A lot of my ships are engineered, but I never got round to the Beluga for some reason. I’m currently on a material grind, and I’m looking to max out all of my material storage before I start engineering again (god help me). I’ll slap some cooling on the Beluga and hope for the best!
Ships Top 10 Exploration ships!
- Thread starter KathyMiller
- Start date
I think you'll be pleased with the results.
If I could, a word of advice...don't max out your storage. You'll never need it all and the grind will become real. Just work on one thing at a time and take your time. Visit the engineer, see what you need and hunt for those, picking up whatever else along the way. With the exception of materials gathered in High Grade Emission signal sources, everything else just sort of accrues naturally over time.
That's what went through my head when Odyssey dropped. I was in the black with my AspX, and I spent the last 30k ly towards the bubble fantasising about a ship that could land where I can sample Fungoida and other plants that love craggy terrains without spending hours looking for a parking space!
And that's what led me to the Hauler.
Mine has G5 Armoured Plant with Thermal Spread and Clean tuning G1 with Thermal on 7D thrusters, no issues with scooping or lifting off from HiGs.
I never downgrade modules, im not bothered about jump range so anything over 50LYs is fine for me.
Fully fitted out with all the gubbins and the view is amazing.
O7
@KathyMiller : it's a good article, nice presentation with some good screenshots. For the content, in my opinion it's missing any mention of other factors that are important for long-term space exploration, such as supercruise handling, fuel scooping rates, heat characteristics, or factors that are important for exobiology, such as landing size, speed and thrusters, cockpit visibility.
But then , if planetary flight and exobiology are included, the top ten changes dramatically. Enough that I think two separate lists for "Top 10 Space Exploration Ships" and "Top 10 Planetary Exploration Ships" might be better. For example, while the top three for space are pretty much the Anaconda, Diamondback Explorer, Asp Explorer & Krait Phantom (they are pretty much the same, the latter is just slightly better and costs much more), the top three for exobio are the Diamondback Explorer, the Imperial Courier and the Dolphin. (I wouldn't even put the Anaconda in the top ten for exobio.)
I wouldn't put such an emphasis on price either: the ship prices were for the game at launch, and credit rewards have inflated extraordinarily since then, and pretty much any activity allows players to move above the cheap ships rapidly. (Without resorting to "advanced" credit farming techniques, too.) Even exploration, which has always paid terribly, the original prices for an undiscovered ELW were around 70k Cr, and now with Odyssey, it's 4.2M Cr; sixty times higher. So, price quickly becomes no concern, unless a player wants to jump into a Krait Phantom after two hours of playing.
the only ship that can't reach 40 ly is the Sidewinder every ship can reach that, although the Sidewinder only if it doesn't fit an SRV bay.
Edit: corrected that last bit on the Sidey
But then , if planetary flight and exobiology are included, the top ten changes dramatically. Enough that I think two separate lists for "Top 10 Space Exploration Ships" and "Top 10 Planetary Exploration Ships" might be better. For example, while the top three for space are pretty much the Anaconda, Diamondback Explorer, Asp Explorer & Krait Phantom (they are pretty much the same, the latter is just slightly better and costs much more), the top three for exobio are the Diamondback Explorer, the Imperial Courier and the Dolphin. (I wouldn't even put the Anaconda in the top ten for exobio.)
I wouldn't put such an emphasis on price either: the ship prices were for the game at launch, and credit rewards have inflated extraordinarily since then, and pretty much any activity allows players to move above the cheap ships rapidly. (Without resorting to "advanced" credit farming techniques, too.) Even exploration, which has always paid terribly, the original prices for an undiscovered ELW were around 70k Cr, and now with Odyssey, it's 4.2M Cr; sixty times higher. So, price quickly becomes no concern, unless a player wants to jump into a Krait Phantom after two hours of playing.
Before Horizons, the highest jump range (on a full stock tank) was barely 40 ly on an Anaconda on a cardboard build, stripped to the bone. An Asp Explorer would do around 35 ly, same for a DBX once it was introduced, and everything else was significantly less than these. (See a timeline of how the Asp's jump range has changed through various game versions here.) So basically, 40 ly was extremely long because only one ship could achieve it, and even then you had to strip it to the bone: today,
Edit: corrected that last bit on the Sidey
Last edited:
With a size 2 gFSD booster a stripped down Sidewinder can actually hit about 42 LY (just mind your scooping since it has exactly enough fuel for two jumps). The most limited ship, I think, is the Federal Dropship, which tops out closer to 40.5 LY. Thanks to the guardian booster and G5 FSDs every ship can exceed 40 LY.
I was going to say just this. I took a 41ly Sidewinder on the SW2 Expedition.
Oh, you're right, I was looking at including an SRV bay on the Sidewinder, but if you replace that with a class 2 FSD booster, yep, it can go over 40 ly. With Odyssey, the SRV isn't really needed anyway, all you lose is the ability to easily gather jump mats on the surface on your own.
With a double-engineered FSD, the Federal Derpship can comfortably go 44 ly, with all the bells and whistles. (So not a shieldless, SRV-less build.) I'd be hesitant to include the other double-engineered FSD classes which can't be purchased yet, but the class 5 for the FDS can be.
With FCs all over the galaxy, the route to Colonia strengthened and the DSS array, space is definitely a lot safer.
Much as I love the Anaconda which has no equal in some roles, I can't face long exploration trips in it due to the slow turn rate in supercruise.
At the other end of the scale, the DBX is such a charismatic little ship that can land on rough ground. My bubble bus and materials gatherer.
The ASPX has that great cockpit view, is almost as easy as the DBX to land, but I can't get 2 SRVs, AFMU, repair limpet controller plus cargo rack and the essential to me supercruise module in it. And the shields barely exist they are so weak.
The Krait Phantom hits the sweet spot for me and I've covered around 200,000ly in it, mostly between the bubble, Sag A* and Colonia. It carries everything I want, has 662MJ shields (survives flying into the surface of 6G planets and gankers) and runs off a grade 1 low emissions thermal spread 3A power plant. Runs at 18% heat, so it's practically a stealth ship. It's supercruise turn rate isn't behind the ASPX and DBX by much, but it can be a bit fussy about just the right landing spot.
The other contender for me is the Orca. Gets a bit hot scooping and the jump range is a bit behind the others, but is sounds great on thrusters and is super stylish. I do long distance passenger missions in it occasionally out of Colonia, plus sight seeing missions inside the Colonia region bubble.
At the other end of the scale, the DBX is such a charismatic little ship that can land on rough ground. My bubble bus and materials gatherer.
The ASPX has that great cockpit view, is almost as easy as the DBX to land, but I can't get 2 SRVs, AFMU, repair limpet controller plus cargo rack and the essential to me supercruise module in it. And the shields barely exist they are so weak.
The Krait Phantom hits the sweet spot for me and I've covered around 200,000ly in it, mostly between the bubble, Sag A* and Colonia. It carries everything I want, has 662MJ shields (survives flying into the surface of 6G planets and gankers) and runs off a grade 1 low emissions thermal spread 3A power plant. Runs at 18% heat, so it's practically a stealth ship. It's supercruise turn rate isn't behind the ASPX and DBX by much, but it can be a bit fussy about just the right landing spot.
The other contender for me is the Orca. Gets a bit hot scooping and the jump range is a bit behind the others, but is sounds great on thrusters and is super stylish. I do long distance passenger missions in it occasionally out of Colonia, plus sight seeing missions inside the Colonia region bubble.
I am currently on a photographic mission of guardian ruins, structures, and beacons. I am utilizing a T-6, Annaconda, and python.
Happy with all 3 ships. Good article , by the way.
Happy with all 3 ships. Good article , by the way.
U know the krait phantom literally made the aspx obsolete. It has higher jump, better internals, is significantly faster similar handling. Why people still use aspx evades me.
similar handling?
Nope. AspX has better Supercruise maneuverability and better unrestricted view from the cockpit
Hardly better supercruise handling, real space handling (comparatively to krait) and a slightly better view (u take screenshots in 3rd person anyway) does not make up for it still being objectively worse than phantom.
Dunno, this is a pretty good view, pair it with phantom's other advantages and u get a much better overall ship.
Attachments
Between 33% and 56% better supercruise maneuverability means way more than Hardly better.
And for exploration, supercruise is where people spend most of their time.
Who cares about screenshots? I'm talking about flying the ship.
And the view from the AxpX is so much better and unrestricted.
I dont deny Phantom's benefits - better internals, slightly better jump, better brakes* - but then again i dont deny the benefits AxpX has over the Phantom either.
It's what makes people chose one ship or another and it's a good thing that we have real choices
*(better maneuverability and/or better speed in normal space is not really important for an explorer, but brakes are and AspX has really weak brakes - still manageable if one is aware of that and does not boost towards the surface from 6km altitude)
Ah the old ASPX Vs Phantom debate.
I started a second commander a few weeks ago who won't do a lot of exploration. I've done to 5000ly trip for prof Palin, that's about it. I used an ASP X for the first time since May last year. I think FDev might have made the WWI aircraft engine sound more subtle. I hated the ASP X last year because of this, not so bad now. I enjoyed by 5000ly each way trip in the ASP X. It is a bit easier to land than the Phantom and it's supercruise turn rate is a bit better.
My main commander has done Sag A*, Colonia and going back and forth between them a few times before returning to the bubble in a Phantom. It's still my favourite for exploration, I'm not hung up on cockpit view - both ships are good and there is that unlimited supply of drone cameras through which to enjoy the view.
The Phantom has far stronger shields for survivability, can carry 2 SRVs, has room for supercruise assist for QoL and repair limpets (never used!) plus AFMU at the same time as having over a light year better jump range than the ASP X. Not that 1ly is significant for exploration or sprinting 1000s of light years.
The ASP X looks more like an exploration ship to my eye. The Phantom looks like a racer ccopted into the role of exploration ship.
I like them both now the ASP X thruster sound is less annoying to my ear, but I'd still take the Phantom for long distance trips.
I started a second commander a few weeks ago who won't do a lot of exploration. I've done to 5000ly trip for prof Palin, that's about it. I used an ASP X for the first time since May last year. I think FDev might have made the WWI aircraft engine sound more subtle. I hated the ASP X last year because of this, not so bad now. I enjoyed by 5000ly each way trip in the ASP X. It is a bit easier to land than the Phantom and it's supercruise turn rate is a bit better.
My main commander has done Sag A*, Colonia and going back and forth between them a few times before returning to the bubble in a Phantom. It's still my favourite for exploration, I'm not hung up on cockpit view - both ships are good and there is that unlimited supply of drone cameras through which to enjoy the view.
The Phantom has far stronger shields for survivability, can carry 2 SRVs, has room for supercruise assist for QoL and repair limpets (never used!) plus AFMU at the same time as having over a light year better jump range than the ASP X. Not that 1ly is significant for exploration or sprinting 1000s of light years.
The ASP X looks more like an exploration ship to my eye. The Phantom looks like a racer ccopted into the role of exploration ship.
I like them both now the ASP X thruster sound is less annoying to my ear, but I'd still take the Phantom for long distance trips.
I like both ships too, but i do have a slight bias towards the AspX
Weird enough - i dont really mind the engine sound made by the AspX and i definitely dont mind the Phantom's engine sound.
But i sort of dislike the Phantom's boost sound. And the fact that Phantom can boost a lot, does not help with my dislike
And good point about the shields, i completely forgot to mention that in my previous post - but yes, AspX has pathetic shields which coupled to the incredible weak brakes means a lot of disasters for Explorers
Supercruise handling really aint super important after u get past the star as its mostly straight line flying and the only "handling" is on planetary approach which you have lots of time to line up for. As someone who used both i can say that krait phantom's cockpit view is MORE than adequate, if you group explore like in odyssey ur friend is behind you not shoved in the basement like aspx, the extra internals are real nice for QOL and the brakes are much nicer as stopping near a planet is easier. Real space handling IS inportant on exploring especially if flying near a planet. Phantom can also run a bit colder IIRC. Screenshots are very inportant for exploring. Documenting your journey, u want a good looking ship. Krait phantom and DBX are good looking ships aspx is not. So i leave here with the point of krait phantom basically made aspx obsolete and redundant.