I don't mind the yaw or the sound - perhaps because I don't mind flying a space version of a WW2 prop fighter and Asp kinda flies and sounds like one lol.
Last edited:
Enineered 5A FSD vrs Tech Broker 5A FSD V1
- Thread starter Hooplah
- Start date
Perhaps check your Asp's build on this. Might want to hold back on the ship build suggestions until you have more established in-game ships.
I love my AspX too. BTW my Exploration Cutter can also zip around a star scooping at full speed and be ready on the other side to jump np. Jump range not great. Different ship, different purpose.
I know I can do this, I already did hundreds of times.
Maybe I don't understand your suggestion, please clarify.
I know how my Asp flies and I know why I enjoy flying it.
I know that an A-classed Anaconda pitches like a dead whale (I have one).
Therefore I have valid reason to believe that an Anaconda with 5D thrusters instead of 7A thrusters, like suggested in the thread, should be a dead, beached and fossilized whale when it comes to pitching or maneuverability in general. Am I wrong?
Errr... yeah... I guessI love my AspX too. BTW my Exploration Cutter can also zip around a star scooping at full speed and be ready on the other side to jump np. Jump range not great. Different ship, different purpose.
Your Asp does not have a 6A Fuel scoop you stated. It has non-ideal modules for typical exploration, and is almost G3 engineered. Your Anaconda has essentially no engineering. It is obviously not outfitted for exploring, but even the thrusters don't even have G1 engineering*. Using these ships for comparing to other builds and giving advice is a bit... uh...
Your Asp Ship Build
*Edit, I see you have 7D partially engineered thrusters in strorage. I wouldn't criticize someones's ships but in this case you have been going out of your way to compare ships and give advice. And you posted your ship build. And you posted some odd statements that a semi-experienced traveler/explorer would know better.
Last edited:
How dare you?!
That is a magnificent sound of the irl ASP engine.sigh ok, so your point seems to be "your ships are s**t so you don't know what you're talking about", to which my answer is:
1. my Asp handles well and jumps effectively despite being imperfect
2. my Anaconda (which I bought only recently and I reoutfit almost every day depending on what I need, so whatever you smartpants saw on inara was likely a half-baked, what-I-needed-at-the-moment build), even with 7A G5Dirty drives (tested yesterday) handles like a brick. I have no reason to believe an anaconda with maximized jump range running on 5D thrusters will handle any better; as a matter of fact, all evidence points that it should handle significantly worse.
You're free to participate in my test below to provide me with comparable data.
Test
I re-run the test I previously mentioned, if anyone is willing to participate in letting me figure things out with data, you're very welcome.
| Ship | AspX, 67.5LY Range (full fuel, no cargo) |
| Route | Col 285 Sector TO-P c6-9 -> wregoe zo-y d1-1 |
| distance (straight line) | 1423,5LY |
| jumps | 23 |
| total time (full jumps only) | 18m 42s |
| avg jump time (scooping on every occasion - my fancy) | ~48,8s |
| avg speed when jumping | ~40,01Mc (million lightspeed) |
| total time (first keypress to last arrival) | ~19m 17s |
| jump potential (jumps * range) | 1552,5LY |
| zigzag waste (potential/distance - 1) | 9,06% |
My conclusion:
Unless your 75LY jumprange vessel can achieve metrics significantly better than these (avg speed significantly above 40Mc, zigzag waste way below 9%) then we're essentially even in effectiveness, with my ship having the benefit of actually handling like a ship.
Feel free to post your results if you're willing to spend the time running such a test, I'd love to see what numbers other builds can get.
Recall the rules:
- at least 20 jumps (preferably the same route I did, but I understand it might be too much of a bother)
- no plumes, no jumponium
- scoop as often as you wish, but...
- scoop the last star before destination (so that we're comparing apples to apples, max fuel in and max possible fuel out)
- build (mention exact jump range on full fuel and no cargo)
- route (from - to)
- jump count
- total time taken
- any hints on how you did it (e.g. "scooped only at below 60% fuel")
Last edited:
I decided to participate with DBX for the exact same start and stop points as you.
Mapping with KGB FOAM stars took 23 jumps. The route took me 21m30s (from first jump keypress to last arrival). I scooped on each pass and jumped only after fuel scoop was disengaged. I needed to slow down once to scoop longer time as the fuel was 30% left. I mapped with and with this route each star was scoopable.
Jump range with full fuel tank 70.57ly.
Core equipment:
All A's, but Sensors and Life support D
FSD v1 Deep Charge
Others:
Heat sink launcher
4c Shield generator
4A Fuel scoop
4E Guardian FSD booster
Next planning to put all D to reduce weight and compare the time. With downgrading all but FSD to D and with 3D Shield the jump range is 73.46. With similarly equipped AspX I get 63.41ly jump range.
Edit: Btw, @WreckRoot what is your Asp build? Is it the one linked earlier with core A's?
Last edited:
Thanks for participating
Looking at your post I'm facepalming quite hard, cause I should have clarified how I plotted and how I measured.
It was 3am, I was tired, please don't judge.
When plotting, I used a straight up fastest route possible - I was heading towards wregoe zo-y d1-1 and there just happened to be a 20-something-jump-long stretch of no plumes, so I randomly decided to use it for the experiment. I did ride by a handful of unscoopables though. Perhaps if you used that plotting, you could reduce the number of jumps. My bad for not being specific enough. I will try to replicate your routing when I return to the bubble.
As for the measuring, I agree your way to measure the whole trip makes more sense than how I did it. I was interested in average jump time specifically due to the context of this experiment (my claim was that ships which trade every bit of maneuverability for every possible ounce of range lose a lot of time on scooping and evading stars, so much so that they lose the advantage their range provides). As such, I measured the exact time of each jump "from ENGAGE to ENGAGE" (you know, that moment your automated onboard crybaby counts down 4 3 2 1 ENGAGE), so each measurement consisted of the same set of witchworld+scoop/evade+charge+countdown. This means that to match your route time, I have to add one full jump time without scoop (the charge-up time before first ENGAGE and the witchworld time after last ENGAGE), which is roughly 35 seconds. That means my total time in your metric would be roughly 19min 17s over 23 jumps. Again, my bad for not clarifying the results, I'll update the table.
My build looks like this, inara just updated. The exact range on full fuel is 67.29 (obviously EDSY doesn't understand FSD v1).
You said you managed to drop to 30% fuel at one time - I'm curious as to how? I typically lose no more than 20-30% fuel on regular jumps, it seems to me that Deep Charge is screwing with you in that it burns excessive amounts of fuel for the last few lightyears of range and forces you to scoop for significantly longer (which kinda agrees with my claim). However, it's hard to be sure as you've done quite a few things differently (ship, plotting, FSD experimental, measuring method).
Thanks a bunch for taking up the challenge
I would just switch from the ASP EXP and get the Krait Phantom instead. Same type of cockpit view and jump range, but you get more options with more slots and a good power plant and distribute to boot for using
As far as fuel scooping goes and keeping up with enough fuel scooped between jumps. What I have noticed when going to colonia and back taking the long route not using neutron stars, it's a fine balance between jump range and the size of the fuel scoop you use. No use being able to jump 60ly and only using a small fuel scoop because you'll use more fuel doing those 60ly jumps - than the fuel scoop can keep up with trying to replace the fuel used for such a big jump each time. Generally I'd say install the biggest fuel scoop you can - so you don't end up having to keep stopping too often to refill the fuel tank because it dropped too low, too fast.
I kept having to do that when I went to colonia in my Cobra MKIII, but on the way back I used a Krait MKII with 6a fuel scoop installed and never ended up having to pause once all the way back because it could keep up with a 34ly jump range. So you have to think here... if you're engineering a ship to do massive jumps and going a long trip, is the size of the fuel scoop you use going to be able to keep up with the amount of fuel used on each big jump like that.
As far as fuel scooping goes and keeping up with enough fuel scooped between jumps. What I have noticed when going to colonia and back taking the long route not using neutron stars, it's a fine balance between jump range and the size of the fuel scoop you use. No use being able to jump 60ly and only using a small fuel scoop because you'll use more fuel doing those 60ly jumps - than the fuel scoop can keep up with trying to replace the fuel used for such a big jump each time. Generally I'd say install the biggest fuel scoop you can - so you don't end up having to keep stopping too often to refill the fuel tank because it dropped too low, too fast.
I kept having to do that when I went to colonia in my Cobra MKIII, but on the way back I used a Krait MKII with 6a fuel scoop installed and never ended up having to pause once all the way back because it could keep up with a 34ly jump range. So you have to think here... if you're engineering a ship to do massive jumps and going a long trip, is the size of the fuel scoop you use going to be able to keep up with the amount of fuel used on each big jump like that.
Last edited:
I might experiment with that, thanks
There's more to it than that. Without getting into too much detail, bigger ships automatically consume more fuel and need bigger scoops just to remain on a similar level of efficiency as a smaller vessel.
According to experimentally conjured formula for hyperspace fuel consumption found on wiki which coincides with my personal experience, the fuel usage is increased by:
What this means is that bigger ships with higher-class FSDs will automatically consume more fuel, which pretty much necessitates a higher class fuel scoop just to maintain the same low scooping time that smaller vessels sport. In other words - bigger scoop means jack s**t on a bigger ship unless the scoop is bigger by a huge margin (several classes).
What is also evident from the equation (and what you can observe for yourself) is the fuel usage grows exponentially with distance - jumping 10% further with all other parameters equal means you're going to burn significantly more than 10% extra fuel, which means you're going to waste significantly more than extra 10% time scooping. That's the hidden cost of running Deep Charge experimental.
Whether or not these relationships negate the entire benefit of having a longer jump range in a bigger ship depends on the situation (a longer range may be necessary to reach a star you wouldn't otherwise be able to reach at all), but in most situations from my limited personal experience - it's a very blurry line, definitely not as clear as "more range good".
- ship mass divided by optimal mass (obviously)
- distance (obviously)
- FSD class (!!)
What this means is that bigger ships with higher-class FSDs will automatically consume more fuel, which pretty much necessitates a higher class fuel scoop just to maintain the same low scooping time that smaller vessels sport. In other words - bigger scoop means jack s**t on a bigger ship unless the scoop is bigger by a huge margin (several classes).
What is also evident from the equation (and what you can observe for yourself) is the fuel usage grows exponentially with distance - jumping 10% further with all other parameters equal means you're going to burn significantly more than 10% extra fuel, which means you're going to waste significantly more than extra 10% time scooping. That's the hidden cost of running Deep Charge experimental.
Whether or not these relationships negate the entire benefit of having a longer jump range in a bigger ship depends on the situation (a longer range may be necessary to reach a star you wouldn't otherwise be able to reach at all), but in most situations from my limited personal experience - it's a very blurry line, definitely not as clear as "more range good".
Last edited:
This link is to an old necro thread, but it may help some.
SR o7
forums.frontier.co.uk
SR o7
Mass Manager vs Deep Charge
This will probably come up a lot when 3.0 drops, so here's your guide to which one to pick in order to maximise jump range. To recap: Mass manager: gives you a 4% increase to your optimised mass. This multiplies with any base optimised mass increase you have from the increased range blueprint...
Just finished exploring three more galactic sections with my Asp Exp. Did about 30,000Ly round trip. It gets up to 66% heat level when entering a high-wake jump, making it the hottest ship in my fleet, but that doesn't matter to me because it carries a heat sink launcher on board in case I need to initiate a jump near a star. I think this double-engineered C5 FSD is great for exploration ships, it increased the jump range of my Asp Exp from 63Ly to 68Ly.
Anything below 100% is cold. Smoke at 74% and alerts at 80% and 90% are merely warnings with no real adverse effects.
You will never overheat your exploration ship as long as you hold on to these three rules:
- don't faceplant your ship into the star's exclusion zone
- don't initiate the jump when the star is red
- charge your FSD facing away from the star on full throttle until you actually have to start aligning with destination
With that in mind, the FSD V1's higher heat generation is completely and utterly insignificant, with its worst consistent effect being some smoke in cockpit when a normal long range FSD wouldn't have it. Other than that, v1 is just better.
What I do once I pass the Star you scopped from heading towards your next jump - just watch the temp to fall into the 40's (like 47) and then hit the jump J key. Once you hit the mid 40 degrees temp it won't overheat during the jump warm-up
Fair enough... I see what you mean. An ASP EXP can carry a level 6 fuel scoop but has a lot less mass (fuel usage) than a bigger ship carrying the same size of fuel scoop. So the ASP EXP is going to refill the fuel tank faster. Which means it can do bigger jumps and still manage with a L6 fuel scoop to refill the tank - than lets say a bigger ship could with a lot more mass
That's the point - you don't have to wait for temp to fall into anywhere. You can be at 85% heat for whatever reason. As long as you are going full throttle facing away from the star and the star is not red on the scanner, you will be fine. Just keep going directly away from the star for as long as you can afford and start aligning with the destination only when you have to. That's where having a maneuverable ship helps - I can easily flip my Asp 180 degrees in the last few seconds of hyperspace charging, even on max throttle in supercruise.
For the past month I've been jumping like that in various ships and I've never taken any damage from overheating. I can bet anyone they can't make it any more efficient
(in a comparable ship of course).
Last edited:
There is zero difference in the two. I just bought a guardian FSD V1 and it was weaker than the one I engineered with farseer so I went out there and added the experimental effect "mass manager" now I have two identical FSD's zero differences between them!
My Asp explorer has 71.6 lys jump range. The Dbx a bit more, and the Anaconda is in the 80s. These days it's Asp for the views, but I like the Dbx a lot too.
I always engineer exploring vessels with clean drives and heat management on power plant, so no problems with heat in scooping and landing/taking off. The pre-engineered Fsd is totally worth it, as it adds up about 5 lys to the jump range. Clean drives do make a difference over dirty ones, contrary to forum myths.
The arguments for Pvp are valid though, and I never checked min-maxing this drive for combat vessels. Compared to fully engineering an Fsd drive, unlocking the pre-engineered one isn't too bad. Hopefully we get to see the other classes at brokers at some point!
I always engineer exploring vessels with clean drives and heat management on power plant, so no problems with heat in scooping and landing/taking off. The pre-engineered Fsd is totally worth it, as it adds up about 5 lys to the jump range. Clean drives do make a difference over dirty ones, contrary to forum myths.
The arguments for Pvp are valid though, and I never checked min-maxing this drive for combat vessels. Compared to fully engineering an Fsd drive, unlocking the pre-engineered one isn't too bad. Hopefully we get to see the other classes at brokers at some point!
Thanks for the comparison, Hoopla, The side by side listing of performance stats for the two FSD versions was helpful and not "overblown". The genius part of this pre-engineered FSD is, of course, the simultaneous implementation of two engineering mods where previously only one mod at a time was possible.
As late to the party (typical) however and having just got my pre-engineered 5A FSD at Barry Gateway in Jita Ten last night, I was a little concerned on going to Stored Modules to find that it looked to be a conventionally engineered FSD only. Clicking on modifications, there was no indication of the 2nd faster boot mod being present, solely the increased jump range. On reviewing the performance numbers, however, and comparing to your values, I am relieved to see both 1800+ ton optimized mass AND 2 sec boot time characteristic of the "double-engineered" FSD are present. Other than looking at the performance numbers I don't see a way based on the module name in Outfitting to tell it apart from a conventional G5 5A FSD. Please correct me if I'm missing something there.
FWIW - I'm using this pre-engineered FSD (with Mass Mgr. effect + Guardian FSD booster) in a Python to realize a minimum 50+ LY jump range. It ain't 70+ LY but then it's not a stripped-to-the-bone build, either. Does have 32T cargo capacity, a couple of AFMUs, 32T fuel tank, 4A shields and a very capable 6B fuel scoop...not to mention 2 Burst Lasers and 3 Multi-cannons (we sleep better at night.... ;-).
As late to the party (typical) however and having just got my pre-engineered 5A FSD at Barry Gateway in Jita Ten last night, I was a little concerned on going to Stored Modules to find that it looked to be a conventionally engineered FSD only. Clicking on modifications, there was no indication of the 2nd faster boot mod being present, solely the increased jump range. On reviewing the performance numbers, however, and comparing to your values, I am relieved to see both 1800+ ton optimized mass AND 2 sec boot time characteristic of the "double-engineered" FSD are present. Other than looking at the performance numbers I don't see a way based on the module name in Outfitting to tell it apart from a conventional G5 5A FSD. Please correct me if I'm missing something there.
FWIW - I'm using this pre-engineered FSD (with Mass Mgr. effect + Guardian FSD booster) in a Python to realize a minimum 50+ LY jump range. It ain't 70+ LY but then it's not a stripped-to-the-bone build, either. Does have 32T cargo capacity, a couple of AFMUs, 32T fuel tank, 4A shields and a very capable 6B fuel scoop...not to mention 2 Burst Lasers and 3 Multi-cannons (we sleep better at night.... ;-).