AFM vs Hull repair

[Makroshlyta]

Why a explorer prefer to carry 2 AFMs and no hull repair drones... if a reboot can put systems back to work... but can't recover hull from acidental crashs/neutron jumps?

To jump way further when you just want the next star?

 

[Ozric]

I've never understood the need to take 2 AFMUs.

I've done almost 190,000Ly in one go without docking mostly using the Neutron Belts to move around and my one AFMU never got close to losing all if it's health, especially if you get a class B one. I personally don't take a repair limpet controller in my Asp because there's not enough room for it But if you were using a ship with enough internals I would definitely take Class 3 or above one instead of a second AFMU.

 

[Rat Catcher]

AFMU has no weight...
Limpet controller does...

Explorers tend to make their ships from tissue paper and have the weight of a handful of feathers. Wasting weight on a controller and limpets reduces their maximum jump range by fractions of a LY - I don't think repair limpet controllers can be G5 engineered for lightweight...

 

[Ian Doncaster]

Even if your AFMU did itself get to 0% integrity somehow, a reboot/repair would generally fix it enough to let it rebuild your other systems, so in that sense you only need one.

On the other hand:
- hull repair limpets can be delivered from another friendly ship; AFMU function can't, and is more likely to be needed. You also need to potentially give up two internals (controller, small cargo hold) for hull repair. So if you only have two spare internals for repair tools, two AFMUs is probably better than limpets+controller and no AFMUs. If you had three spare internals, then sure, AFMU+cargo rack+controller is the more flexible option.
- AFMUs have the nice combination of: inexplicably massless, potentially not completely useless in deep space, can take damage. So that means that AFMU+AFMU is better than AFMU+empty (so long as you keep them powered down when not in use, of course) because the second AFMU can be an extra sink for module damage that might otherwise hit something important.

 

[varonica]

Never carry one, nor hull repair limpets, never really needed them!

 

[angusmadmac1]

Afmu 1 is normally the biggest and is used to repair everything , Afmu 2 is normally smaller and is used to repair Afmu 1 . I carry normally 1 afmu and a repair limpet controller and a cargo on my explorer dolphin due to space. But I am also known to crash into stars and planets and stuff when I canyon run in said dolphin ( 500+boost)

 

[LifesAJourney]

- The speed of AFMU operations stack, which means two or three can repair modules two or three times faster. If an explorer, say, uses neutron boosting a lot, and thus repairs their FSD often, it's a noticeable gain in repair times.

BTW, I always carry repair limpet controller with me. I tend to bump the stars and planets.

 

[GroG79]

Old habits are hard to kick

So people used to take 2 afmu's cause reasons. Mostly feeling the need to have all modules in 100%. Also cause.. Empty slot... Fit afmu.
Similar that some cmdrs insist on bringing a mining laser. Because ones long time ago somewhere far far away a cmdr was stuck and he 'mined' jumponium.
There also was a time that repair limpets did not exsist.. So cmdrs got used to that and fly without <100% hull and have no worries.

 

[Morbad]

It is definitely possible to damage a ship badly enough that reboot/repair cannot function. This usually means that the AFMUs are also destroyed, but not always. Reboot/repair can also cannibalize the PP, which is the one thing that an AFMU cannot repair, and thus the ultimate limiting factor for ship endurance.

Most people who aren't idiots could survive for years between dockings with just a single AFMU, but as there are generally no downsides to taking another, why not.

 

[SlickPBW]

All the right answers are already here. Another minor advantage of adding a second AFMU is that it adds to the overall integrity of your ship so overall it can withstand more damage when you make a mistake, and another module that can take damage which makes it slightly less likely that your power plant will take the damage.

I carry 2 6A afmu’s on my long range jumpaconda and have taken it to Beagle Point twice using many neutron boosts without needing to synthesize more afmu “ammo”

In the end your limiting component is the power plant which cannot be repaired without docking at a station.

Careful exploration can easily be carried long term without afmu’s, but if you like getting places faster like me using neutron boosts, you are going to want at least one afmu.

Edit: and B rated afmu’s have the most “ammo” but I like A rated for the repair speed

 

[Northpin]

Second afmu is better than an empty internal.

Also, hull damage?
Fit some shields - preferably strong enough to survive a face plant lithobrake and get used to keep 4 pips in shields at all times.

 

[Makroshlyta]

Hum... a crash on land is kinectic, blast or neutral damage?
Can I get rid off shields with better hull?

Or at least choose the righ shield...

 

[SlickPBW]

You just need (not really need) a “bump shield” which is the smallest D rated shield you can fit, preferably engineered for lightweight. Normally only turned on just before landing. Pound for pound it’s better than increasing hull, so therefore it’s better for jump range.

 

[Lhorndra]

Hum... a crash on land is kinectic, blast or neutral damage?
Can I get rid off shields with better hull?

Or at least choose the righ shield...

Like @SlickPBW said, a small shield is really helpful while exploring, especially in low-altitude flight when hunting exobiology. After maybe hours of hypnotic jump-FSS-jump-FSS-jump-FSS, at least my brain has minor difficulties when tasked with precise flying and landing again. It is almost inevitable that a hill will suddenly jump in front of my spaceship. Also, some landings at rugged mountain ranges can be a bit tricky, even if you're very good at it.

So, to summarise: if you equip the smallest D rated shield you can fit, you can avoid any kind of hull damage (as long as you don't fall asleep), therefore you don't need repair limpets, ever. On the other hand, supercharging your FSD at a neutron star will definitely damage your FSD module, so you need an AFMU in the long run. That being said, I don't see the need for two per se, except to avoid empty internal slots.

 

[Northpin]

Hum... a crash on land is kinectic, blast or neutral damage?

Crashes and ramming do absolute damage so resistances (kinetic, explosive, thermal) do not matter - only the raw amount of shields (and ofc having 4 pips in shields which vastly increases shield strenght)
So if you can afford go for reinforced shields

Can I get rid off shields with better hull?

Not really - shields recharge, hull cannot. You can put pips in shields but not in hull.
Sure, you can get a stronger hull, but it will be heavy - military armor is heavy, heavy duty engineered is even heavier, then you need HRP, engineered ones (which are also heavy)

Over all, heavier shields have less downsides than heavier hulls (IMO)

 

[LifesAJourney]

Also, hull damage?
Fit some shields

Which gives you no protection at all if you get too close to a star/planet in SuperCruise. But costs you some weight, power consumption and fuel consumption.

But yeah, can save your ship if you make a mistake in normal space close to the planet's surface.

In pre-Odyssey era I flew shieldless but with 1D repair limpet controller. Never regretted. Now I do have shields, much more convenient for cabbage scanning and thus gazillions of landings.

 

[varonica]

Hum... a crash on land is kinectic, blast or neutral damage?
Can I get rid off shields with better hull?

Or at least choose the righ shield...

I agree with others, shields are essential, but you can get away with much smaller shields if you are just exploring, they soak up all the damage if you land just that little bit to fast and if you are doing a lot of planet landing that can add up quickly. My Phantom has 3D shield generator with reduced mass and lower integrity, you don't need a big shield generator for exploration, but you do need one!

 

[Greasetrap42]

1. AMFU has no weight and takes a percentage of internal damage. Better than an empty internal slot or some other filler module (example: empty unused cargo rack).

2. AMFU repairs most stuff. But can't repair itself. A second AMFU can repair the first one. For very long deep space exploration, before fleet carriers were introduced this could be handy for taking care of damage that slowly accumulates over time. Now fleet carriers are scattered all over the galaxy (DSSA), so regular repairs in deep space is easy.

3. AMFU repairs most stuff but not the hull. And takes only one slot. Repair limpets repair the hull, but requires two slots (controller+cargo rack). Number of slots could be an issue for some builds. Also the added weight. A1D limpet controller weighs 0.5t, this matters to someone min/maxing their build.

In the old days of ED, if a cmdr wanted to be 100% self-sufficient forever in deep space without returning to the bubble then 2 AMFU and a repair limpet controller would be the solution.

IMO only reason #1 holds any value in the current game.

 

[Greasetrap42]

Like @SlickPBW said, a small shield is really helpful while exploring, especially in low-altitude flight when hunting exobiology. After maybe hours of hypnotic jump-FSS-jump-FSS-jump-FSS, at least my brain has minor difficulties when tasked with precise flying and landing again.

In addition, when doing exobiology I often skim planet surface when zipping between samples. Scraping the surface. Or when trying to land in rocky area I bump-bump-bump several times before getting the final landing in a tight spot. Shields absorb this damage and then recharge, whereas hull damage is permanent and accumulates until repaired.

Edit: A medium range dedicated exploration/exobiology ship is great if built with excellent thrusters for maneuverability, capacitor for boosting, and fantastic shields so I can be a sloppy pilot while quickly zipping around. A great cockpit view is helpful and tiny ship size for landing in tight spots. The trade-offs become jump range and fuel tank range.

 

[varonica]

In addition, when doing exobiology I often skim planet surface when zipping between samples. Scraping the surface. Or when trying to land in rocky area I bump-bump-bump several times before getting the final landing in a tight spot. Shields absorb this damage and then recharge, whereas hull damage is permanent and accumulates until repaired.

Edit: A medium range dedicated exploration/exobiology ship is great if built with excellent thrusters for maneuverability, capacitor for boosting, and fantastic shields so I can be a sloppy pilot while quickly zipping around. A great cockpit view is helpful and tiny ship size for landing in tight spots. The trade-offs become jump range and fuel tank range.

I don't bother to align the ship with the surface at all these days, often aligning the ship with the surface will throw the landing sensors off and a previously good spot will suddenly say no. Once I have a good spot to land I just go down until the landing legs hit the ground and keep the downward thrust applied and the ship aligns itself. The other trick is sometimes the exact landing location will be tiny in rough areas and trying to get the smallest forward or backward movement to line you up pushes you past, so again I just hit downward thrust until all landing legs are in contact and just scrape across the ground (forwards or backwards depending on which direction the tiny spot is of course) and when you hit that spot the ship will automatically stop moving and declare itself landed.