ASP Explorer vs Anaconda

[Old Duck]

With regards to the Anaconda though, I can't stand flying the dang thing. I wish I could as it does boast the absolute best range in the game, unfortunately for me. [downcast]

I just got my first Anaconda. Being ex-Navy, I love this ship. My alt character bought an Asp Explorer awhile back, and my overall feeling of it was "meh". I actually like the view from the Anaconda, as I enjoy feeling I'm on a huge ship. Having "piloted" proper ships, I'm totally comfortable with how it flies (I've never piloted a fighter jet IRL). All ships have launchable drones (camera view), so I can get an uninterrupted view of amazing sights while exploring regardless of the ship. I have an SLF with a chatty crewmate to keep me company way out in the black, and I have tons of room to spare for whatever modules I might fancy. I definitely want to build an exploraconda someday.

I should mention that before the Conda, my DBX was / is my favorite exploration ship. Fine view, excellent jump range, easy to fly - it's the closest thing to "going camping" in space

 

[Shinji Ikari]

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)

Even though I believe the Anaconda is the ultimate in exploration, you should note that it has many more cons than just one thing, otherwise I’d be using mine instead of an Asp.

When talking about landings, I’m talking about terrain landings. The bigger the ship, the flatter the land has to be to land, making it a pain when trying to land on a mountain. The Asp is better in that as it is much smaller, a Hauler is even better than the Asp.

 

[Major Klutz]

Here we go again....To be honest its personal preference.
...
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.
...

I completely agree. All Deep space outposts that I've seen are planetary or asteroid bases, all with large landing pads. I've never seen an outpost type station in deep space, which is surprising, but it means there are no landing limitations for an Anaconda.
And as for high gravity, I've landed on over 9g many times and never had a problem with durability. Any ship with any thrusters can land or take off from any strength gravity. All thrusters get reduced to 5m/s² in really high gravity.

As to the downsides of the 'conda, ...
1. Limited cockpit view. You can't look down at all, in any direction. You don't have much of a view upward either.
.... The view is very limited compared to the Asp or other Lakon ships but not much different from other DeLacy ships.
2. Turn speed. Yaw and Pitch speeds are very slow compared to other ships. It's a big ship, so it should be expected, but maneuvering is much quicker in an Asp or other smaller ship.
3. Fuel use. The increased range has a cost of increased fuel use. 8 tons per jump compared to the Asp or DBE 5 tons per jump. With the same 32T tank, you have 4 jumps per tank compared to the Asp's 6 jumps.

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.
...

Obviously a heavier build would take more punishment, but ... My 5D thrusters and 3D shields have never been a factor. I would never question anyone's piloting skills, but I'll just say that I don't crash into things very often. The 'conda may have a lightweight hull, but it's big, and can tank some damage. In the event of an interdiction in populated areas, the 'conda can take more than a few hits on the backside while I re-charge the FSD.
It's not gonna win any fights, but she is more than durable enough for a trip to BP and back with no reservations.

...
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
...

2. Agreed. The slow speed with lightweight thrusters does make searching planet surfaces slow. I like to use my Courier when searching for geysers.
3. Disagree. Not an issue in deep space and since I don't plan on fighting, anything that tries is only gonna see my backside.
4. Agreed. It's not a good "First Ship" for new explorers. But it's a fine investment for pilots who have the means.
5. Not an issue when landing at deep space outposts, and only a very minor issue (IMO) when landing on planet surfaces.
6. Agreed 100%, SC turning sucks, but you get used to it and (IMO) the increased range more than makes up for it.

... When talking about landings, I’m talking about terrain landings. The bigger the ship, the flatter the land has to be to land, making it a pain when trying to land on a mountain. The Asp is better in that as it is much smaller, a Hauler is even better than the Asp.

That's a good point, but planets are big with lots of room to land. IMO, it's an extremely minor issue but deserves to be mentioned in the list of cons.

 

[Jastebro]

Protip for turning a conda; drop to normal space. Turn rates are so much better there.
I regularly do this if I need to make 180 degree turns, for example, scanning the star after having scanned a planet, and then realign for the next jump in sequence.

 

[Allitnil]

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.

Here's the problem. You are describing the sort of situation that should never occur with an experienced CMDR. It's like complaining that commercial airplane flights have low survivability because they don't have massive shields or boost. Yet many thousands of such flights take place every single day with fatal incidents so rare that hardly anyone worries about the possibility.

Inexperienced or reckless CMDRs will destroy their ships regardless of what equipment they have because they will exceed the limits through ignorance, carelessness or over-estimation of their abilities. Obviously it can be a bit different if CMDRs choose to fly paper thin ships in combat zones (ie any populous system in open) but that can be easily mitigated against even if you stick to open.

It's always dangerous to conflate anecdote with reality, but I have to say that the couple of times I've come close to disaster it's been through utter carelessness when entirely sober (eg going AFK when pointing at a star and not making absolutely sure that I'm at zero throttle). OTOH, I've managed dozens of successful landings in paper thin ships even when I have consumed enough alcohol that I don't even remember doing so when I log in the next day

Survivability is much more about the state of mind than equipment.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

Here's the problem. You are describing the sort of situation that should never occur with an experienced CMDR. It's like complaining that commercial airplane flights have low survivability because they don't have massive shields or boost. Yet many thousands of such flights take place every single day with fatal incidents so rare that hardly anyone worries about the possibility.

Inexperienced or reckless CMDRs will destroy their ships regardless of what equipment they have because they will exceed the limits through ignorance, carelessness or over-estimation of their abilities. Obviously it can be a bit different if CMDRs choose to fly paper thin ships in combat zones (ie any populous system in open) but that can be easily mitigated against even if you stick to open.

It's always dangerous to conflate anecdote with reality, but I have to say that the couple of times I've come close to disaster it's been through utter carelessness when entirely sober (eg going AFK when pointing at a star and not making absolutely sure that I'm at zero throttle). OTOH, I've managed dozens of successful landings in paper thin ships even when I have consumed enough alcohol that I don't even remember doing so when I log in the next day

Survivability is much more about the state of mind than equipment.

I agree and disagree. I agree to the fact that experience is a key factor in safety. I disagree that the build shown is sturdy, it is not far from being literally the least defensive build possible, thus, it is not appropriate to call it very survivable.

 

[Jastebro]

Survivability is a weird argument in this context. You need to be able to handle low level attrition, so a modicum of care when landing, and a minimal shield is all that's required.
Pirates? Have an empty cargohold, and you're scanned and ignored.
Thargoids? Be passive, and you are ignored.

THe one enemy is your own carelessness and mistakes. Are any ship fitted for exploration equipped for survival? Low sturdiness is a factor in all of them, since light weight is desirable.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

Survivability is a weird argument in this context. You need to be able to handle low level attrition, so a modicum of care when landing, and a minimal shield is all that's required.
Pirates? Have an empty cargohold, and you're scanned and ignored.
Thargoids? Be passive, and you are ignored.

THe one enemy is your own carelessness and mistakes. Are any ship fitted for exploration equipped for survival? Low sturdiness is a factor in all of them, since light weight is desirable.

Not to mention that NPC interdictions are easy to evade.

That's a good point, but planets are big with lots of room to land. IMO, it's an extremely minor issue but deserves to be mentioned in the list of cons.

Sure, there will always be a place to land, but the areas surrounding mountains tend to be very wrinkly so a small ship is helpful/necessary to find a landing spot.

 

[GunnerBill]

Sure, there will always be a place to land, but the areas surrounding mountains tend to be very wrinkly so a small ship is helpful/necessary to find a landing spot.

Throwing a spanner in the works do you not find that it is harder to land a small ship on the slightly wrinkly stuff, a small ship won't find a good level in that environment while a big one having a better spread does?

I'm convinced it's actually harder (marginally) to find a good spot in my Dolphin than it was in my Anaconda.

I'm not talking about mountains or mad canyons just the stuff that looks flat from a km up but then isn't really when you come to land... swings and roundabouts I suppose

 

[Cdr Voorheez]

Totally agree. ill post a vid of me landing my anaconda on a Mountain top you could squeeze a DBE onto. Pilot skill. Its a simple formula.

If "survivability" and "landing awkwardness" are the strongest counter arguments against Anaconda versus Asp in this argument its losing pretty solidly.

Especially considering we have some pretty legendary Cmdrs who actually fly Anacondas joining in here in defence of the big old bird.

 

[Old Duck]

Why does everyone feel the need to land on top of mountains? You're in a flying machine, so it's not like you need to climb said mountain to get a nice view.

 

[marx]

[about the Anaconda being a large target]
3. Disagree. Not an issue in deep space and since I don't plan on fighting, anything that tries is only gonna see my backside.

Sure, you can and should try to flee from any attackers, but given that the Anaconda won't outrun them, all they're going to see is your ship's backside, which they'll find easy to shoot.

I didn't say that these were all cons of equal importance, because they obviously aren't. The weights of importance pretty much vary by Commanders and planned usage(!) of the ship. But that still means that the cons are there.

@ Cdr Voorheez: Eh, personally I'd say that the supercruise handling and the planetside characteristics of the Asp are the most important factors where it's better than the Anaconda. Of course, as I noted, how important those are depends on the player, and what they are planning to use their ship for.


@ Allitnil: it seems you've misunderstood the point of my post, which was in the first sentence you quoted.
But on to your point: Well yes, accidents shouldn't happen, especially not to experienced pilots. But they can still happen, and in general, unexpected things can still happen. Defences do make a difference, should they do. I think it's fine if you head out for a week or two in a cardboard ship, but personally, I wouldn't entertain going in one on an expedition several months long, and meeting up with plenty of players I don't know. You're risking several months of data and a long trip back if some decide to start shooting down people at one of the waypoints, especially since they'd likely do so at the last one. (Closest back to home, most harm done to victims.) You might argue that private groups are fine, but it's not exactly difficult to infiltrate one. It has been done before, and there's little you can do to prevent a sufficiently determined attacker.
As for NPCs, sure, they're only a factor now on the trip out and the way back, but who's to say that'll still be the case next year?

Like I said though, you can have an Anaconda with better defences and still jump a bit over 50 ly on a full tank. Obviously it's up for players to decide whether they want even more jump range, or would rather be better prepared for unexpected events.


@ Jastebro: don't forget that "psycho" NPCs do exist, although they are rare. Those don't scan you for cargo, they just start shooting straight away.
Of course, NPCs interdictions aren't difficult to evade, although the Anaconda might have some problems with that, due to the SC handling - I'm not sure.
Edit: spoken like someone who hasn't flown an Anaconda in a long time, and doesn't presume to know if NPC interdictions in it are still the same. In the ships I do fly, evading NPC interdictions is trivial.

 

[Cdr Voorheez]

Why does everyone feel the need to land on top of mountains? You're in a flying machine, so it's not like you need to climb said mountain to get a nice view.

Yeah agree for some reason the planetary landing inability of the Anaconda got dragged into this discussion. Just pointing out how incorrect it is.

 

[Cdr Voorheez]

NPCs interdictions aren't difficult to evade, although the Anaconda might have some problems with that, due to the SC handling - I'm not sure.

Ok. You are not going to be doing this 12kly out in the black, exploring in your Anaconda.

This is still an exploration based argument is it not?

 

[Shinji Ikari]

Throwing a spanner in the works do you not find that it is harder to land a small ship on the slightly wrinkly stuff, a small ship won't find a good level in that environment while a big one having a better spread does?

I'm convinced it's actually harder (marginally) to find a good spot in my Dolphin than it was in my Anaconda.

I'm not talking about mountains or mad canyons just the stuff that looks flat from a km up but then isn't really when you come to land... swings and roundabouts I suppose

Well, mountains tend to look somewhat flat from afar but when landing, the damn ship just won't do it. If I had trouble with my Asp, I can't imagine it for an Anaconda.

Totally agree. ill post a vid of me landing my anaconda on a Mountain top you could squeeze a DBE onto. Pilot skill. Its a simple formula.

If "survivability" and "landing awkwardness" are the strongest counter arguments against Anaconda versus Asp in this argument its losing pretty solidly.

Especially considering we have some pretty legendary Cmdrs who actually fly Anacondas joining in here in defence of the big old bird.

There are places where even the computer can't help itself to do it. Also, I never implied it was the main reason why I didn't fly one, just an issue I brought up as I had a bad time with my Asp while finding a spot.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

Why does everyone feel the need to land on top of mountains? You're in a flying machine, so it's not like you need to climb said mountain to get a nice view.

What about just driving downhill while trying not to kill yourrself? That's fun and can't be done in a ship

 

[Shinji Ikari]

Ok. You are not going to be doing this 12kly out in the black, exploring in your Anaconda.

This is still an exploration based argument is it not?

Well, even in solo there are many stupid NPC pirates in the bubble that might think you are Rockefeller or something and that's when evading an interdiction is useful as I suppose, you'll want to come back to the bubble at least once a year to get dat money.

 

[GunnerBill]

Why does everyone feel the need to land on top of mountains? You're in a flying machine, so it's not like you need to climb said mountain to get a nice view.

You see this is what RUINED The Force Awakens for me. They fly half way around the Galaxy (a far, far away one at that!) to find Luke Skywalker and then land at the bottom of a very steep & high hill so she has to climb up!??!! Why not just drop her off at the top?

 

[ThomasWJames]

You see this is what RUINED The Force Awakens for me. They fly half way around the Galaxy (a far, far away one at that!) to find Luke Skywalker and then land at the bottom of a very steep & high hill so she has to climb up!??!! Why not just drop her off at the top?

Because then Mark Hamill wouldn't have been paid like $5,000,000 (it's just said to be in the low seven figure range so I don't know exact) just for this one 5 second look:

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

Because then Mark Hamill wouldn't have been paid like $5,000,000 (it's just said to be in the low seven figure range so I don't know exact) just for this one 5 second look: https://heroichollywood.b-cdn.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/luke.jpg?x42694

For reference:

[video=youtube;cnTF3guz7EQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnTF3guz7EQ[/video]