Conda shields 3d strong enough

mikekim

mikekim
I personally would go with 4D.
Also would up the thrusters to at least 6D (or engineer the 5's), because anacondas don't bounce very will on high G planets... all they tend to do is leave big impact craters, if you rely on underpowered thrusters.
 

Major Klutz

Major Klutz
3D Shields are fine. 5D thrusers are also fine.
This is my build. https://eddp.co/u/vAbXDkte
You only need them to protect the paint at the end of a rough landing.
To be fair, I haven't actually taken the 'conda out on a long trip yet but I have landed on Achenar 3 with those shields and those thrusters with no worries.

That said, they are paper thin at 140MJ so YMMV.
I'm using 4A shields while I'm running cargo missions in the bubble.
 
Last edited:
  • Like (+1)
Reactions: EUS

goemon

goemon
as you don't need shields for landing, sure.

i personally run 5D on my explonda, which is luxury. the impact on jumprange is rather small .... something like 0,3 ly after engineering.
 

Major Klutz

Major Klutz
goemon said:
as you don't need shields for landing, ...
Click to expand...
Sure, you don't need shields to land. But they do help if you accidentally land a little too hard.
On my build the difference between 3D and 4D is 0.2Ly. 3D to 5D is almost half a Ly.
But as you said, you don't really need them at all so why take the extra weight? I just go for the smallest I can possibly fit since paper thin is plenty good enough.
 
Last edited:

goemon

goemon
Major Klutz said:
But as you said, you don't really need them at all so why take the extra weight? I just go for the smallest I can possibly fit since paper thin is plenty good enough.
Click to expand...

illegal pasengers on exploration trip for exampel, while getting scanned outside of station ... 5D saved me :)

my explonda is a luxury explorer, not set up for maximum jumprange. the 5D shields are engineered for enhanced low power with >30% weight reduction, therefor the minor difference in jumprange. i also have 6A thrusters, which really reduces its jumprange. and i'm sometimes a really, really sloppy lander .... my DBE has 4D shields for that reason.

but each his own! it's all down to how much margin of error you want ... and even 5D shields won't save you on a really high G world, if you don't land carefully. been there, done that. 0,5 ly jumprange ... that's ~1%. i could have saved around 3 and a half minutes on my last trip to jaques!
 

Major Klutz

Major Klutz
I hadn't considered carrying illicit cargo since that's something I would never consider on an exploration trip.
I've carried wanted passengers before on short sightseeing tours but I was in my armed bubble build, not an exploration build.

If I'm interdicted on the way back to the bubble, the 3D shields, the clean tuned thrusters and the anaconda's hull should be enough for me to use the brave sir robin maneuver and make it back to a safe port where I can buy or retrieve better shields from storage.

goemon said:
... 0,5 ly jumprange ... that's ~1%. i could have saved around 3 and a half minutes on my last trip to jaques!
Click to expand...
Good point there. Paper thin or heavy shields makes little difference in jump range and even less difference in the long run over thousands of light years.
I'm a very careful flyer though and never (yet) had any serious accidents on any landings, high G, low G or other. Though I have lost a ring or two from my shields landing on HD 148937 3.
 
Last edited:

EUS

EUS
goemon said:
illegal pasengers on exploration trip for exampel, while getting scanned outside of station ... 5D saved me :)

my explonda is a luxury explorer, not set up for maximum jumprange. the 5D shields are engineered for enhanced low power with >30% weight reduction, therefor the minor difference in jumprange. i also have 6A thrusters, which really reduces its jumprange. and i'm sometimes a really, really sloppy lander .... my DBE has 4D shields for that reason.

but each his own! it's all down to how much margin of error you want ... and even 5D shields won't save you on a really high G world, if you don't land carefully. been there, done that. 0,5 ly jumprange ... that's ~1%. i could have saved around 3 and a half minutes on my last trip to jaques!
Click to expand...

This is an exploration only setup, and I know from running a shieldless dbs that all station landings result in "hull integrity compromised" warnings, no matter how softly I touch down.
So if all landings are controlled perfectly, do the 3D shields soak up the touchdown?
That's what I'm asking.
 
Last edited:

Major Klutz

Major Klutz
EUS said:
... So if all landings are controlled perfectly, do the 3D shields soak up the touchdown?
That's what I'm asking.
Click to expand...
Yes. As I said, I had no problems on Achenar 3 with 3D shields and 5D thrusters. YMMV though depending on how you fly.
I'm well practiced at High G landings and I use an analog control on my vertical thrusters for soft touchdowns.
https://youtu.be/0nErX1tFyC4

If you're using binary thruster controls and/or using the FA Off method for high G landings, you probably want better shields. As Goemon said, the difference between 3D and 4D is negligible.
 
Last edited:

EUS

EUS
Thanks all.
BTW, I'd love some tuna sandwiches, it's nearing lunch, and I HUNGER!
 
Last edited:

StiTch

StiTch
Outfit your ship to the weakest possible standard and it will be destroyed by the weakest of stresses.

Let's be honest, the difference between 3D and 4D won't do anything for you. Both will protect you against the nothingness of space/chip damage from landing, and result in your obliteration during a crash landing or surprise ganking.
 
Last edited:

Qohen Leth

Qohen Leth
StiTch said:
Outfit your ship to the weakest possible standard and it will be destroyed by the weakest of stresses.

Let's be honest, the difference between 3D and 4D won't do anything for you. Both will protect you against the nothingness of space/chip damage from landing, and result in your obliteration during a crash landing or surprise ganking.
Click to expand...

Be honest yourself. There is no necessity in what you say.
 

Kuroshio

Kuroshio
Qohen Leth said:
Be honest yourself. There is no necessity in what you say.
Click to expand...

To be fair, I shudder at the thought of fitting below-optimal mass shields. Less than half the shield strength for 0.51 light-years is not a trade-off I'd ever do. But I've been socialised by those rabid NPC that hung around hundreds of kylies from the bubble. No need for anyone else to suffer from the same burned-hand syndrome. :)

(On the other hand, in times of hyperdictions, being able to survive a couple of shots might come in handy in the future. Or, you know, surviving that one tired landing at the end of the day ... Yeah, I'll shut up now.)

3D is fine. Fly carefully, don't hit anything, and don't get hit by anything.
 

Codger

Codger
Geez, you guys actually fit such small shields on your ship? I guess you like the dangerous path.

I've never used less than class 5 on my Anaconda, and I still get over 50LY jump range. And I know I can take a few hits from some interdictor intent on taking my stuff.
 

Major Klutz

Major Klutz
I guess I fit such a small shield because it's not dangerous for me.
If I was worried about interdictions or hard landings, I would probably take a larger shield, but those things don't worry me.
To clarify, I rarely play in open, so apart from my own mistakes, NPCs are the only real threat, and they're not really a threat at all.

Each individual needs to decide for themselves how much protection they feel comfortable with. It depends on your play style and piloting skill.
I've seen some examples of extraordinarily bad piloting skills on You Tube by players who have been playing for a long time.
If you're not great at landings or you play in open near the bubble, then I would certainly take better shields.

The added weight for better shields should not be a factor in the decision as it makes little to no difference in jump range on an Anaconda.
On a smaller ship it will make more of a difference but the decision is still up to you.

Power usage can be a significant factor though. I like to go with a small power plant and mod it for low emissions which reduces available power even more.
Smaller shields=less power use and less heat.
 
Last edited:

Kuroshio

Kuroshio
Major Klutz said:
I guess I fit such a small shield because it's not dangerous for me.
If I was worried about interdictions or hard landings, I would probably take a larger shield, but those things don't worry me.
To clarify, I rarely play in open, so apart from my own mistakes, NPCs are the only real threat, and they're not really a threat at all.

Each individual needs to decide for themselves how much protection they feel comfortable with. It depends on your play style and piloting skill.
I've seen some examples of some extraordinarily bad piloting skills on You Tube by players to have been playing for a long time.
If you're not great at landings or you play in open near the bubble, then I would certainly take better shields.

The added weight for better shields should not be a factor in the decision as it makes little to no difference on an Anaconda.
On a smaller ship it will make more of a difference but the decision is still up to you.
Click to expand...

And all that is perfectly alright. It's kind of a natural phenomenon here in the exploration forum that, whenever someone asks for a recommendation, everyone utters her or his personal preference, with a slight divide between conservative alarmists like me (Boost! Heat Sinks! AFMUs! Military armor! Lucky Boobleheads!) and reckless mavericks (I can land this shieldless 1D thruster thing on a 30 g world within a neutron star jet with FA off!).

And that's fine, we're all crazy anyway. :)

It just isn't much of a recommendation - asking questions might be more reasonable: Do you want that extra .5 light-year more than you fear NPC interdictions? Do you often accidentally boost into terrain? Do you often fly under influence? How often do you forget to check the g-forces of the planet you are about to land on? Do you watch Netflix while jumping?

Maybe we need a questionnaire. ("You scored 47 points. Your flying style mostly resembles: [Naming and Shaming]. Take an optimal mass shield, but no heat sinks.")
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom