CG FSD vs Engineered 6A FSD on a Jumpaconda?

Star Ferret

Star Ferret
Just curious... I don't really know much about the FSD being offered as a reward for the Community Goal... and apologies in advance as I'm sure its been asked a million times already...

My JumpaConda has a Level 5 Increased Range 6A FSD with Mass Manager, paired with a 5H Gaurdian FSD Booster...

Various other Engineered components, mostly for Lighter Weight; she's got roughly an 80ly Jump range unladden... and with a full tank of fuel, around 75ly....

How does this compare to the Commuity Goal FSD?

Is it one I would want to put on my Anaconda?
 

Star Ferret

Star Ferret
Nevermind... I found some info on Google and decided its trade offs probably wouldnt be worth it to put one on a long range exploration Anaconda.

Seems like its better for short distance travelling.
 

Kira Goto

Kira Goto
Yes. As you get a jump range increase from Fast Boot as well, having a preengineered FSD which combines this with Increased Range means you'd get more jump range out of it. Judging by the description you can also throw on experimentals but even without it should have more than a standard engineered (SCO) FSD with Mass Manager.

Well, I guess you found your answer. Anyway.
 

kofeyh

kofeyh
Star Ferret said:
Nevermind... I found some info on Google and decided its trade offs probably wouldnt be worth it to put one on a long range exploration Anaconda.
Click to expand...

Increased range and fast boot, yes, but we don't know what it's remaining stats are. It might be a slight improvement over engineering range + mass manager. Or not. Either way, I wouldn't just ignore it outright.
 

Tassier

T
If you want the maximum possible range for your jumpaconda then it probably is the best thing for it.

Here's the best range you can get for a 6a SCO FSD vs the previous CG 6a (non-SCO) FSD, which was double engineered long range and fast boot:

Ship | Rng (cur/max) | Cost (with modules)| Edsy link
----------------------+---------------+--------------------+---------------------------
Mandalay | 84.08 / 91.53 | 58,171,550 | https://edsy.org/s/vc08neL
Anaconda + CG 6A FSD | 86.76 / 90.71 | 242,126,640 | https://edsy.org/s/vkJfoJq
Anaconda + 6A SCO FSD | 86.48 / 90.37 | 261,542,080 | https://edsy.org/s/vvHVSlH

As @Commander Biscuit said if the new CG FSD drive has a tweaked optimised mass again then it will increase the range further.
 

Star Ferret

Star Ferret
Ohanka said:
It's wasted on an "exploration Anaconda" anyway, Anaconda is the worst "exploration" ship in the game.
Click to expand...

Actually its considered one of the best just because of its massive Jump Range... some people have gotten theirs up to 80 - 90 ly on a single jump just through extreme engineering of every component possible.

This is absolutely essential when you're out in a region of space where the stars are 65 - 75+ ly apart from each other and you have no clue whether the next one is scoopable, like where I was for the past year and half out near the outer edge of the Formidine Rift.

Sure the Asp can get up to 60'ish with good engineering, probably up to 65'ish with that SCO? But what are you gonna do when the next possible scoopable star is outside that range of your Asp, 70 or more LY away?

The Anaconda has a far superior jump range... can take a MUCH better fuel scoop plus room for an extra tank, at minimal cost to the jump range; and while still maintaining its superior jump range.

Yes, it has its downsides, for one thing she's one heck of a heavy to set down in High G environments... but so long as you're consciously aware of this and are careful with your approach and landings, you should do just fine.
 

mtfatboy3006

M
Star Ferret said:
Nevermind... I found some info on Google and decided its trade offs probably wouldnt be worth it to put one on a long range exploration Anaconda.

Seems like its better for short distance travelling.
Click to expand...
You are mistaken; it will jump further. A double-engineered conventional drive is available in-game in size 5. When mass manager is applied, it has on optimised mass rating of 1856.4, compared with 1692.6 T for a standard, grade A size 5 FSD with extended jump range and mass manager. This drive made lightweight ships with size 5 FSDs (DBX and Krait Phantom) the kings of exploration, because they could jump like stripped down Anacondas but were more pleasant to fly. The SCO drive made the double-engineered drive obsolete, providing an optimised mass of 1894.1 T when engineered with extended jump range and mass manager. Adding Faster Boot Sequence to this will extend the jump range still further. The CG drives will be the longest-jumping drives in their size classes ever seen in the game by a substantial margin.
 

kofeyh

kofeyh
To simplify, Frontier have indicated the special is unlocked which means double special. This is not possible with existing SCO drives.

Fast boot includes 15% optimal mass. Mass manager would be multiplicative if it follows the current calculation, I believe, for example.

So yes, I suspect it is absolutely 100% worth it. The ability to stack two specials should allow for considerable shenanigans.
 

Emberwave

E
kofeyh said:
Increased range and fast boot, yes, but we don't know what it's remaining stats are. It might be a slight improvement over engineering range + mass manager. Or not. Either way, I wouldn't just ignore it outright.
Click to expand...
You will be able to put the mass manager experimental on the pre-engineered drive, too. It says so right in the community goal ("... with unlocked experimentals").

If it is anything like the existing pre-engineered drives without SCO, they should have the same base stats and two range increasing modifications at once. The sum of that should give you the best possible FSD in the game.
 

kofeyh

kofeyh
Emberwave said:
You will be able to put the mass manager experimental on the pre-engineered drive, too. It says so right in the community goal ("... with unlocked experimentals").

If it is anything like the existing pre-engineered drives without SCO, they should have the same base stats and two range increasing modifications at once. The sum of that should give you the best possible FSD in the game.
Click to expand...

Indeed. As I noted in the post directly above yours.
 

galahad2069

G
kofeyh said:
To simplify, Frontier have indicated the special is unlocked which means double special. This is not possible with existing SCO drives.
Click to expand...

I don't think they said 'unlocked special' (what is a 'special' anyway?).

They said the FSDs were going be double-engineered (they will have 2 main blueprints, extended range and fast boot) and the experimental will be unlocked, which means you will be able to visit an engineer to apply a single (not double) experimental effect (like mass manager, for example).
 

kofeyh

kofeyh
galahad2069 said:
I don't think they said 'unlocked special' (what is a 'special' anyway?).

They said the FSDs were going be double-engineered (they will have 2 main blueprints, extended range and fast boot) and the experimental will be unlocked, which means you will be able to visit an engineer to apply a single (not double) experimental effect (like mass manager, for example).
Click to expand...

Experimental. Yes.
 

Numenor1379

Numenor1379
Star Ferret said:
Actually its considered one of the best just because of its massive Jump Range... some people have gotten theirs up to 80 - 90 ly on a single jump just through extreme engineering of every component possible.

This is absolutely essential when you're out in a region of space where the stars are 65 - 75+ ly apart from each other and you have no clue whether the next one is scoopable, like where I was for the past year and half out near the outer edge of the Formidine Rift.

Sure the Asp can get up to 60'ish with good engineering, probably up to 65'ish with that SCO? But what are you gonna do when the next possible scoopable star is outside that range of your Asp, 70 or more LY away?

The Anaconda has a far superior jump range... can take a MUCH better fuel scoop plus room for an extra tank, at minimal cost to the jump range; and while still maintaining its superior jump range.

Yes, it has its downsides, for one thing she's one heck of a heavy to set down in High G environments... but so long as you're consciously aware of this and are careful with your approach and landings, you should do just fine.
Click to expand...

I'd argue that the Mandalay is now the best by a decent margin. Between easy SCO control and fuel usage, far better SC handling, and an equivalent or better range, the Anaconda is obsolescent.
 

Neilski

Neilski
Numenor1379 said:
I'd argue that the Mandalay is now the best by a decent margin. Between easy SCO control and fuel usage, far better SC handling, and an equivalent or better range, the Anaconda is obsolescent.
Click to expand...
I haven't compared exploration builds yet (haven't got the Mandalay yet either) but I'll be interested to see the trade-offs - the Anaconda is massive so you can bring lots of stuff (even having cargo capacity) and not hurt the range much. (It can certainly be hard to land though.)
 

kofeyh

kofeyh
Numenor1379 said:
I'd argue that the Mandalay is now the best by a decent margin. Between easy SCO control and fuel usage, far better SC handling, and an equivalent or better range, the Anaconda is obsolescent.
Click to expand...

Depends on goal. If going fast, getting to the places to explore and like being very light on your feet is the goal, then Mandy will do that all day long.

If you want to travel in luxury, with fighter bays and various other accoutrements, and are in no rush at all, then Anaconda will carry all that bouge nonsense and jump further than anything else (including Mandy).

Anaconda is a generalist ship blessed with a mass that other ships can only dream of. That puts it in a unique and valuable position for so many functions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom