I'm thinking I'll buy one now and pre-engineer it before Beyond hits.
Last edited:
When to purchase the T9?
- Thread starter Mrat13
- Start date
My biggest (most expensive) ship is a Python, so yes, it'd be an 'upgrade' in it's cargo capacity. That's sort of the point anyway so I can carry more in CGs and it'll probably be easier to do wing cargo missions when they come out.
I suppose you are right in your logic though, I can make any money for other projects using the T9 now rather than later. I should probably just be honest and admit I'm looking at getting a cheiftan too. And as I stated in my original post, who knows when 3.0 will go live? I can always get that money back by then.
But weirdly, I'm still unsure.....
Chieftain is crazy cheap. Unless they change the pricing, she'll be cheaper to equip than FAS. You can easily make that kind of money in just a couple of hours in T9. Even the old one.
Just to muddy the waters further...
The only thing to bear in mind, there, is to avoid fitting/engineering any modules that are currently only borderline-suitable.
If, for example, you decided to fit the smallest possible thrusters, FSD or shield generator, and then make the effort to get them modded, you might find that'll be a waste of time if the buffed T9 (fully loaded with cargo) has extra mass and makes those components useless.
Course, you'd have to be nuts to try and fly a T9 with barely-functional components like that. It's already slow enough even with the best possible components.
Long as you fit decent spec' core-components you should be fine.
Might be worth holding off on getting a shield engineered until after the buff though, just in case your chosen shield turns out to be too small for the buffed T9.
Obviously, you can always sell the redundant module for the same price you paid but you'll have wasted time and effort engineering modules if you need to upgrade them after the buff.
Last edited:
By pre-engineering I really mean 1 G5 roll on modules to avoid the G1-G4 waste that is coming.
I often buy the max size available and the smaller classes below that fit and store them at the relevant engineer anyway, so it'll save some time and materials to have them ready.
I think given its role, the T9 isn't as much of a candidate for the extreme engineering approach of trying to shave off every last ton by going down two or three classes and then overpowering them to work. The chances are I'll have those modules available from smaller ships anyway, so I can try them out.
To be fair, the T9 does respond pretty well to engineering - sometimes, at least.
I just built a T9 miner from scratch and the benefits of DD5s, light-weight sensors and life-support, as well as the obvious long-range 5 for the FSD (and swapping the C6 fuel-tank for a C5) were quite pleasing.
Course, a T9 miner isn't actually that heavy.
If you're using one to haul 650t of cargo, the benefits of shedding 32t of fuel and 10t of weight from the sensors/life-support probably isn't going to be as noticeable.
To be fair, the T9 does respond pretty well to engineering - sometimes, at least.
I just built a T9 miner from scratch and the benefits of DD5s, light-weight sensors and life-support, as well as the obvious long-range 5 for the FSD (and swapping the C6 fuel-tank for a C5) were quite pleasing.
Course, a T9 miner isn't actually that heavy.
If you're using one to haul 650t of cargo, the benefits of shedding 32t of fuel and 10t of weight from the sensors/life-support probably isn't going to be as noticeable.
The main purpose for my T9 will be to support the long range requirements of the Station Repairs, so weight may be a small factor, but compared to 750T+ of cargo, not a big one but it may still make a difference.
I think the big fuel tank might be enough to get to the Pleiades without a scoop, so that will need a look as an alternate option.
I do find it jarring whenever I go back to a ship without engineered thrusters so that will definitely happen.
Wouldn't a Conda be better for those deliveries? Considering the jump range.
We are spending crazy amounts of time in our cockpits. Unless you're some crazy min-maxer, you don't fly what's best for the job. You fly what you best enjoy that will do the job decently.
We are spending crazy amounts of time in our cockpits. Unless you're some crazy min-maxer, you don't fly what's best for the job. You fly what you best enjoy that will do the job decently.
So that explains why the T10 is so popular.....
The Conda jump range is quite weight sensitive - forget about these explorer ranges you hear about with 400T of cargo on board.
Mine is getting 25LY fully loaded with a G5 FSD for the current CG.
And you definitely need a Fuel Scoop to get the Pleiades in a Conda, so that brings the available cargo down again.
I'll have to weigh up how close to that a T9 can get to see if the extra cargo justifies it.
Do you feel it differently? Personally I would never spend ten minutes in a ship I don't enjoy just because it does something slightly better than my favourite ship.
I don't know by how much, but I think I can say with certainty the Conda can jump further than a T9 when both are fully loaded. Sure, a T9 would carry more, but you'll be jumping more per run. Then again, a T9 gives you less runs so you may be on to something. But I think it comes down to player preference. For instance, in between runs you can take breaks, so you get more breaks with the Annie due to taking less time to get there, and by doing more runs, and I'm the type of player that takes quick breaks when I get the chance to well, break up the process. But if you can survive on less breaks, fantastic. If you don't mind more jumps, fantastic.
I'll let you be the judge on how you want to fly, my insight is just from my perspective.
Do you feel it differently? Personally I would never spend ten minutes in a ship I don't enjoy just because it does something slightly better than my favourite ship.
I enjoy a ship that is efficient. Being in a ship less efficient than another for a task makes me feel cheated somehow. I guess that's what you would call a "min-maxer".
I'm not saying I have any problems with people who don't take the most efficient path, but it does bug me when people don't admit that it is less efficient, and pretend something is better than it is. It is okay to like flaws, but pretending said flaws don't exist, is pure fantasy.
I freely and happily acknowledge the flaws of all my favourite ships. Love them all the more for them, actually. My top five ships are Courier, Keelback, Clipper, T9 and Beluga. So you see my judgement itself is flawed, but they have one thing in common. They are incredibly satisfying to fly.
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
It will immediately increase your earning potential so the longer you wait, the less you can earn.
Of course if you crash or get blown up a lot...
Of course if you crash or get blown up a lot...
That's the issue, isn't it? The big ship can ruin you just as easily as it can make you rich.
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
That's the issue, isn't it? The big ship can ruin you just as easily as it can make you rich.
Be careful what you wish for!
I think I had an npc appear under my Cutter while landing, a few weeks ago.
Is that still a thing?
That was a unexpected little expense!
That's the thing that puts me off a Cutter actually. Obviously I don't have the cash atm to buy one, and would likely need the cash cow to make said money, but if I did, I might still be put off by the rebuy costs. Especially with how soon the Cutter may be pretty redundant due to the new T9, giving only relatively minor advantages for the price.
But then again, I would like an Imp flagship of some kind, so maybe for once style would win over form, but that's a long way off so I should probably put it to one side for now.
Buy it now, engineer it up to G5, then rework it in 3.0 so you can start your upgrades at G4, instead of having to suffer through G1-G5 for every single module.