Are Engineered SCO FSD Drives Worth the Effort?

Pask

Pask
K Olley said:
Couple of questions,

1, Is there any significant difference in boost performance between the A and the C drives?

2, Have the heat and stability issues been improved while under boost?

Out in the black and wondering if it's worth jumping back or not:)
Click to expand...
1. Yes, A is overall better, C grade on datasheet is the best for thermal load in OC mode
2. yes, in patch notes they say so, today i did some test on DBX and seem a bit better, not "so better".
 

Shurimal

Shurimal
There certainly is some hidden modifiers or some other shenanigans with the SCO drives. When putting the numbers of G5 increased range, mass manager drive into EDSY experimental mode my chief should get 30,55 ly range:

EDSY

EDSY is a ship outfitting tool for Elite Dangerous
edsy.org edsy.org
In game, I get 29.57 ly
V1 FSD gives me 29.46 ly

No reason to complain, though--it's still very, very good!
 

K Olley

K
Pask said:
1. Yes, A is overall better, C grade on datasheet is the best for thermal load in OC mode
2. yes, in patch notes they say so, today i did some test on DBX and seem a bit better, not "so better".
Click to expand...
As carrier jump times have gone through the roof (56 min) I am not going to rush back:)
 

MartinG

M
Shurimal said:
There certainly is some hidden modifiers or some other shenanigans with the SCO drives. When putting the numbers of G5 increased range, mass manager drive into EDSY experimental mode my chief should get 30,55 ly range:
https://edsy.org/#/L=H95X3v5s0H4C0S...23v0412GH4BJ_W020n0468MK430gu0,Qetesh,SH_D30T
In game, I get 29.57 ly
V1 FSD gives me 29.46 ly
Click to expand...
Thanks for the tip, will sure do some tests when I get around to engineering them.

It is possible that the fuel curve exponent is slightly different for these FSDs, for example.
 

S0rkvild

S0rkvild
What small ships are best candidates for sco drive? I'm looking for something that can take me to station situated 320k ly away from main star.
 

Felix DiCestria

Felix DiCestria
Just engineered one of the SCO drives. It's better than the pre-engineered FSD... o_O
4A V1.jpg

4A SCO.jpg
 

DjVortex

DjVortex
Pask said:
Deep Charge is effective for FSD of size 4 or less, as example: useful on a Dolphin but not on a DBX
Click to expand...
If I understand correctly, Deep Charge causes more fuel to be used for a slightly larger jump, while Mass Manager just optimizes the FSD so that it can make a larger jump with the same amount of fuel.

When it comes to ships that have a class-4 FSD slot, you probably still want Mass Manager even if that results in a tiny bit less jump range than Deep Charge, because using less fuel per jump is more useful than that tiny difference in jump range.

As for class-3 and class-2... I'm not 100% sure which is genuinely better.
 

varonica

varonica
Unknown Zombie said:
Why wouldn't faster supercruise be useful to an explorer?
Click to expand...

As a dedicated explorer I find that SCO is not just useful, but essential to exploration, even the class C with less range was essential, sure it halved the available jump range on my T6 but also allowed me to visit double the number of systems in the same time with the time it saved traveling out to scan bio and map interesting bodies, but with the A rated and engineering giving me more jump range it's a no brainer.
 

Kissamies

Kissamies
I suspect the formula it uses to calculate how it gets the jump range in relation to optimised mass is slightly different. It especially seems to benefit smaller drives too. For my size 5 drives I tend to get about 0.2 ly better jump range than the v1 FSD. On smaller ships the jump range increase seems more dramatic.

Edit: My bad, I forgot that I had fast boot FSD on Courier previously for some reason. It is better on smaller ship somewhat, but not dramatically so.
 
Last edited:

Felix DiCestria

Felix DiCestria
varonica said:
As a dedicated explorer I find that SCO is not just useful, but essential to exploration, even the class C with less range was essential, sure it halved the available jump range on my T6 but also allowed me to visit double the number of systems in the same time with the time it saved traveling out to scan bio and map interesting bodies, but with the A rated and engineering giving me more jump range it's a no brainer.
Click to expand...
Just a bit.
With it giving more range than a pre engineered drive every single FSD we owned on Monday just became obsolete.
The pre engineered ones are at least on par so for those ships where we don't need the boost.
But wow.... Still trying to pick my jaw off the floor...
 

Northpin

Northpin
Pask said:
i bought a 5A SCO and engineered IR/MM, just for compare against 5A FSDv1 (CG double eng FSD IR/Fast Reboot) with MM.

View attachment 392220View attachment 392221

View attachment 392222View attachment 392223

Yes, it is a bit better for jump range, so if you do not need SCO you can keep you FSDv1,
i will not change FSD to all ships in my fleet, expecially on the ones equiped with FSDv1, but why not on dedicated explorer/exobio for a bit extra jump range and quicker in-system travel, daily run bubble hopper, ships with FSD size above or below 5, because i have access only to 5A FSDv1 and miss other sizes CG FSDs.

(and here come the big) IF engineering rewamp will be less grind and more fun, why not* on all ships in fleet, without a drop about the time I "wasted" in gathering mats for FSDv1 in past.

* the 5A FSDv1 two second reboot could be useful, anyway i saw all Engineering and Experimental modification are available on SCO.
Click to expand...

Well, the new A-rated SCO drives are better than V1 and Colonia drives in terms of jump range and heat generation (without sco) - SCO is an added massive bonus
 

varonica

varonica
Northpin said:
Well, the new A-rated SCO drives are better than V1 and Colonia drives in terms of jump range and heat generation (without sco) - SCO is an added massive bonus
Click to expand...

Yeah I'm not sure what all the complaints about them making the old drives redundant, I mean that's what technology advances are all about right? Like touch phones replaced nearly all other phones. Basically Sirius Corp are the Nokia of the space lanes, to little to late, sorry guys but I'm going to use the new drives.
 

DjVortex

DjVortex
varonica said:
Yeah I'm not sure what all the complaints about them making the old drives redundant, I mean that's what technology advances are all about right? Like touch phones replaced nearly all other phones. Basically Sirius Corp are the Nokia of the space lanes, to little to late, sorry guys but I'm going to use the new drives.
Click to expand...
I suppose the complaint is that now people will have to, once again, grind for materials to engineer the FSD of all their ships.

The inconvenience is very temporary, though.
 

Felix DiCestria

Felix DiCestria
varonica said:
Yeah I'm not sure what all the complaints about them making the old drives redundant, I mean that's what technology advances are all about right? Like touch phones replaced nearly all other phones. Basically Sirius Corp are the Nokia of the space lanes, to little to late, sorry guys but I'm going to use the new drives.
Click to expand...
I'd guess it's thought of replacing all the drives we'd gathered mats for. Plus we've got a new round of mat gathering looming ahead of us.
Still processing this one...
 

Flimley

Flimley
Kissamies said:
I suspect the formula it uses to calculate how it gets the jump range in relation to optimised mass is slightly different. It especially seems to benefit smaller drives too. For my size 5 drives I tend to get about 0.2 ly better jump range than the v1 FSD. On smaller ships the jump range increase seems more dramatic.
Click to expand...
Did you employ mass manager special on this? just wondering if anyone has tried deep charge? encase some how it's more effective on these new drives.

Flimley
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom