Best Engineering Mod for new DSS?
- Thread starter Wulf
- Start date
There is only one option for it in the new version: increased scan range. It increases the area which is scanned per probe. It makes a massive difference when going for the efficiency target.
.
The other options were eliminated. I was told that if you have an engineered DSS, it automatically is converted to the new version. I couldn't test, because I had no DSS engineered before the beta.
.
.
The other options were eliminated. I was told that if you have an engineered DSS, it automatically is converted to the new version. I couldn't test, because I had no DSS engineered before the beta.
.
Last edited:
I never thought any of the available mod's for the DSS was worth applying.
Don't really see that changing with the update.
Trouble is, they all (IIRC) add weight and, as such, they all reduce your jump-range.
If I'm already spending time exploring a system I don't really mind if that takes a little bit longer.
I prefer that to spending more time doing the thing I don't want to be doing (travelling) due to the reduced jump-range.
Don't really see that changing with the update.
Trouble is, they all (IIRC) add weight and, as such, they all reduce your jump-range.
If I'm already spending time exploring a system I don't really mind if that takes a little bit longer.
I prefer that to spending more time doing the thing I don't want to be doing (travelling) due to the reduced jump-range.
Neither did anybody else.
Dunno who told you that but there weren't any engineering mod's for the disco' scanner.
These don't apply anymore. The new DSS gameplay has you firing probes at the body being scanned - there are/will be/supposedly be? mods to give the probes greater coverage (and other things) but I didn't check any of them out during the beta & don't recall reading anything on the forum about them. Hmmm.
* Ninja'd.
** @Stealthie - the old fast scan was useful, though it was only something I noticed when I didn't have it...
Last edited:
.
Fast scan: https://inara.cz/galaxy-blueprint/164/
Long range: https://inara.cz/galaxy-blueprint/165/
Wide angle: https://inara.cz/galaxy-blueprint/166/
.
That's still pre-3.3. They did exist. If somebody used them is a different question, but they did exist.
.
Even on ships that were sensitive to mass, I spent a lot more time scanning than jumping when actually exploring and fast scan was well worth it, to me.
That's the DDS, not the discovery scanner.
Last edited:
Those are DSS mods, not disco' scanner/FSS mod's.
i realise it's faster.
I just don't really see the point of speeding up something that's enjoyable.
"Wow! What an amazing looking group of planets. Let's scan 'em as quickly as possible and get the hell out of here!" [where is it]
I'm not going to enjoy scanning a planet any more or less, if it takes 3 minutes or 5, but if you give me a choice, I'll take the faster option, for sure.
Last edited:
That's true. I remember my ship automatically jumping to the next system as soon as the scan had finished - I often wanted to stop and admire the view, but no onto the next system lickety split!
Me too.
I just prefer the faster way of doing the thing I'm not interested in (travelling) to the faster way of doing the thing I do want to do.
.
Uh... you now confuse the hell out of me. I mean, yes, they were DSS mods. I never claimed anything different. And the thread title, as far as I can read, is also about the DSS.
.
Nowhere did the thread ask about an FSS modification. And of course there were none before the beta as the FSS did not exist at that time. So sure they could not be converted. (Not to mention that it's still no module and thus not engineerable. ) It's all about the old DSS and the new surface scanner. As the old DSS module is directly being converted into the new surface scanner (according to beta patch notes and according to what actually happened in the beta), I think that comparison is fair.
.
So please, tell me where I went wrong?
.
Last edited:
That's true. I remember my ship automatically jumping to the next system as soon as the scan had finished - I often wanted to stop and admire the view, but no onto the next system lickety split!
So, apply a mod' which makes your ship heavier, slower and gives it a smaller jump-range so that you can scan planets faster... and then, after scanning the planets faster, you then just hang around anyway, thus negating the benefits of the thing you've made other compromises to achieve?
Remind me, again, why this might be a logical choice to make? [where is it]
.....
*EDIT*
I see you've gone back and edited your initial post.
Might've been more straightforward to have just said you made a mistake.
Last edited:
.
It's a tradeoff. Sure, if you have optimized your ship for jump range, engineered everything for low mass, etc. you don't want to add mass to the DSS. But be honest: many explorers already pack a lot of stuff. They bring several SRVs, just in case. They carry SLFs for the fun of racing through canyons where nobody was before, etc.
.
Now check the mass of the DSS. It's not a heavy module. Even doubling the mass won't add so much. Many exploration setups will only see the change in jump range on the second decimal place. They won't ever notice the difference in use. For sure it impacts them less than the second AFMU and the fighter hangar. But they do feel the difference when scanning. So, totally worth it in those setups and applications.
.
Scanning the planets or "watching the little spinning thing on the HUD while flying in a straight line" wasn't the most exciting activity. I'd generally hang around if I'd found something interesting, but if it was just a bunch of non-landable icy moons, then the fast scan got them over and done quicker. The increased weight made a fraction of a light year difference at worst.
Anyway it's gone now, so no need to worry about it anymore!
......
*EDIT*
I see you've gone back and edited your initial post.
Might've been more straightforward to have just said you made a mistake.
I also eliminated that part of my posting, which you now quote, when i noticed the mistake. And yea. Sorry for the typo.
.
