exploration, it's more of a "hope for the best and prepare for the worst" type of loadout. If AFMUs had weight I'm sure there would be people who argued against taking those out as well.
I could also argue that a lucky DD roll with low power use and low increase in thermal load would probably perform in a similar way. When I was choosing the rolls for these thrusters I specifically wanted to get the most common result: High positive gain and High negative gain; God rolls aren't representative of what most people would have.
I agree that it isn't as cut and dry, it's much harder to quantify the influence of thruster mod choice in activities such as combat and exploration. It is much easier to quantify the influence of speed in combat, or the influence of low emissions on the power plant.
Last edited:
I recently swapped the drives on my Orca to go exploring. I had a 6A with G5 clean drive upgrade and replaced it with a 6D with G5 dirty drives.
It gained a fair bit of speed and added a lot of jump range to my ship. It also used so much less power I was able to fit a smaller powerplant.
Now that crack is easy enough to get, I think I'll be changing all my ships from clean to dirty.
It gained a fair bit of speed and added a lot of jump range to my ship. It also used so much less power I was able to fit a smaller powerplant.
Now that crack is easy enough to get, I think I'll be changing all my ships from clean to dirty.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Frame Shift Charging speed isn't tied to heat at all, but only Mass Lock into Supercruise, and the Drive Stats for System Jump.
I also don't know where you're getting the idea that your drive is ready for the next leap to another star faster because of applying a modification to the power plant either. It only affects Range, negatively, because Low Emissions adds mass to the part.
Or why you think applying to the Thrusters helps cut more time via heat reduction. Supercruise speed isn't set by the Thrusters, and heat generation is set by proximity too, not speed through the corona of a star.
You're still cherry picking arguments based upon the usefulness of heat reduction, without considering alternatives; you claim reduction in charging time, but have clearly done no calculations against time saved in system versus time saved in cutting out light years on the galactic map through increased range. Even if we give you every claim you make, which we shouldn't, I'm not sure you even have an argument there.
Let's say your Anaconda does 65ly compared to my Planetary fit at 68. The fastest times I've heard for system leaps were a claimed 45 seconds. I average about 78. Let's round it to 80 just for ease of comparison, and say you do the highest saving you claimed, 10 seconds faster than me, so 70s per jump. You suggested a route of 500 jumps, so I take 500x70 = 35,000 seconds, or 9h 43m 20s. You have taken 500x60 = 30,000, or 8hr 20m 0s. You've saved 1hr 23m 20s... in theory.
However in that time I've also been gaining 3ly range with each jump; Your claimed figures of "5-10 seconds turns into 40-80 minutes of saved time" aren't including the extra distance I'm going. By the time I've done all 500 jumps, I've shaved off 1,500ly. Divided by 65ly, your example range, that's another 23.07 jumps you have to make to go the same distance as me, assuming we're going in a straight line. Multiply that by 70 seconds, and you need another 1615.38 seconds to do the same distance as me, or 26m 56s. The time advantage is down to 57 minutes in my figures, lop another quarter off yours too.
But at the same time, in real Elite space we're not going in a straight line, but trying to plot points as close as we can to one. And I'm also leaping much more efficiently than you when it comes to this calculation. This is so much harder to quantify because it depends upon the density of stars and the random layout of that density in the 500ly we're measuring; but we can state one thing with certainty: The volume of a sphere increases 33.1% for every 10% increase in diameter. Or put another way, bigger circles have a 3:1 advantage in opportunity than smaller ones; A larger range drive (the diameter on the range circle) has much more opportunity to choose a star closer to it's maximum range in general than one smaller. So instead of always being 65 vs 68, it's going to be, on average, a larger advantage in my favour.
When we have the 20,000ly plotting that is coming in 2.4 we'll be able to test it in real world conditions. I've a suspicion, especially with the mathematics of volume, even when going in a fixed direction and not looking at all the potential volume of a circle, that the time advantage disappears at that scale, and range proves itself king.
However, we've also neglected one further problem; we've not included the recent changes to arrival within a system. I can't recall what patch it was in, but it now maps your direction to the star to the angle of approach on the galactic map. If you're "trying to get somewhere 500+ jumps away", the next star in line is now almost certainly directly behind the star you've just approached. Even if we assume you're somehow gaining a time advantage on the time you've flown through the corona for the quickest route towards a clear Jump path, as well as to refuel your drive as you pass, the FSD is likely already charged. There actually isn't a time saving element at all, even assuming all your other claims are true. So my range advantage becomes an absolute advantage. I'm leaping as fast as you, and further every time.
Meanwhile my Anaconda is never heat damaged anyway. So I still don't get what it is you think you're arguing...? Clean or Dirty, those are just secondary bonuses to me, I'm after the weigh reduction every time. And yes, I'd argue against taking AMFUs too if they weighed anything. Especially as I could probably get to Jaques and back with over 90% hull still remaining. That's not bragging, there are people circumnavigating the entire galaxy without shields. I think they're insane, but they're doing it all the same. You seem to think people abandoning it if it gained weight would be foolish... you don't seem to understand the only reason we're taking them now is because why not have insurance you get for free? We don't need it, but it's free, so why not? And the cost would be the weight. Start charging for it and of course we'd leave it at home... skilled explorers don't need it.
Again, are you flying too close to stars and getting mass locked and frazzled? Because your arguments don't make any sense to me otherwise.
Last edited:
You missed the point.
You always have a 10 second FSD cooldown after every jump, but fuel scooping takes longer than 10 seconds on most ships.
You have a 15 second FSD charge time, so if you can be doing something useful during that 15 seconds, like refueling, you save a lot of time.
If your ship runs hot, if you start charging the FSD while you're still in scooping range, it will overheat and take damage before jumping.
If you run cool, you can start your FSD charging as soon as the 10 second cooldown is complete, even if you're still scooping, and you won't overheat or take any damage.
You can average 43-45 seconds per jump which adds up over a long trip.
Here's a video of another commander demonstrating his technique.
You have to scoop fast to get out before you start to overheat.
You can start charging as soon as your 10 second cooldown is complete, which should hopefully be about the time you're at peak scooping rate and on your way out.
Heat levels rise to 80%-90% before you get out of scooping range with a few seconds left to finish charging and align to your next jump.
If your ship runs hot, you'll overheat and take damage before the FSD is finished charging, which means you need to wait a few seconds longer before you can start charging.
See these threads for more details on speed jumping.
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/354764-FSD-cooldown-and-jump-to-jump-timing
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...tion-Question-for-Explorers-and-Fuel-Scooping
Granted, most explorers don't use the buckyballingtechnique, it's mostly for racers, but there's no disadvantage to a cooler running ship.
Even if you aren't concerned about jump times and heat while scooping, heat damage is probably the most common cause of ship damage for long distance explorers.
If you accidentally clip the exclusion zone of a star while you're scooping, you WILL almost certainly overheat when you re-engage the FSD.
I've a feeling clean drive would be at an advantage over dirty drives in that situation.
Last edited:
One word. High Gravity worlds. Some moons out there are over 9g in gravity, you go ahead and if you want to get back into supercruise, try boosting away from it... you'll toast the ship long before you enter supercruise.
When travelling over straight long distances, the next destination is nearly always fully obscured during all of my fuel scooping: with a good fuel scoop.
So charging the FSD early for the next jump is usually not viable - getting the next star visible to be able to start charging is the deciding factor for me. I often pull away from the star to get visibility quickly (and that helps with cooling too).
Overheating while scooping is not really an issue for me.
I use CDT to get my underpowered explorer builds off the planet surface as they are weak light builds.
So charging the FSD early for the next jump is usually not viable - getting the next star visible to be able to start charging is the deciding factor for me. I often pull away from the star to get visibility quickly (and that helps with cooling too).
Overheating while scooping is not really an issue for me.
I use CDT to get my underpowered explorer builds off the planet surface as they are weak light builds.
CD is more power hungry.
Titler said:
I'm a little baffled at your calculations. Where did 3ly come from? My G1 low emissions plant adds a tiny amount of weight. Running the ship cool is not expensive.
Heat management matters to explorers. Seriously, it really does. Running the ship cool enough in SC to be able to scoop and charge the FSD at the same time means faster jumps, and faster jumps means seeing more systems, which means finding more stuff (which is, after all, the point). When travelling I average about 49s/jump, scooping to full every time, even if the target system is obscured by the star. More if there is something interesting to scan.
My exploration loop: Drop out of FSD, dive hard into the corona toward the next target, scoop kicks in and ADS fires. When the target star is visible and the scoop is nearly done, orient to target and start FSD charge. Then open the system map and check for interesting planets. If I find them, cancel FSD charge and fly off to scan. Otherwise, exit system map and let the FSD fire.
This, more or less, is my Asp: https://eddp.co/u/KMEx3YUE. I know it's not an Anaconda, but I could run the same exploration style with a Conda too. The G1 low emissions plant adds very little mass, and the resting heat level is about 18%. I can start charging the FSD while scooping and jump without hitting 90% heat easily. My drives are unmodded, although when I return to the bubble I might try some G1 clean rolls to see if I get a good one.
I also don't understand the 'landing on hot high-G worlds' argument - I mean, yes, I understand that you might want to do that, but it's hardly a necessary part of exploration.
Last edited:
"but it's hardly a necessary part of exploration." - imho building an exploration ship is preparing for the unexpected. you don't need heatsinks, but you might need one once on 10 000 jumps, for a close trinary star system.
if i find a landable close to a giant, a c-star, o-star or a neutron-star, i prefer being able to land there safely if i want, instead of backtracking ~12000 ly for the next station with outfitting, to have the right thrusters and powerplant transferred.
generally, there is no need to land at all, and you can spend your time in supercruise, which makes any thruster tuning unnecessary.
It's more the thrill of being so far away with a TON of exploration data, getting some insane gravity world that if you glide in to, youll probably die so you gotta break glide early and then manually lower yourself, using just the faintest, lightest touch of your thrusters and stopping, over and over until you land safely, then getting off said world after having fun and showing off some sick screenshots to boot so that you never forget that world.
Sure, I can understand that, it sounds cool, and if you're telling me that the G5 clean mod is the best way to make that safe, I'm totally willing to believe you.
I do think that we hit problems when that leads people who are into it to recommend the G5 clean mod for exploration, when hot high-G landings and stealth builds are pretty much the only things G5 clean is good for, especially considering that its name and stats lead people to think it makes their ship cooler in SC and better at scooping. I had a G5 clean mod on my Asp's thrusters for a while until I caught on that it was making my ship actively worse for what I use it for.
Last edited:
Once more, people are arguing for their assumptions rather than looking at the facts they themselves are quoting. In the above case, it's assuming a Buckyball esque speed run without stopping to look at the system they're in. This is not "Exploring" except in the sense of going somewhere specific very fast.
The video you link too has the target star off centre and so within line of sight whilst still in the corona. This is no longer the case as often, and besides in all cases the fastest way to starting an FSD charge alone, is to move perpendicular to the object in such a way as to reveal your target as quickly as possible. You can then simply turn to put your nose on target whilst the FSD is completing the charge. Fuel scooping is beneficial in combination with moving around the central star, not because it saves you time onto target in of itself.
Meanwhile "If your ship runs hot".... exactly. IF. Not all ships do. And it's assuming the pilot just sits there and waits to overheat. Running a 7A fuel scoop on my Anaconda, I'm already full long before the FSD even completes the charge, much less an overheat. And who says you need a full scoop on each run either? As long as you refuel more on each star than you lose on each jump, you can just dip in and out forever.
And where do my figures come from? I made them up just to illustrate the point about range. None of you are counting the time clawed back by going further each jump; And I've not even mentioned the Neutron Highways or Jumponium yet; those massively increase the advantage of range. You're all so narrowly focused on heat management and buckyballing you've forgotten what it means to play in any other style; most typical explorers will have switched to System map as soon as they arrive to look for Earth Like Worlds or high reward planets to raise their Exploration rank by claiming. By the time they've finished having a look, the whole question of "saving time" is irrelevant, the FSD spooled itself up whilst you were exploring the map.
As for landing on the 9g planet... if we really have to go to that sort of extreme to talk about heat management, well... you're not even getting safely down on a 9g planet with typical thrusters, let alone having to worry about heat management trying to get off it again.
This "PSA" is basically just saying "I play this way, and my way is right!" And it's not, it's really, really not. My aim was to get above 70ly range so I could go further on less jumps because I'm interested in exploring places that aren't easy to reach, and I want the safety to be able to pick and choose when I can refuel. Focusing on heat management because I want to feel like I can leap past systems without even looking at them isn't exploring to me. So this whole thread is a lot of good data collection in the service of very, very bad "science".
Last edited: