If so mine's likely getting sold because it's then just objectively worse than a standard 5A G5 LRMM FSD.
About that double-engineered FSD reward for the CG...
- Thread starter marx
- Start date
it will be nice in an exploration ship. the +20% heat wont be really a problem.
the 2s boot time will prove a decisive advantage for neutron jumping... no repairs needed anymore.
Who cares if FSD fails to jump when it reboots in 2s and the next jump attempt will most likely succeed ?
Deleted member 38366
D
That sounds like suicide. Don't confuse Reboot (turned off/on due to AFMU Repairs or a FSD Disrupt hit) with a malfunctioning FSD due to low integrity.
You'd end up hitting that FSD button many times before it works once - which it eventually would cease to do.
Plus, you'd run severe risk of dropping out of SC inside of a Neutron Cone after FSD Integrity drops below 80%.
Then it's game over for most folks that have never flown some Neutron Egress Training.
Interesting indeed. My guess : the stats modifiers of the CG double engineered modules are simply hand picked by Fdev, they are not calculated with formulas like "max(grade 5 ABC, grade 5 XYZ)". The FSD will have a set of values which make sense without breaking the balance (i.e. no god-ranged DBX). Why would they want to balance an aspect (mining payout next week then combat etc...) and break another at the same time ? How many tons of painite shall we bet on that ?
<delete>
I think you might be underestimating how much more accessible a 75% threshold would have been, it would have been far more achievable for a lot of people and most likely left the CG going for a reasonable amount of time for people that wanted to try and hit 75% actually hit it.
I don't mind have CGs with high thresholds for rewards - but make them rewards that can be achieved by the normal gameplay loop or purely cosmetic. People have already stated they participate for high positions in CGs purely for bragging rights and I think that's great.
Well, i did the Colonia Race organized by CMRD Exigeous some months ago (twice on console) and in the second run I never repaired the FSD.
Each FSD failure was nothing more than e reboot - never a drop off supercruise.
But i did avoided Charging the fsd inside the cone, tho i have no idea if it actually made a difference.
Why are the Devs this stupid? -__-
So it looks like its optimized mass without an experimental (1785) is greater than Increased Range grade 5 with mass manager (1693). Wonder what that’ll do to jump range.
Provided experimentals work, one could increase the jump range further still or use thermal spread to cut the heat increase in half.
Provided experimentals work, one could increase the jump range further still or use thermal spread to cut the heat increase in half.
Last edited:
edit = never mind
How did you modify the optimal mass on there? And what does it come out to with the mass of the FSD itself seen above?
There is an option to manually enter values after selecting an initial Modification. I bumped it to 1785 Optimal mass, 26T, then added Mass Manager.
Oh, glad that i was wrong.
So my Asp-X will get about 5.5Ly more range
Not bad, not bad at all
What? Open Letter time.
I worked my arx to get Top10% in trade CG then i worked even harder to get into Top25% for AX CG
Same boat here but I'm not too upset. It's pretty broken just having the one available. I think I can manage the inconvenience of swapping modules between ships if I really want that little extra.
Is it plausible that only the Trade CG one has been issued?
I just jumped on to check, having only done top 10% in the AX CG, and it's not there.
Off to add the experimental effect on the Size 5 drive now lol...
