What would happen if you repeated the same experiment, but started with each ship pointed 180 degrees away from the target? I'm sure the times would be different - but how much different?
If memory serves, I would have flown into the nearest planet then, the way things were at the time.
Well, it might be worth doing some more experiments, like doing test system surveys, but I think I'll pass on that. You'd have to be painstakingly precise to get good data then (seeing that you'd need to fly the exact same routes the exact same way, in different ships), and I don't think I could be.
I notice a big difference when flying my AspX compared to my Anaconda. The Asp is so easy and quick to maneuver to scoop, scan, turn around to the next scan, re-enter the Neutron star if I miss the jet properly, overshooting a planet I want, lining up with the next jump, etc. The Anaconda just is painful to position in comparison.
I'd really like to see the time it took me to scan the important objects in say 1,000 systems in the my AspX and then the exact same 1,000 systems in my Anaconda and see how much actual time I'm actually wasting just maneuvering between the two ships.
Though I guess I could just do that with a single system close by say Colonia and scan a few planets and the star and then jump out and return with the Anaconda and repeat the exact same thing and time them both. But that's too much work for me...
If memory serves, I would have flown into the nearest planet then, the way things were at the time.
Well, it might be worth doing some more experiments, like doing test system surveys, but I think I'll pass on that. You'd have to be painstakingly precise to get good data then (seeing that you'd need to fly the exact same routes the exact same way, in different ships), and I don't think I could be.
I may try it out when I get back to the bubble. I may not.
khaos526 said:
I notice a big difference when flying my AspX compared to my Anaconda. The Asp is so easy and quick to maneuver to scoop, scan, turn around to the next scan, re-enter the Neutron star if I miss the jet properly, overshooting a planet I want, lining up with the next jump, etc. The Anaconda just is painful to position in comparison.
I'd really like to see the time it took me to scan the important objects in say 1,000 systems in the my AspX and then the exact same 1,000 systems in my Anaconda and see how much actual time I'm actually wasting just maneuvering between the two ships.
Though I guess I could just do that with a single system close by say Colonia and scan a few planets and the star and then jump out and return with the Anaconda and repeat the exact same thing and time them both. But that's too much work for me...
It occurs to me the perception or not, it may be all that matters is perception. After all, if it's aggravating to deal with bad maneuverability, then it's bad... even if it doesn't cost as much time as you think. It's like choosing the route that is longer but keeps you moving vs the heavy traffic, shorter route during rush hour. Life is short.
I'd really like to see the time it took me to scan the important objects in say 1,000 systems in the my AspX and then the exact same 1,000 systems in my Anaconda and see how much actual time I'm actually wasting just maneuvering between the two ships.
On second thought, I don't think it's really worth the effort to run such test scenarios. Two reasons: a simple thought experiment can tell you an estimate on how much time is saved, and there are so many sources of error on entire test runs that unless you're a machine, the errors will add up to too much for the results to be meaningful
There's also exactly what oldmanklc and Jackie Silver have said: it's more about the perception and the fun of it. The game is at its core about flying your ship, so if it flies better, it's likely more fun. Even if you don't save much time. It's similar to combat, in this aspect: in there, you can use a large ship and nothing will present much of a challenge (save for Thargoids), or you can use small(er) ships, in which you'll kill less targets, but have considerably more fun doing so. Same goes with jump range and supercruise handling, in my opinion. (Although the former only matters if you're not interested in the systems between you and your destination.)
Anyway, the thought experiment.
Suppose that CMDR Alice is surveying a system: how much time would she save on turning if she were flying an Asp Explorer instead of an Anaconda? (Since acceleration's the same, there is no time saved on straight-line flying.) First off, that depends on how many times she'll be turning. Let's assume that she does so once for every body surveyed, and does a quarter loop in both pitch and roll, and forgets that she could actually yaw too. For the sake of simplicity, let's assume that she doesn't pitch and roll, but pitches then rolls.
The result is that if she were flying at 50% throttle, she'd save 4.5 s on turning per body surveyed, and if she were doing it at 100% throttle (in a hurry, maybe?), it would be 7 s. Now, if you suppose that she spends a minute and a half (90 s) travelling in a straight line between each body, then compared to the total time spent, that gain is quite little.
Taking this a bit farther, let's suppose that CMDR Bob is doing the same thing, but is distracted by Netflix in the cockpit, and overshoots every second body, after which he has to do a full loop. The time saved then is 18 s at 50% throttle, or 28 s at 100% throttle. Now, compared to those ninety seconds, that's not insignificant - and let's not forget that means 18/28 s of play doing nothing but turning the ship.
So, how much does this add up to? For an example, let's say that they're surveying five bodies in a system, then doing a sixth turn to line up with the next one. In-system travel takes 7.5 minutes (450 s) then, and let's see the six turns on an Anaconda and an Asp. For the former, it takes 51 s in total at the optimal 50% throttle, and 73.5 s at 100%. For the Asp, it's 24 s or 31.5 s. So the total time spent surveying is 501 s / 523.5 s in an Anaconda, and 474 s / 481.5 s in an Asp. The gain doesn't even reach 10%.
How about Bob and his full loops? With five bodies, he does two, so that's 102 s / 147 s extra on the Anaconda, and 48 s / 63 s on the Asp. Totals come down to 603 s / 670.5 s on the Anaconda, and 522 s / 544.5 s on the Asp. This time, the difference is does reach 15%.
But bear in mind that explorers don't survey every system they come across, so most of the time there's just one turn towards the next destination, and no risk of overshooting anything. Also, in a real scenario, they'd pitch and roll (and perhaps yaw) at the same time, they'd rarely fly at 100%, not even Bob would overshoot every second body - so, the actual time savings would be even less.
So, at best it'd be 15% time saved, but I'd guess in a more realistic setting, it would be 10%, or even less. As such, it's more about the feeling of flying the ship than it is about time saved - unless you're trying to minmax that.
Of course, bear in mind that increased jump ranges don't yield all that much time saved if you're not Buckyballing it, via neutron stars (adds considerably more risk) and lots of boost synthesis (requires much more preparation). Without those, it'd be around 25% less time. (It would be much more with, but how many people explore that way?) Quick run-down on how I got this:
From my route plotter test, heading towards denser areas from the bubble means that at the maximum 20,000 ly distance, where the plotter is the most efficient, your effective jump range will be 95-96% of your full tank jump range, if your ship does over 35 ly. Which is attainable for the majority of ships, with engineering of course, and will get you through any region in the galaxy, with basic boosts needed at some places.
Now, assuming a "leisurely" one minute per jump, at 38 ly effective range (meaning 40 ly full tank, still achievable for most ships), it'll take you 526 minutes to get there, or going with a much more effective 45 seconds per jump, 394.5 minutes. Going with a 50 ly effective range, meaning 52.5 full tank range, which is the domain of a few ships only (and even those would have to be stripped down cardboard builds), it's 400 minutes or 300 minutes. So you lop off a quarter of your travel time with that +12.5 ly full tank range. Compare this with a more extreme difference, 35 ly and 55 ly effective range, it would be 35% less time.
Whether or not that's worth it is a thing that a Commander has to decide for themselves; it depends on what they have to sacrifice for the jump range too.
Of course, there is also the added bonus with a higher jump range that they can get farther out on the extreme edge. For that, and for racing, going with more jump range is a no-brainer - but those are niche usages.
At the end of it all though, the thing is still that the Asp Explorer is the ship where you have to sacrifice probably the least. If you can stomach how it looks, of course, but that's a subjective thing.
Of course, bear in mind that increased jump ranges don't yield all that much time saved if you're not Buckyballing it, via neutron stars (adds considerably more risk) and lots of boost synthesis (requires much more preparation). Without those, it'd be around 25% less time.
I previously ran some real-world jump range checks for Fuel Ratting, as fewer jump = time saved = more chance of client success (and client waiting less). It was also to see if a dedicated rat ship was really much faster than a mission running ship.
We mostly do not use jumponium nor neutrons (not many near bubble), as we're not racing like Buckyballers, just trying to be fast-ish. 45 to 55 seconds per jump is typical, consoles jump 5-10s slower than PCs, longer loading in systems with CMDRs etc.
Comparisons start from Fuelum:
Python (27)
Cobra (34)
Python (40)
DBX (55)
NLTT 48288
5j
4j
4j
3j
Asellus P
6j
5j
4j
3j
Jacksons
7j
5j
5j
4j
Dav's Hope
11j
9j
8j
5j
Maia
18j
14j
12j
9j
California
49j
38j
32j
22j
Interestingly within a couple of hundred Ly there's only 1-2j difference between 34Ly and 55Ly jump range.
With the lower range ships getting progressively worse the further you go. But even out to Dav's you're looking at 3.5 mins difference between the Cobra and the DBX (assuming 50s per jump). Out to the California Nebula it can be double the jumps, and significant time savings (23mins).
It's not subjective perception, but real minutes saved.
Supercruise handling is much the same. Often not noticeable in non-emergency gameplay, but can be critical when the client is on oxygen warnings. Once the beacon appears and it's not where we were expecting, having to turn in supercruise can waste precious seconds.
As a rat that often used a Cobra MK3 (10s SC 360) vs a conda (25s) could mean dropping many seconds before a similar distance rat in a conda.
Supercruise handling can be the difference between a saved client or an explosion.
Thanks many times over Marx. I started looking for this information last night when I decided to go through my fleet evaluating Thrusters for engineering but came up empty handed due to my poor search word(s) choice.
I had a Type-9 as my main ship for over a year (sold now) and I currently have a Conda and Beluga. I primarily do passenger/cargo runs in my Beluga and get interdicted frequently. In the Beluga I've never been pulled from SC since I bought it 6 months ago. In the T-9 and Conda, evading interdictions is a bit more stressful because I can't stay on vector nearly as well. This is why I don't use the Conda as a bulk passenger ship.
The thruster issue is what I was after. Apparently thruster grade and engineering mods don't help at all in SC. Thanks again. GL HF ... and have some rep.
For me, as an explorer, supercruise maneuverability mostly matters during scooping. You pop out of witchspace in front of a star, curve around it to scoop and then continue on pointed at the next system. I always do this the same way: rolling to place the next system *up*, and then pitching around the star and up to align with the next system. I've been flying an Asp for the past 500,000 light years or so, and have had a problem moving into a larger ship because they always feel much more sluggish in supercruise.
I do agree that we should gather data on cool running, too. The Type 10 is sluggish but cool, the Asp X is agile and cool, etc. Lightspeed makes a good point that the heat ability of a ship almost makes more difference, to explorers.
I respectfully disagree(look how many explore in a conda)
I too come out of HS,curve hug the star at 100% throttle for scooping and aligning for next jump.
In a big or sluggish ship I just lower throttle to keep hugging the star whilst scooping. Also not getting destination in front of you after scooping finished(i.e. If you go past or not go round star enough because you're too slow) it doesn't matter as you pull away from star to cool down and start FSD, then you can align with destination as you have many seconds to waste.
For me one of the things that define an exploration ship is fuel scoop size(for speed,otherwise it doesn't matter) , the other is cockpit visibility.
Hence why I don't explore in the DBX or Conda.
I am now doing shakedown tests in the Krait(for exploration) , and I don't mind the cockpit (sorta nice to see some of the ship on the sides)
(and yes I know with cool running ships you can initiate FSD sooner )
Just went to Maia in a combat Krait, albeit with an efficient PP, and every jump was pretty much 48 seconds. I found the supercruise maneuverability to be good enough (for scooping), and the scoop speed and lack of heat was very nice. Combined with the better than average range and nice cockpit etc, probably gonna take one on my next trip.
Does anybody have an Alliance Crusader to test? If so, could you time it? I'm not around any place to buy one. I'd be surprised if it were different than the Chieftain and the Challenger, but you never know until you measure it.
Does anybody have an Alliance Crusader to test? If so, could you time it? I'm not around any place to buy one. I'd be surprised if it were different than the Chieftain and the Challenger, but you never know until you measure it.
Updated with the Krait Phantom and Mamba from the beta. (Will update the missing Alliance Crusader later.) It's about what could be expected: the Mamba's handling is the same as the FdL's, the Krait Phantom's as the Krait's.
So basically, going from an Asp Explorer to a Krait Phantom, you gain a small amount of jump range, one more internal slot, much better looks (although somewhat less cockpit visibility), and you lose a bit on the supercruise handling. Mind you, the ship still handles well enough.
)
