Community Event / Creation Buckyball Racing Club presents: The A* Challenge

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Nice run Crotalus! :)

Did you make use of the new 20k route plotting? How did it work out? I'm curious as the core route plotting issues were the most intense part of classic A* runs in 'good old days' - waiting for 98% to get to 100%. :D

It didn't seem to bad unfortunately I did not record how long it took to plot it will also change depending on your jump range. From beta it took over a minute when I tried plotting 20000lys in a 65Ly Anaconda this time it was probably under a minute
I plotted from the start to around 6000 so I could plot directly to Sagittarius A*

I did have some very short jumps which I assume is due to it plotting in 1000 ly sections the shortest was a round 6ly is which was when I was around 6000 ly from Sagittarius A*
 
Last edited:
Cmdr Name: Penny Umbra
Ship Type: Asp Explorer
Ship Name: Beaufort
Run: Classic

Time set: 10:02:08

Departure From Lomas Orbiter:

7x8ca4k.png
[/IMG]

Arrival at Sag A*:

iXwIx4s.png
[/IMG]

I'm quite pleased with this for a first time attempt, and I can see areas where I can improve. Like being a bit bolder about starting the FSD charging, and keeping some extra fuel for when I drop too far from a star in a binary system. Better to jump on into the next system than faff around trying to get a scoop I think.

I'll be back for another go sometime, I'd like to get a sub-10hrs time in, and then engineer Beaufort, and really go for broke!
 
Nice run Penny. :)

It's definitely worth hitting the FSD button as early as possible - preferably as soon as the cool down ends - and then getting out of the corona as quickly as possible.

As a rough guide in an Asp Explorer in classic, anything that can save you a second per jump will knock about 15 minutes off your time.
 
Cmdr Name: Penny Umbra
I'm quite pleased with this for a first time attempt, and I can see areas where I can improve. Like being a bit bolder about starting the FSD charging, and keeping some extra fuel for when I drop too far from a star in a binary system. Better to jump on into the next system than faff around trying to get a scoop I think.

Well done

I normally now have 2 and bit jumps worth of fuel, so with a class 5 Frame Shift Drive I will have 12t of fuel this is to deal with dropping too far from a star and loss of connection.
As Raiko said you are better starting to charge the Frame Shift drive as soon as possible
 
Do you folks happen to have any tricks up your sleeve to aid the impossibly slow loading of the system map?

I'm actually heading out on a non-Bucky run to Beagle Point and already 2 hours in my brain is turning to mush waiting for the system map to load!
 
Do you folks happen to have any tricks up your sleeve to aid the impossibly slow loading of the system map?

I'm actually heading out on a non-Bucky run to Beagle Point and already 2 hours in my brain is turning to mush waiting for the system map to load!
The A* challenge doesn't really need the system map at all, only the galaxy map. How long is it taking to load?
 
We're talking 10-15 seconds for the map to open for systems containing over 20 objects.

I'm aware that the Sag A* run specifically doesn't require the system map, but a lot of the folks here will spend quite some time in the black so may have encountered the same issues. ;)

I've found that this delay isn't present at all when I downscale from 4k to 1080p, but that's not a "fix" I'm particularly keen on!
 
I play in 1200p and the system map normally loads in a second or two. I expect the longer delay is all down to rendering the planet textures at higher resolutions. Odd though, maybe it's a driver issue.
 
As I understand it, the (patched) DX has the highest non-engineered jump range. Why is the Anaconda still on top of the list? I read something about slow fuel-scooping? Can someone explain this?
I really feel, the DX should be higher up... :)

Anaconda is still king because of it's improvements:

Stock:
DBX: 41.78Ly
Conda: 41.43Ly
AspEx: 38.16Ly

Here your statement is correct the DBX has the most range by a whisker.

Engineered lightweight: sensors (-80%) & Life support (-72%)
Conda: 46.42Ly
DBX: 42.21Ly
Asp: 39.28Ly

As the sensors start off with more mass the % difference on the Anaconda has more of an effect.

FSD also engineered:
Conda: 70.62Ly
DBX: 64.53Ly
Asp: 59.03Ly

FSD is a flat % increase to jump range, Anaconda looses out slightly due to Class 6 FSD since the jump range mod increases the FSD weight but thats minimal. Adding a +30% module weight and +56% optimised mass FSD we get a bigger % increase overall for the Anaconda that starts higher (+24ly vs +22ly for the DBX).



On top of that we have fuel as you mention, so for example on my run for what is now 3rd place I had 70 tons of fuel because that was the optimum point between jump range and having to refuel a lot. The Anaconda scoops with as 7A scoop at 1245Kg/s, the Asp with a 6A at 878Kg/s and the DBX at 342Kg/s with a 4A scoop.
This massive drop off almost triples the scooping time required.

Even the mighty Anaconda scoop is a limiting factor, you can see here: https://youtu.be/y0tWZuvTWN8?t=2800 on my run, completely empty to full 70T refill takes from 46:40 to 47:46. Ideally system entry to next system entry is under 1 minute, by the time I get into the next system (48:19) that has taken me 1min 40 sec. I scooped a total of 17 times so at +40 seconds extra each scoop that adds on a good 11 minutes to the time. When the total time is only 120 minutes that is a lot of time spent scooping..
And thats the Anaconda, the DBX (whilst not needing a 70 ton tank) only scoops at 27% of the speed so it's a massive massive impact to any time.


Hopefully this makes sense as to why the Anaconda beats out the other 2 by a big margin. On a non-engineered run the DBX will probably be about equal to the Asp, jumping 3.5ly further at a time but slower scooping.
 
Last edited:
As I understand it, the (patched) DX has the highest non-engineered jump range. Why is the Anaconda still on top of the list? I read something about slow fuel-scooping? Can someone explain this?
I really feel, the DX should be higher up... :)
Yep, it's due to the jump range.
I'm not very experienced in the A* Challenge and don't have a lot of experience in the DBX when it comes to long range racing, but here's a back-of-the-envelope calculation to show the difference between the two:

The theoretical minimum number of jumps assuming perfect star placement would be 626 for the theoretical maximum Anaconda jump range and 620 for the DBX, so 4:30 min difference.
More realistic builds for the Anaconda and DBX would have a smaller difference in jump range, so the difference would be even smaller (I can't find the number of jumps for Hanekura's DBX record run, Alot did his run in 650 jumps if I'm not mistaken).

Now when it comes to doing ~650 jumps perfectly, even half a second lost per jump makes a difference of about 5 minutes over the full run. So it really comes down to being able to start the next jump at the exact point that the cooldown timer expires.
Slow scooping can prevent that.
The Anaconda needs 8 t for a maximum jump and can fit a 7A fuel scoop that fills the tank at 1245 kg/s, that means 6.43 s of scooping time per jump; just enough to dive in, scoop to full and get out of the corona while charging the FSD without taking heat damage at most stars with the right technique and practice.
The DBX needs only 5 t per jump, but the 4A Fuel Scoop provides only 342 kg/s, so 14,62 s scooping per jump! Luckily, the ship runs very cool and can stay scooping for a good few seconds while charging the FSD without overheating and also is more nimble so can pull out more easily. But the time difference for a full scoop is still too big to either avoid overheating (and loosing a few seconds every jump) or running into the problems that overheating regularly on such a long run can cause (FSD damage leads to failed jumps and repairs need a lot of time). The difference per jump with the two times on the board is around 6 s, so just a small bit less than the difference in scooping times.
So while the DBX definitely is the faster ship when you can afford overheating (for example in shorter races where you can repair at station waypoints before reaching a critical amount of heat damage), the Anaconda beats it in Endurance challenges due to the higher average speed.

Concerning room for improvement for the current times on the board: CMDR Alot managed to get Rhonda very close to the theoretical limit and the record time probably won't change in the future, since there was a game update where you now arrive at the "correct" position relative to a star after a jump (as opposed to random), which means the target star on an optimal route will now lie behind the star you're scooping from and getting around in time while also scooping enough is now pretty much impossible.
The DBX doesn't suffer as much from the star position problem since there's more time spent scooping anyway, but I don't think there will be more than a few minutes to be shaved off knowing how fast Hanekura Shizuka is in this challenge.

So yes, it looks like the difference shouldn't be as big, but it's always surprising how complicated the influences on times in a race/challenge (even with a concept as simple as "do many jumps quickly") can get when the game mechanics are as detailed as they are in Elite :)
 
Last edited:
The theoretical minimum number of jumps assuming perfect star placement would be 626 for the theoretical maximum Anaconda jump range and 620 for the DBX, so 4:30 min difference.
More realistic builds for the Anaconda and DBX would have a smaller difference in jump range, so the difference would be even smaller (I can't find the number of jumps for Hanekura's DBX record run, Alot did his run in 650 jumps if I'm not mistaken).

Had to go back and count. 645 jumps, in mine.

(lots of good analysis cut...)

Concerning room for improvement for the current times on the board: CMDR Alot managed to get Rhonda very close to the theoretical limit and the record time probably won't change in the future, since there was a game update where you now arrive at the "correct" position relative to a star after a jump (as opposed to random), which means the target star on an optimal route will now lie behind the star you're scooping from and getting around in time while also scooping enough is now pretty much impossible.
The DBX doesn't suffer as much from the star position problem since there's more time spent scooping anyway, but I don't think there will be more than a few minutes to be shaved off knowing how fast Hanekura Shizuka is in this challenge.

The beauty of the A* challenge is how different each ship runs the Challenge. The four fastest ships in the Challenge - the Anaconda, DBX, AspX, and Hauler - all require different strategies to maximize their performance. The Anaconda has great range and scoops quickly, but is not so much flown as it is commanded; steering an Anaconda can be a trying experience. You have to know from the instant you leap into a system how your ship is going to pass through the system. The DBX, as mentioned, has the range and the heat resistance, but that undersized fuel scoop will drive you mad. The AspX is probably the best "beginner" ship for the A* challenge; it has a large fuel scoop, and is nimble enough to allow for the occasional misstep when approaching the star. Its only drawback is that its jump range isn't quite as good as the DBX or 'conda. And the Hauler... Good range, nimble, but it'll overheat and melt if you so much as look at it funny. All four ships demand different strategies and tactics when running the Challenge.

As for whether time can be cut for the DBX... maybe. Keep in mind one important thing: when I ran it, it was back in the 'dark ages' of one-kylie routes. Now, I used techniques that minimized the time it took to find a star, but it still took time.
 
As for whether time can be cut for the DBX... maybe. Keep in mind one important thing: when I ran it, it was back in the 'dark ages' of one-kylie routes. Now, I used techniques that minimized the time it took to find a star, but it still took time
A twenty thousand light year route to Sagittarius A*takes about 42 seconds to plot in the Type 6. The total time it took to plot all the sections of the route with the Adder was 174 seconds.
Neither time includes the time it takes to load the galaxy map and to start plotting the route.
I have also plotted a route using the Diamond Explorer to a system that I visited with the when doing the Diamondback Explorer run, that is a bit under twenty thousand lights years from Wolf 359 which gave me the same number of jumps.
 
Last edited:
A twenty thousand light year route to Sagittarius A*takes about 42 seconds to plot in the Type 6. The total time it took to plot all the sections of the route with the Adder was 174 seconds.
Neither time includes the time it takes to load the galaxy map and to start plotting the route.
I have also plotted a route using the Diamond Explorer to a system that I visited with the when doing the Diamondback Explorer run, that is a bit under twenty thousand lights years from Wolf 359 which gave me the same number of jumps.

It's actually less than that - the amount of time to make one ~6k plot in the core. The 20k plot would hopefully be completed before the CMDR took off. It also doesn't take into account one other issue - the possibility of fewer jumps. When we plan a route, we try to get the furthest star we can that allows for x number of jumps, but we are not always perfect in such endeavors. In theory, at least, the 20k plot would be maximized up until that final jump.
 
THE BLADE RUN
orion's belt (Mintaka)VIA(Tannhäuser Gate)Aztlan to sol
I've seen things you people would believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched laser-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments wont be lost in time, like tears an rain. due to my ingame logs:D
 
Last edited:
Classic Beagle Run

Hello, is there any "classic" Beagle run possible?
Without the neutron star boogaloo?

I would like to break the classic record then.
And what is the time for the classic Beagle Run Record?
 
So, hmm,...could somebody maybe make some nice post summing up all the current records?
I'd really wish to do a non Jumponium-non-Neutron Star record run to Beagle point and back to earth.
But what is the record for that? 130.000 LY.
Is there any data?
 
So, hmm,...could somebody maybe make some nice post summing up all the current records?
I'd really wish to do a non Jumponium-non-Neutron Star record run to Beagle point and back to earth.
But what is the record for that? 130.000 LY.
Is there any data?

Hi,

I don't know of anyone who has done the Beagle Return run and back without using neutrons. Straight there with no neutrons was something like 14hrs iirc, I'll try and dig a post up after work.


Edit:

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/216113-Beagle-2-Landing-to-Beagle-Point
Has a few records over time.

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/296037-The-65000-Ly-from-Sol-Club-ver-3-0
Has a 48hr challenge

I do not believe there is an official board that tracks who used neutrons, who didn't or anything like that. I'll be honest when I did my run I was only aware in the background that a few others had posted times here and there, for me it was more a personal thing than a leaderboard, same with the Colonia one :)
 
Last edited:
Hi Buckyballers!

I've just come to a realisation: With the new engineering changes coming it is possible that this will change the face of the board. It's also possible that the new FSD mods we have are not going to be better than the god tier rolls we currently have, depends on where FDev draw the line for the G5 maximum:

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/393130-ENGINEERING-A-BETTER-FUTURE
"In general, we will try to make sure that the new blueprints can max out slightly better than the old system (we want to encourage conversion)."

Rest assured I'll be testing in beta to see what a new maxed out FSD comes to and how that compares with my current model and posting here.
My advice to anyone would be don't grandfather your insane FSD until you know for sure its the right choice, I have a suspicion mine will be better than the maximum not because of the optimal % of 54.8 but because my increase to FSD mass is rather minimal at 36.3%. Sandro said in stream that the "always better than previous" affects the primary component (i.e. optimal mass). As I expect to have only a few % to improve on optimised mass to maybe 56% I think the associated increase in FSD module weight will offset that as will loosing the +4.5% fuel use per jump bonus.

Anyway, food for thought. And now I'm thinking about another Sag A* run sometime... Ah well, not this side of Christmas anyway.
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom