Ships Smallest Ship Landing Footprint

Greasetrap42

Greasetrap42
I am curious if there is an advantage of one ship over another for landing in challenging terrain.

I realize ships have different dimensions, but does the game allow a Sidewinder, Eagle, and DBX all fit into the same small landing spot in challenging terrain? Do they use the same sized box for landing or is the required landing footprint actually different based on a different sized box around each ship?

Edit: Obviously I am talking about within a size class.
 
Last edited:

Codger

Codger
I don't know the answer to your question, but the DBX is very easy to land almost anywhere, which is one reason I use it for Exobiology most of the time.

But I haven't actually tested the Sidewinder or Eagle because...why would I?

You'll have to test it and let us know. For science!
 

Northpin

Northpin
Greasetrap42 said:
I am curious if there is an advantage of one ship over another for landing in challenging terrain.

I realize ships have different dimensions, but does the game allow a Sidewinder, Eagle, and DBX all fit into the same small landing spot in challenging terrain? Do they use the same sized box for landing or is the required landing footprint actually different based on a different sized box around each ship?

Edit: Obviously I am talking about within a size class.
Click to expand...

Type-6 is also very easy to land (and Keelback fwiw)
It has a quite similar ground footprint with the DBX

But yea, generally speaking the smaller the ship, easier to land (as in easier to find a landing spot)
 

Alec Turner

Alec Turner
Generally I'd vote for the DBX because not only is it possible to land most places (including mountain tops) but it can also carry a couple of SRV's, plus shields/scoop/DSS, with an awesome jump range to get you to the places you want to go. If those other things aren't important tho I tend go Eagle. In the Elite Racer SRV championships a couple of years ago we had a rule that to repair mid-race (long cross country endurance rally's) you had to recall your ship and make a "pit stop" (repairing in the ship). Invariably I'd need repairs while half way down a narrow canyon and the Eagle always seemed to be able to get to me.
 

Greasetrap42

Greasetrap42
Codger said:
You'll have to test it and let us know. For science!
Click to expand...
For Science!

Location:
  • Wolf 369 2
  • Unique mountain peak to the side of Ponce De Leon Enterprise

Conclusion:
  • Each small ship has a unique footprint for landing. Size does matter.
  • The blue dot is not a generic size. Its different for each ship.

1. Sidewinder - Crazy easy to land on this specific mountain peak. Lots of options on where to set down.
1-Sidewinder.png


2. Eagle - Easy, but had to search a little for blue dot.
2-Eagle.png


3. Adder - Nope. No blue dot. Hunted around, rotated, could not land.
3-Adder.png


4. DBX - Nope. Not a chance. No blue dot anywhere. Hunted around, rotated. Nope, not possible.
4-DBX.png


5. T6 Transport - Nope. Similar to DBX, not a chance. Hunted around, just not possible.
5-T6.png
 

HRDiagram

HRDiagram
Surprised not to see the Hauler mentioned here. When I was doing exobiology I did some research and, if I remember correctly, the Hauler has the second smallest footprint and enough module capacity to be a decent explorer (which sideys, eagles and vipers lacked).

I loved every minute spent in my explhauler, landing everywhere I wanted, looking for the elusive Fungoida.
 

Teiri

Teiri
Just to add some, as a happy Sidewinder owner... Back in a while i rly wanted to make up a reason to get myself one, as my first has been mistakenly sold, and i wanted to correct that. That's right, Hauler is second smalest, but at what extent?

14.9m x 21.3m x 5.4m Sidewinder,
28.6m x 26.2m x 10.4m Hauler,
Then DBX and Cobra already over 40m, one wide, one long (that is if i hope that wiki dimensions are accurate). Both Vipers in fact are very interesting too, they're more square shaped than others (either wide, either long) and are lower than 30m every dimension. Anyway, after writing down all the ships dimensions, i thought that the reason is right here.

Smallest, by far, so easiest to land anywhere for plants. And since a couple of months of salad hunting, what can i say (as an alternative i used DBX, no xp with bio hunting Viper, which looks as a great candidate + a lot of versatility + a bit of size - 29.9m x 24.7m x 8.7m for 4 and 3 is just a little smaller).

  • Feeling very tight, but view is good, very maneuverable, can also be made quite fast.
  • Needs a fuel tank, you won't have enough fuel to scan a number of planets likely, and you don't rly want to supercruise or jump to the star to refuel, hence only 5 slots.
  • Apparently a DSS is needed, and a Fuel Scoop, so 3 slots left.
  • Yeah, it's very easy to land, but no, not crazy easy. I can confirm, that on a mountain peak or in a comparable area it's much better than DBX (twice smaller). But i thought it'd be a schuttle that i can land anywhere and anytime. No, sometimes you just can not find a spot in the mountains, and i accepted in the end that i need an SRV, 2 slots.
  • A shield preferably, and then a FSD booster to make all this weight in such a tiny machine jump some.

So no real flexibility with modules, even to compare with Hauler, which will jump twice better. But still a wonderful tool. In my version - only carrier based due to a very limited autonomy.
 
Last edited:

Greasetrap42

Greasetrap42
Yes, the Viper Mk IV is an excellent choice for challenging landing locations.
  • Smaller than the Eagle, comparable size to the Hauler.
  • IMO much superior to the Hauler.
  • Lots of module slots.
  • Good standard fuel tank.
  • Great jump range (mine is 37Ly for engineered but not min/maxed ship)
  • Handles really good.

Ship Stats.png

Edit: Added ships to the chart for size reference.


And it lands on my test mountain okay.

6-Viper MkIV.png
 
Last edited:

varonica

varonica
Of course when discussing ships for exo you can't separate the cockpit view from the landing ease, for instance I would never use the Cobra 3 for exo, you want the easier ship to land, with the best cockpit view, and in my opinion that removes a lot of the smaller ships from the equation.
 

Lukozer

Lukozer
Another vote for the Viper Mk.4. I've been using it as my regular planetside dropship for over a year, for all the reasons already mentions. FWIW, this is the loadout I use... https://s.orbis.zone/kzlr
I really should ditch one of the shield reinforcements for some cargo space, I've long since lost count of the number of times I've had to leave decent salvage behind.
 

CMDR Prophet Sakrestia

CMDR Prophet Sakrestia
I intend to use my dolphin for exobiology, which I also use for exploration.

Small ship, 9 internals as the Krait Phantom, 64ly range fully engineered (alas no 4A FSD V1), great premium cockpit, insane manoeuvrability both in Supercruise and on planet, fast 533m/s, with all the stuff you need. And it never overheats, you can charge your FSD while fuel scooping right under a star!


As a Dropship I use Vulture, the glass below your feet is very good for planetary landings (especially in VR) and the two class 3 dumbfire missiles wreak avock on the ground before I deploy my scorpion.
 
Last edited:

Greasetrap42

Greasetrap42
Ok, I revisited my test because the results did not make sense:

Ship Landing Test.png


Note that the Eagle and Adder have very similar dimensions, and the Hauler is smaller.

So I did the same test over and over again at the same location.

Results:
Eagle - Fairly easy to land. Lots of opportunities in various positions. No problem.
Viper 4 - Pretty easy. Roughly the same as the Eagle.
Hauler - Okay to land but noticeably more difficult. Each attempt takes some effort.
Adder - Crazy tough. After much effort & bumping around I succeeded in landing it twice. Not fun.

Conclusion:
There is more involved in a succesful landing site than basic ship dimensions. Perhaps ship shape, placement of landing gear, or height off the ground.
 

Northpin

Northpin
Vardaugas said:
Another vote for the Viper IV. It not only can land anywhere, it also has front access. Just drop down in front of what you want to scan and you are right there.
Click to expand...

haha, funny.

I pretty much prefer ships that have a back entrance. Mostly to keep the consistency to the SRV disembark
So i always make sure i touch down after and not ahead of my target :)

It's the main reason i use a DBX and not a Viper, Eagle or C3.
The back entrance is also providing the lowest hangar run for Starports and Planetary Ports since those have the hangar exit in the back instead of the side as in Orbital Outposts (where both front and back entrances are as fast in terms of hangar run distance)
 

wolfhelius

W
Greasetrap42 said:
Ok, I revisited my test because the results did not make sense:

View attachment 333543

Note that the Eagle and Adder have very similar dimensions, and the Hauler is smaller.

So I did the same test over and over again at the same location.

Results:
Eagle - Fairly easy to land. Lots of opportunities in various positions. No problem.
Viper 4 - Pretty easy. Roughly the same as the Eagle.
Hauler - Okay to land but noticeably more difficult. Each attempt takes some effort.
Adder - Crazy tough. After much effort & bumping around I succeeded in landing it twice. Not fun.

Conclusion:
There is more involved in a succesful landing site than basic ship dimensions. Perhaps ship shape, placement of landing gear, or height off the ground.
Click to expand...
The landing footprint of the eagles and courrier are much smaller than the ships’ dimensions. The wings basically don’t count. That is why the eagle and courrier land just as well as a sidewinder.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom