Sure there is. My point is that most explorers don't need big shields to perfectly survive extreme situations like Major Klutz has shown. Either way, I do make tons of stunts in my single SRV and so far no tragedies have ocurred though fast reflexes help. In the neutron star scenario, you surely must be consious that it is almost suicidal and since not many neutron stars have said planets, bringing such shields for such rare scenarios IMO isn't worth it unless you are actively planning to do it.
ASP Explorer vs Anaconda
- Thread starter Jeppan74
- Start date
Sure there is. My point is that most explorers don't need big shields to perfectly survive extreme situations like Major Klutz has shown. Either way, I do make tons of stunts in my single SRV and so far no tragedies have ocurred though fast reflexes help. In the neutron star scenario, you surely must be consious that it is almost suicidal and since not many neutron stars have said planets, bringing such shields for such rare scenarios IMO isn't worth it unless you are actively planning to do it.
Of course - it is exactly down to intention. I didn't tell myself I was bringing shields so I could tackle a NS with close planet, but instead so I can take on any similiar situation. I like being able to throw my ship around in general and not worry about it peeling apart.
This is very much the supposed beauty of choice and consequence. Super stripped down will sometimes be the only way, as long as you understand when you create that build that there will be risks. I'll never chastise someone for taking a shieldless, unarmoured 'conda exploring; I'll pull each of their legs in turn and batter them with their own socks if they then complain that ship was allowed to die.
Oh, I also have a knack for carelessly setting up screenshots in asteroid belts...yeah, the shields are good for that.
Last edited:
I can't bring myself to use an Anaconda, not 100% sure why, so I stick with the Asp Explorer. I do like the Diamondback as well. There was a reason I didn't set off on the Circumnavigation reason in DBX...Hmmm
Hah, yes, I DWE in the Asp Explorer I'm using so I'm sort of attached to it, plus with the only engineered component I have (the FSD) I couldn't get the jump range up that much - so I stuck with the Asp.
I tell you what would be useful, a definite list of jump range engineering modifications - I am sure that exists somewhere.
Then the next task is being to grind. In theory I'm out of the bubble for a year so I guess it's not important! *ramble* *ramble*
Hah, yes, I DWE in the Asp Explorer I'm using so I'm sort of attached to it, plus with the only engineered component I have (the FSD) I couldn't get the jump range up that much - so I stuck with the Asp.
I tell you what would be useful, a definite list of jump range engineering modifications - I am sure that exists somewhere.
Then the next task is being to grind. In theory I'm out of the bubble for a year so I guess it's not important! *ramble* *ramble*
Hahaha Nice analogy, sir
Made me laugh.But as many has said: We need a new ship that´s bigger than the ASPX, that´s focused on exploration. But maybe that´s something that´s coming in the "Beyond" updates where Frontier said they´re going to focus more on exploration...
I'm not sure what the current record is, but to go on the Distant Stars Expedition, you needed ~55+ lyrs and a neutron star boost, to reach a star cluster outside of the main galaxy. No one made it back. We all suicided, since there was no neutron star at the destination.
How? It's not the best at anything. The Anaconda has it on jump range and the Asp has it on modules, scooping speed and visibility.
I have all three and I'd love to find a use for the DBX because I think they look kind of cool in an ugly mecha-moth kind of way but I just don't have anything for it to do.
Last edited:
@ Jeppan74: First off, thanks! Second: more variety is always good, do we really need a better one than the Asp? In my opinion, we don't, unless you mean a better-looking one. Which leads to the question: better at what, better how?
If the answer would be "higher jump range", then that doesn't really solve the root of the problem, the cause why most people want that. Because they want to travel less, and that's not just because players are impatient, but more because the core problem is that interstellar travel in Elite is boring. Point your ship at your destination (that the plotter came up with), throttle up, press jump, stare at the screen (or alt-tab out) because you're unable to do anything until you get to your destination. Rinse and repeat for N jumps.
This was fine for launch, but plenty of time has passed since then. Throwing more jump range at the problem (decreasing that N) is just a band-aid, not a solution.
Of course, it is easier to just increase jump ranges than it would be to implement new gameplay mechanics.
If the answer would be "higher jump range", then that doesn't really solve the root of the problem, the cause why most people want that. Because they want to travel less, and that's not just because players are impatient, but more because the core problem is that interstellar travel in Elite is boring. Point your ship at your destination (that the plotter came up with), throttle up, press jump, stare at the screen (or alt-tab out) because you're unable to do anything until you get to your destination. Rinse and repeat for N jumps.
This was fine for launch, but plenty of time has passed since then. Throwing more jump range at the problem (decreasing that N) is just a band-aid, not a solution.
Of course, it is easier to just increase jump ranges than it would be to implement new gameplay mechanics.
![[VR] optimal_909](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/109/109067.jpg?1553781733){kind=avatar}
Then I'm the opposite of you - I prefer to core as it has by far the largest variety of systems, severely underrated place. Therefore the most important practical aspect to me is the character the ship, combined with real world speed for planetary flights - hence I enjoyed the FDL the most. And it appears that the Corvette will be the ship that tops it, it just feels right for an extended trip. Also, I never D-rate my ships.
The Asp, on the other hand, it is the ship I'll never buy, I just can't stand that looks, and that it is the default choice. I could get along with an Anaconda, simply because it is cool.
Yeah, outside of the suppression zone, the more massive - and thus, more varied - systems are much more frequent in (or near) the core. I've spent a good while on the galactic rim, and it has its own unique feel, what with the difficulty of navigation and the emptyness of the background, as well as how small the Milky Way is. But after a while, the lesser variety got to me, and I don't think I'll go back again.
However, you can have both variety and sparsity: just fly above or below the plane in (or near) the core, as far as you can. The feeling of distance will be somewhat gone though, what with the Milky Way dominating half of the background. But when it comes to systems' variety and scarcity, it combines both.
Of course, you will need a longer jump range, but there's plenty to explore in the 70-80 ly distance range (so 35-40 ly jump range without jumponium).
However, you can have both variety and sparsity: just fly above or below the plane in (or near) the core, as far as you can. The feeling of distance will be somewhat gone though, what with the Milky Way dominating half of the background. But when it comes to systems' variety and scarcity, it combines both.
Of course, you will need a longer jump range, but there's plenty to explore in the 70-80 ly distance range (so 35-40 ly jump range without jumponium).
Last edited:
My Explorer Conda does 60 Lys, and its not completely stripped. I use a L4 OC PP upgrade on a size 4A PP, 5A PD, 5D thrusters, 6A FSD with upgrade of 52% Opt Hull Mass, lightweight armor engineered Heavy Duty for increased integrity. Sensors are D size with lightweight mod of L4, life support has a L3 lightweight mod on the D size. It has a 4D shield, with a single D size shield booster, 2x Heat Sink Launchers, 1 size 1 mining laser, a ADS/DSS(L5 long range mod increases range by 200%), x2 3A AFM (due to small PP, didn't want to overtax it with larger AFMs), a size 3 Repair Controller. Small SRV Hanger and Fighter Bay, 6A fuel scoop and 128 cargo rack and to top it off a docking computer, only cause I had an extra slot and it don't add weight. Could have dropped the fighter bay for a 2 Ly increase, but 60 is plenty so decided to keep it. The only drawback with this design is that if I damage the PP, it will hinder my ability to run all the systems. I turn off all the systems I don't need til I need them that way I am only using about 140/h fuel load, even shields are turned off once I leave the bubble cept for when I land on a planet. I have a crew member, but probably won't use her for anything, maybe as a decoy if its needed. Its not fast by any means since I didn't engineer the drives (didn't want to grind for the materials needed for the upgrades, and most times it adds mass.) The overall mass of the ship is still heavy at 945 tons, but decent enough, has all I need and a bunch I probably won't need, but have just in case. On my way to see the Wizard at Beagle Point, I heard he grants 3 wishes or something.
Took it on a shakedown cruise and got used to the sluggish handling, yeah, the other ships handle more smoothly in super cruise, but none can touch the jump range and still have slots available for all the extras. It ain't fast, but don't need sublight speed for exploration. It goes 240 lys on a neutron boost. It will get to Beagle and beyond, maybe all the way to the 65k Ly from Sol club,......
Took it on a shakedown cruise and got used to the sluggish handling, yeah, the other ships handle more smoothly in super cruise, but none can touch the jump range and still have slots available for all the extras. It ain't fast, but don't need sublight speed for exploration. It goes 240 lys on a neutron boost. It will get to Beagle and beyond, maybe all the way to the 65k Ly from Sol club,......
Different strokes for different folks. Here's why I like it: I find the DBX more enjoyable to fly. YMMV of course.
It beats the Asp on jump range. The Asp has more modules, but to be honest how many module do you need? A small shield, DSS, and ADS are all that's absolutely essential. There's still space for an optional vehicle hangar and 1-2 AFM. Heat sinks are unnecessary in a Diamondback.
The class 4 fuel scoop is slower, but I don't fill up at every star, I scoop-and-go till my tank is down to ~30%. Maybe every 10th jump I'll spend a minute loitering near a star to top back up while I check the system map. Really not that bad.
Between the Conda and Asp, I chose the Clipper
I had every intention of creating a high jump range Conda and going for a look around the Rift, but when DECE came up, the thought of a year in the big bird put me off. And I didn't want to do the next big trip in my Asp....again. so only 40ly but enough I think (Asp had 32 when I did BP) and I thoroughly *enjoy* flying her.
Something between Asp and Conda jump range wise and with a special 'exploration fighter' (no teeth) bay would be ideal.....in Lakon and Gutamaya flavours.
I had every intention of creating a high jump range Conda and going for a look around the Rift, but when DECE came up, the thought of a year in the big bird put me off. And I didn't want to do the next big trip in my Asp....again. so only 40ly but enough I think (Asp had 32 when I did BP) and I thoroughly *enjoy* flying her.
Something between Asp and Conda jump range wise and with a special 'exploration fighter' (no teeth) bay would be ideal.....in Lakon and Gutamaya flavours.
Asp's got the better view, Anaconda's got more room for activities.
Pretty much, I also believe the Asp is easier to fly and manage and can land on all stations regardless of size. There's trade-off for both I guess.
Yeah, the Anaconda won't land in many places do to its size, even the Asp is frustratingly big sometimes-
Here we go again....To be honest its personal preference.
Personally I've extensively explored in both Anaconda and Asp. Personally I prefer Anaconda. Why?
Pro's of Anaconda:
1. Range (62ly max in my current exploration 'heavy variant' Anaconda build)
2. Internals: Many. Good for explorers (see my posted build)
3. "Feel". The feel is the all important factor we don't talk about much. Anaconda just feels like the perfect explorer ship to me.
4. Robustness. Hard as nails, especially if you engineer her bulkheads. (see my posted build)
5. Variety of build options. (explorer heavy variant, explorer light variant, explorer/passenger variant etc, etc)
6. Ship launched fighter option relieves deep space boredom and injects a massive element of fun. It also protects you.
Downsides of Anaconda:
1. Limited bridge view I suppose. Personally It doesn't affect me at all. Remember she's a big ship.
As for not being able to land an Anaconda in all places. Total nonsense. You are exploring not trading and as for planetary landing I've put my Anaconda down on 6g planets. It's all about pilot skill. There are not many places i cannot land my Anaconda.
So in answer to OPs question. It's all about what you want and your personal preference.
You do not need to strip down your Anaconda to get 60+ly range you just need to commit to engineering her. Lots.
Engineering. Engineering. Engineering.
My build as an example. Currently on the Circumnavigation exped:
https://coriolis.edcd.io/outfit/ana...skjpPQ&bn=Terra Nova (Final build DECN Exped)
Personally I've extensively explored in both Anaconda and Asp. Personally I prefer Anaconda. Why?
Pro's of Anaconda:
1. Range (62ly max in my current exploration 'heavy variant' Anaconda build)
2. Internals: Many. Good for explorers (see my posted build)
3. "Feel". The feel is the all important factor we don't talk about much. Anaconda just feels like the perfect explorer ship to me.
4. Robustness. Hard as nails, especially if you engineer her bulkheads. (see my posted build)
5. Variety of build options. (explorer heavy variant, explorer light variant, explorer/passenger variant etc, etc)
6. Ship launched fighter option relieves deep space boredom and injects a massive element of fun. It also protects you.
Downsides of Anaconda:
1. Limited bridge view I suppose. Personally It doesn't affect me at all. Remember she's a big ship.
As for not being able to land an Anaconda in all places. Total nonsense. You are exploring not trading and as for planetary landing I've put my Anaconda down on 6g planets. It's all about pilot skill. There are not many places i cannot land my Anaconda.
So in answer to OPs question. It's all about what you want and your personal preference.
You do not need to strip down your Anaconda to get 60+ly range you just need to commit to engineering her. Lots.
Engineering. Engineering. Engineering.
My build as an example. Currently on the Circumnavigation exped:
https://coriolis.edcd.io/outfit/ana...skjpPQ&bn=Terra Nova (Final build DECN Exped)
Last edited:
Really? Based on what?. Show me hard evidence of that throw away comment. I'll show you a 62ly build Anaconda that's very survivable. We are not out in the black to fight, we are explorers. However, a Ship launched fighter option relieves deep space boredom and injects a massive element of fun. It also protects you.
Before you shout I have no shields, its because they are turned off when deep space exploring to conserve fuel. The build reflects an exploration Anaconda in situ.
And yes, I fly on a 20t tank. Saves lots of mass/weight and increases range. This has been tried and tested on many long range expeds.
Here, My 62ly heavy exploration build:
https://coriolis.edcd.io/outfit/ana...skjpPQ&bn=Terra Nova (Final build DECN Exped)
The question referred to Anaconda and Asp. As for King of Exploration.....Really? evidence?, facts?, data?
Other than an overly zealously pimped range the DBE just doesn't cut it in my opinion.
Last edited:
Sorry, but an Anaconda with the lighest shields possible, 5D thrusters and the bare minimum armour upgrade is pretty much the exact definition of low survivability. It might withstand scraping against a planet, but should you collide at a higher speed, you will take considerable hull damage, if not be outright destroyed. While it is highly unlikely to encounter anything hostile, if you should somehow do (perhaps the Thargoids will be going after people by the time you return), you'll take plenty of damage before you jump away. However, a hostile player is going to kill you very quickly, but at least you can prevent that by playing in solo.
You might not be out in the black to fight, but survivability is about surviving damage from any source, however unexpected it may be. (Which is why I'd personally never lower my shields - might as well not carry them then.)
That said, it is possible to make an Anaconda that has much better chances of surviving any of the above, and still have a bit over 50 ly full tank range. Here is a theoretical example.
Oh, and additional cons of an Anaconda:
2. Low forward speed - if you are doing planetary flight, or escaping from hostiles
3. Large target
4. Big price tag, although by today, it doesn't take terribly long to get the credits required to buy and outfit one
5. Needs a rather large landing area
6. Rather slow turning in supercruise
Additional pros:
7. Large mass lock factor means few ships can mass-lock it (although you should just be high waking out)
8. Decent turning in normal flight
Last edited:
Disagree. I've had very heavy landings in my explorer build Anaconda. And walked away from all of them. We are not talking combat builds here we are talking exploration builds.
Trust me I've done both combat and exploration in Anaconda quite a lot.
Plus using hull and shield "weakness" as a counter argument against the Anaconda as an exploration vessel is poor. It assumes the pilot is so bad He-She relies on heavy shielding to mitigate their incredibly poor piloting skills on planetary landings. The majority of exploration Cmdr's I know are excellent pilots.
We are not fighting so shield mass should be low therefore significantly reducing weight and increasing range.
Of course you can fly heavy and NERF your range but thats your choice Cmdr.
Trust me I've done both combat and exploration in Anaconda quite a lot.
Plus using hull and shield "weakness" as a counter argument against the Anaconda as an exploration vessel is poor. It assumes the pilot is so bad He-She relies on heavy shielding to mitigate their incredibly poor piloting skills on planetary landings. The majority of exploration Cmdr's I know are excellent pilots.
We are not fighting so shield mass should be low therefore significantly reducing weight and increasing range.
Of course you can fly heavy and NERF your range but thats your choice Cmdr.
Last edited:
Well, you did say survivability. Looks like we disagree on two things:
- I say survivability is defences in general, and you might encounter combat that you weren't looking for - you say it's in combat you looked for
- I say that collisions might happen any time by accident (for example, I've had a controller fail on me planetside once) - you assume it's only during landings and through pilot error
Differing definitions is fine, as long as we're clear on them. In that case, people who are looking at both sets of arguments will need to decide which definitions they think are better.
Nope, I didn't argue against the Anaconda as an exploration vessel, I argued that running it with the lowest possible defenses is not "very survivable" (as you said), but the definition of a low defense build on the Anaconda. It's still a bit better than a cardboard Asp, mind.
In any case, I gave a quick example of an Anaconda build that isn't stripped down, and still has excellent jump range, which should be enough for anything, unless you are minmaxing for the highest possible jump range for the lowest star densities out on the edges.
On the other hand, if we're talking about experiences, I've done a fair bit of pvp, and there was a time when I was an unwilling participant in pvp while flying a ship with the same defences as yours. Meaning I got attacked without warning by a player when I left a station. My shield was up, but he destroyed my FSD with his opening before I could even select a system to high wake to, and then that was it. Shortest expedition I've launched to date, heh.
Last edited: