Yes... Thargoids. Seriously, now it makes sense what I saw when leaving the surface of a planet and a Thargoid appeared in supercruise as I'm tried to get clear of the planet. They zipped all over the place, like the gravity well was nothing. Now I know why...
Are Engineered SCO FSD Drives Worth the Effort?
- Thread starter Cmdr Travers
- Start date
I engineered a 6A SCO FSD up to grade 5 with mass manager. Fitted into my "Colonia Express" Anaconda it shows slightly worse jump range values than a pre-engineered 6A FSD (min/current/max SCO: 58.64, 85.40, 89.17, PRE: 58.81, 85.67, 89.51). So SCO isn't always better? Does it depend on size or the particular build of the ship? I did the same with 5A for Diamondback Explorer, but in that one the SCO drive is better.
Yeah that is a good point, I mean we still ride horses for recreation and competition and they are still used on some stations in AU for roundups, along with helicopters and drones, one technology doesn't necessarily replace another technology completely but will displace it where it makes sense or work alongside it where it still works. There's also of course the point this isn't replacing FSD technology, the Thargoids use a completely different method of travel through witch space so this is just built on our current FSD, like the Guardian range booster, like adding a turbocharger to a petrol engine.
We aren't throwing away FSD tech and replacing it with something entirely new.
The introduction of SCO feels more like an evolution than a revolution. A significant step for sure, but it's still fundamentally an FSD drive.
Yes, I’ve noticed that, too.
Now that EDSY has been updated to support SCO FSDs, I did some tests and it appears the pre-engineered 6A FSD will indeed slightly outperform the jump range of a fully engineered (IR+MM) 6A SCO FSD in any build, whether it is a 580t Anaconda or a 2580t Corvette.
There is also another consideration. Assuming no FSD injection or jet boost, a 70 Ly jump in a 600t ship with the pre-engineered 6A FSD will use about 9.8t of fuel, while with a 6A SCO FSD with G5 IR & MM it will use about 10.3t. So the engineered SCO FSD will be an even bigger fuel guzzler than the pre-engineered FSD
That all said, I think I would still take the SCO FSD for a trip to Colonia and back; I consider the ability to zip between distant planets to be more valuable than the tiny range increase or a slightly lower fuel usage!
I've just replaced the 4A G5 FSD in my Cobra 3 with the SCO version, and I get a 3.5Ly increase in jump values. With the speeding up of in-system travel, in this case it is worth it.
If I do the same with the 5A pre-engineered FSD in my Python Mk1, the difference is only 0.1Ly, so I have put the original FSD back in.
If I fit the 5A G5 SCO FSD to my ASPX, which also has a 5A pre-engineered FSD, I get a 3Ly improvement in jump values. With the added advantage of reducing travel time to more distant planets whilst exploring, I am going to use the SCO FSD from now on.
Of course, if I get the Python 2 (with my in game only ARX), I will have to buy and engineer another FSD.
If I do the same with the 5A pre-engineered FSD in my Python Mk1, the difference is only 0.1Ly, so I have put the original FSD back in.
If I fit the 5A G5 SCO FSD to my ASPX, which also has a 5A pre-engineered FSD, I get a 3Ly improvement in jump values. With the added advantage of reducing travel time to more distant planets whilst exploring, I am going to use the SCO FSD from now on.
Of course, if I get the Python 2 (with my in game only ARX), I will have to buy and engineer another FSD.
That would be us, of course, from increased taxi fees. When they get around to doing that is an open question.
The lucky ”n”th customer will be presented with the bill as he disembarks at Apex’s secret base.
I plan on buying, and engineering, 4 of them along with my P2 (already engineered nicely), and throw them into my most used ships. I have a mere 44 ships (6 are Couriers, but, why stop at just 1?) outfitted for purpose, gaining another fraction of a LY range isn't appealing, and, in the rare case where the SCO boost would benefit one, swapping modules is a thing, isn't it?
Provided the size of the SCO is an exact match for the intended slot.
I never undersize anyway, although some do, for whatever reason.
No perceived issue for me.
Yes, that's what I was thinking. Engineer them amd leave them in storage to swap as needed.
A number of months ago, i made a post in the suggestions forum about using materials to supercharge the standard supercruise. As an explorer i feel it would benefit and give an incentive to visit bodies with materials instead of just bio.
My module storage is fairly full however this is in part due to me not expecting engineer-able SCO drives in all grades so soon therefore I will probably replace many of the original C class units I bought with the new A class ones.
I also have some ships in multiples so will probably rework them so one is SCO and the other is original.
I also have some ships in multiples so will probably rework them so one is SCO and the other is original.
I'm also planning to only fit a few. I like my selection of ships to have distinct abilities.
I guess that in future there will be times when I'll press "boost" and, when nothing happens, remember that this ship doesn't have that FSD. If that happens too often it could get frustrating.
Last edited:
If that time comes, for both of us, we'll know we need to do a few more!
(Next one, for me, is my "everyday" Courier, that may be very silly!)
To, or not to stock up on engineering materials before the engineering changes. Dat iz tha ?
It’s always a good time to snatch up a few in-situ Engineering materials IMO… just as long as I’m not grinding for them. It worked great for Engineering 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0, so I don’t see why it won’t work for the lead up to Engineering 2.5 as well.