engineering, hull reinforcement, hull boost.

[V'larr]

I was talking Hull Tank, thats where you are concentrating on Hull, but you need a fast cycling shield.

Using the extreme time build - (not practical but demonstrates max raw HP of 2065) with a prismatic 6A Reinforced Hi Cap on a Federal Gunship which has a bad shield multiplier with all 4 utilities as Heavy duty Super Capacitor, the time for recharge is 12 minutes.

The same build using Thermal Resist Thermo Block TR/TB 6A Prismatic and 4 off 0A shield boosters with BR/TB, TR/TB, KR/FB, and KR/FB recharges the Prismatic shield in 2m 25 seconds.

Using the Bi Weave this drops to 1m 25 seconds. Both builds maintains an average 55% of resistances across the board. You can drop one of those to add a PD etc.

This example is using the 4% drop from the others on Explosive to maintain a high enough resistance whilst keeping the recharge as low as possible, which is very, very slightly better than fast charge . You could indeed drop the BR/TB for an extra few seconds, however I prefer a balanced resistance, and you did ask for a build. Please don't argue about need. The usage I put it to needed it in the context of the ship/scenario - the above is an example and not my actual ship. Most people put on reinforced Hi Cap as its recommended lol, with no understanding on how that affects recharge/recovery.

This build is not optimal for ships which are shield tanks, but is an option for Hull tanks.

I will leave it to you to plug in the numbers.

A "fast cycling shield" is just a symptom of having a weak shield. Shield rebuild time is directly connected with the strength of the shield in question (and then whether it is biweave/prismatic). Low shield rebuild time just means your shields are also low, in other words.

With Guardian Shield Reinforcement packages to shore up a low innate shield modifier, any ship in the game becomes a viable shield tank.

That, and the drawbacks inherent to hull-tanking where module vulnerability & optional internal slot investment are concerned, makes deliberately aiming for low shield rebuild time a poor performer. It's not at all the case that people have 'no understanding', it's rather the opposite - you've just got your cart before the horse. It's a common mistake I see players make, to focus on the rebuild time, and that could be owing to the way Fdev & coriolis/edsy display the information.

Resist-augmented shield boosters will net you better overall MJ protection than using any of the single-type resist blueprints. Using a spread of specialized blueprints on your boosters is always a worse result (verify for yourself in coriolis or edsy). The best target is to aim for best effective MJs against raw, kinetic, and thermal, using a mixture of resist aug + heavy duty boosters with a thermal-resist biweave shield generator (biweave, because it is the only way to significantly raise passive regen, while shield boosters + GSRPs + engineering + SCBs all inflate shielding hitpoints - the main utility of a prismatic shield is for trading/mining setups where you want to squeeze the most up-front protection out of the smallest possible slot, or sometimes assassination setups).

The explosive damage type is a non-issue, as the only sources of it are from missiles, torpedos, and mines; NPCs don't use either of the latter, and unlike all other weapons, missiles do not increase in damage with hardpoint size (just ammo capacity does). Especially with any hull reinfrocement, missiles are more of a threat to external modules once shields are down than anything else...which makes relying on shielding all the more relevant.

Addressing a point in a further post of yours - the maneuverability afforded by lightening a combat-built ship is negligible in all cases, even for small ships as light as the Eagle. You're looking at gains of maybe 3-10%, tops, in exchange for losing 50% or greater of your potential effective hitpoints. That is an objectively unworthy trade. Combat pilots have no interest in lightweight blueprints; the only times it matters is purpose-built racing & exploration ships, or if you are deliberately aiming for a 'combat-capable' racing ship (most likely the Imperial Courier, as unlike all other typical 'racing ships' it can retain its speed cap while putting on a few tons of weight for equipment - this also makes it an excellent 'bubble taxi!).

edit: Just for comparison's sake, this is an example gunship loadout I have saved that demonstrates the higher potential possible: https://edsy.org/s/vWuWqL6

~~~
Going back to the OP of the thread: the "hull boost" is a multiplier applied to the ship's base hull strength (visible in edsy), which in turn then gets affected by additional hull integrity points & resistances. The math can get real foggy, and the easy answer is to just rely on the end result numbers that edsy & coriolis spit out.

 

[Kallipar]

A "fast cycling shield" is just a symptom of having a weak shield. Shield rebuild time is directly connected with the strength of the shield in question (and then whether it is biweave/prismatic). Low shield rebuild time just means your shields are also low, in other words.

With Guardian Shield Reinforcement packages to shore up a low innate shield modifier, any ship in the game becomes a viable shield tank.

That, and the drawbacks inherent to hull-tanking where module vulnerability & optional internal slot investment are concerned, makes deliberately aiming for low shield rebuild time a poor performer. It's not at all the case that people have 'no understanding', it's rather the opposite - you've just got your cart before the horse. It's a common mistake I see players make, to focus on the rebuild time, and that could be owing to the way Fdev & coriolis/edsy display the information.

Resist-augmented shield boosters will net you better overall MJ protection than using any of the single-type resist blueprints. Using a spread of specialized blueprints on your boosters is always a worse result (verify for yourself in coriolis or edsy). The best target is to aim for best effective MJs against raw, kinetic, and thermal, using a mixture of resist aug + heavy duty boosters with a thermal-resist biweave shield generator (biweave, because it is the only way to significantly raise passive regen, while shield boosters + GSRPs + engineering + SCBs all inflate shielding hitpoints - the main utility of a prismatic shield is for trading/mining setups where you want to squeeze the most up-front protection out of the smallest possible slot, or sometimes assassination setups).

The explosive damage type is a non-issue, as the only sources of it are from missiles, torpedos, and mines; NPCs don't use either of the latter, and unlike all other weapons, missiles do not increase in damage with hardpoint size (just ammo capacity does). Especially with any hull reinfrocement, missiles are more of a threat to external modules once shields are down than anything else...which makes relying on shielding all the more relevant.

Addressing a point in a further post of yours - the maneuverability afforded by lightening a combat-built ship is negligible in all cases, even for small ships as light as the Eagle. You're looking at gains of maybe 3-10%, tops, in exchange for losing 50% or greater of your potential effective hitpoints. That is an objectively unworthy trade. Combat pilots have no interest in lightweight blueprints; the only times it matters is purpose-built racing & exploration ships, or if you are deliberately aiming for a 'combat-capable' racing ship (most likely the Imperial Courier, as unlike all other typical 'racing ships' it can retain its speed cap while putting on a few tons of weight for equipment - this also makes it an excellent 'bubble taxi!).

edit: Just for comparison's sake, this is an example gunship loadout I have saved that demonstrates the higher potential possible: https://edsy.org/s/vWuWqL6

~~~
Going back to the OP of the thread: the "hull boost" is a multiplier applied to the ship's base hull strength (visible in edsy), which in turn then gets affected by additional hull integrity points & resistances. The math can get real foggy, and the easy answer is to just rely on the end result numbers that edsy & coriolis spit out.

Some interesting stuff there, however I will disagree on several points. Thank you for the long explanation. One thing I will comment on is about only 3 to xx%.

Depending on your intention, that can make a world of difference, using a real world example was the use of specifically lightened race cycles by the UK team for the Olympics using 3D printing. They won, because of the detail. You can build from a fixed point, whatever that may be for your design.

You did comment on shields and weak shields, that is to do with the underlying shield multiplier for ships. I was answering the not op who was making statements, I put a design using blast resistant showing that you can. I wasn't about to go through teaching him.

And yes I did build one, not a gunship btw. For reasons. The game allows for various builds and I deliberately used a Gunship because of its slot limitations.
You have an appreciation of the complexity, so if you do not know already know go to d2ea's site for the shield info and a complex shield calculator, though the accompanying video was awol last time I looked.
Also it might be worth considering some other details about breach and the lack of pen on missiles, as well as ship integrity.
At least, unlike the not op you sound like someone who likes engineering and has an open mind.

I do not pretend to know everything and even from the not op I learned some things, but not what he thinks lol.

Thank you for the input, and I will do some copy pasting .

If you are in game look me up.

 

[Oh Seven Commander]

Some interesting stuff there, however I will disagree on several points. Thank you for the long explanation. One thing I will comment on is about only 3 to xx%.

Depending on your intention, that can make a world of difference, using a real world example was the use of specifically lightened race cycles by the UK team for the Olympics using 3D printing. They won, because of the detail. You can build from a fixed point, whatever that may be for your design.

You did comment on shields and weak shields, that is to do with the underlying shield multiplier for ships. I was answering the not op who was making statements, I put a design using blast resistant showing that you can. I wasn't about to go through teaching him.

And yes I did build one, not a gunship btw. For reasons. The game allows for various builds and I deliberately used a Gunship because of its slot limitations.
You have an appreciation of the complexity, so if you do not know already know go to d2ea's site for the shield info and a complex shield calculator, though the accompanying video was awol last time I looked.
Also it might be worth considering some other details about breach and the lack of pen on missiles, as well as ship integrity.
At least, unlike the not op you sound like someone who likes engineering and has an open mind.

I do not pretend to know everything and even from the not op I learned some things, but not what he thinks lol.

Thank you for the input, and I will do some copy pasting .

If you are in game look me up.

There was nothing to teach about blast resistant shield boosters. The stats were already posted and proved out against blast resistant.

If you think you have something teach then start posting builds, otherwise it’s just talk.

 

[Wily Rites]

~~~
Going back to the OP of the thread: the "hull boost" is a multiplier applied to the ship's base hull strength (visible in edsy), which in turn then gets affected by additional hull integrity points & resistances. The math can get real foggy, and the easy answer is to just rely on the end result numbers that edsy & coriolis spit out.

Right yes, I've now made the association between these lightweight bulkhead mods and the hull armour, the hull armour being where the hull boost multiplier is found. So these light weight modules give more HP if you have heavy duty armour, and not light weight. With that said, I can't find a single case where using the lightweight mod on hull reinforcement modules gives a better result than dropping a size and using heavy duty; Seems as though this is a red herring.

 

[Wily Rites]

Unclassified Relic

A Guardian artefact which does not match any currently established categorisation. — In-Game Description The Unclassified Relic is an unknown artefact which can be produced at Thargoid Surface Sites in Thargoid Devices from Guardian Relics. Although it is of half-Thargoid origin, it does not...

elite-dangerous.fandom.com

Source: https://youtu.be/dcD7Kacf-GU?si=8CgQCjGltVKTGrk_


Haven’t watched the video but it’s probably mostly accurate. Basically you go get 3 guardian relics and a Thargoid sensor and then go to a crasher mothership and bring an SRV. Then do some stuff inside the mothership and grab the relic before you die.

I would get all of the required locations for systems needed and gear needed from the fandom link because you will need a corrosion resistant cargo rack as well. They are easy to unlock since people sell meta alloys

Corrosion Resistant Cargo Rack

Specialised storage rack for use in automated cargo transfer system that can resist the effects of corrosive cargo. — In-Game Description The Corrosion Resistant Cargo Rack (CRCR) is a unique Cargo Rack that can be used to safely transport corrosive objects such as Thargoid Sensors, Thargoid...

elite-dangerous.fandom.com

https://inara.cz/elite/commodity/101/ where to buy meta alloys

Thanks for all this info, I've not moved on it yet though as I've not gone anywhere near thargoids or guardian stuff in game yet, and am going to take a somewhat slower introduction to it. Appreciate the post though and am very intrigued by it, It's the dang learning curve of this game being so steep that can make it pretty overwhelming at times. I'm really enjoying understanding the ship outfitting for now, and having to scale everything to fit the thruster power is a pretty decent way to go about doing that.

I just did some trials with rail guns in the place of one of my cannons and putting on a higher class of laser, but this shifts my entire power requirements towards needing to use a much larger power plant, and until I've got those higher grade thrusters. I'm planning a long trip out into the void, to fulfil the 5000ly bragging requirement.

 

[Wily Rites]

On shields, I've just spotted that I'm way better off with the reinforced generator mod, and not the thermal resistant; I'm quite surprised to notice this, but then when I started using the thermal resistant mod, I was just following something that I'd read and did not grok how the HP and resistance worked with the use of cell banks, which does change everything.

 

[Oh Seven Commander]

On shields, I've just spotted that I'm way better off with the reinforced generator mod, and not the thermal resistant; I'm quite surprised to notice this, but then when I started using the thermal resistant mod, I was just following something that I'd read and did not grok how the HP and resistance worked with the use of cell banks, which does change everything.

When tinkering shields, EDSY https://edsy.org/ is your friend. Usually you want either decent resistance normal or prismatic shields, or very high resistance bi-weaves. Depending on what type of shield generator you have, usually determines what type of shield engineering you have. And, what ship you're flying and why of course usually determines what type of shield you use.

 

[Yure]

None at all, although the comparison is a little odd...
View attachment 397195

The 5D is heavier, weaker and has no resistance boost worth considering

A little obvious, I'd thought!

I see what you are saying. I think there is a typo in the programming for that website. Looks like the integrity is calculating correctly but the .55% doesn't seem right. Look at the actual values in game and compare them. I'd be willing to bet that they will show different to what that 5D is saying out of game.

 

[Yure]

None at all, although the comparison is a little odd...
View attachment 397195

The 5D is heavier, weaker and has no resistance boost worth considering

A little obvious, I'd thought!

I see what you are saying. I think there is a typo in the programming for that website. Looks like the integrity is calculating correctly but the .55% doesn't seem right. Look at the actual values in game and compare them. I'd be willing to bet that they will show different to what that 5D is saying out of game. Also without seeing the level of engineering something seems fudgity.

 

[V'larr]

Some interesting stuff there, however I will disagree on several points. Thank you for the long explanation. One thing I will comment on is about only 3 to xx%.

Depending on your intention, that can make a world of difference, using a real world example was the use of specifically lightened race cycles by the UK team for the Olympics using 3D printing. They won, because of the detail. You can build from a fixed point, whatever that may be for your design.

You did comment on shields and weak shields, that is to do with the underlying shield multiplier for ships. I was answering the not op who was making statements, I put a design using blast resistant showing that you can. I wasn't about to go through teaching him.

And yes I did build one, not a gunship btw. For reasons. The game allows for various builds and I deliberately used a Gunship because of its slot limitations.
You have an appreciation of the complexity, so if you do not know already know go to d2ea's site for the shield info and a complex shield calculator, though the accompanying video was awol last time I looked.
Also it might be worth considering some other details about breach and the lack of pen on missiles, as well as ship integrity.
At least, unlike the not op you sound like someone who likes engineering and has an open mind.

I do not pretend to know everything and even from the not op I learned some things, but not what he thinks lol.

Thank you for the input, and I will do some copy pasting .

If you are in game look me up.

Identified intent is naturally the most important thing. For general combat purposes, especially in CZs where NPCs will be outfitted with lots of hull reinforcement, attrition is usually the name of the game & for most budding pilots, losing a large chunk of survivability is not worth the opportunity cost & risk for a miniscule amount of extra maneuverability that won't really change the way you can fly - I've tried it in practice, it's not a difference that will be felt, even on the likes of a Chieftain or Courier. Using a mixture of gimballed and fixed weapons will get you a lot more mileage where enabling more combat maneuvers is concerned.

D2EA's shield calculator is a very misleading tool that will give you bad information if you do not put in specifically correct inputs - he himself reached several wrong conclusions with his infamous "cucumber ship", and it's led to longstanding misunderstandings about what's going on with shielding, unfortunately.

Most youtubers for Elite, frankly, are incorrect about many of their assumptions and findings - it does speak to the complexity of outfitting ships.

Ship integrity, as viewed in station services, is a "wear and tear" mechanic that simply applies a multiplier to your overall hull hitpoints, up to a maximum of -25% at 0 'integrity'. It's a generally negligible consideration, especially if you just repair/fuel everything all the time.

Breach/penetration is only a factor against targets with a sufficient hull hardness whose shields are down. For players, it's negligible for weapon consideration due to the presence of Corrosive (basically speaking, with Corrosive hardness will only affect small hardpoints that aren't railguns against larger opponents, which already do little enough damage that it's not that much of a difference).

I cannot agree that I like Engineering, I've just gone to great lengths to understand it, optimize it, and share my knowledge about it when opportunity arises, in an effort to minimize frustration & waste of invested time-and-effort. It's more of a "it is what it is" situation, where because it is such a massive power increase in all aspects, it cannot be ignored or avoided, and that also means the difference between unengineered - or improperly engineered - outfitting, versus optimized outfitting, can literally be to an exponential degree. And at the same time, almost nothing about Engineering is balanced - there's many blueprints that are just outright worse in all use cases and never worth using, which also leads to mistakes by players who trust that all blueprints are useful.

That said, keeping an open mind is definitely important. Identifying and respecting one's intent with outfitting is just as important as observing the objective facts and details about all these variables and numbers involved.

Feel free to send an invite yourself if you like, I'm not all that active ingame (currently, I'm waiting for the Engineering & powerplay changes promised earlier this year), but I pop up now and then.

 

[V'larr]

Right yes, I've now made the association between these lightweight bulkhead mods and the hull armour, the hull armour being where the hull boost multiplier is found. So these light weight modules give more HP if you have heavy duty armour, and not light weight. With that said, I can't find a single case where using the lightweight mod on hull reinforcement modules gives a better result than dropping a size and using heavy duty; Seems as though this is a red herring.

It is one of those weird cases with Engineering where the blueprints just don't make sense from a use-case point of view. Unless your objective is very specifically to strike some sort of middle ground between "gotta go fast" and "be combat capable", which in reality...will just mean you're less effective at either goal - much like how in Elite, "multi-role" is not "be able to do everything at once", but rather "capable of being outfitted to do different things well".

 

[V'larr]

On shields, I've just spotted that I'm way better off with the reinforced generator mod, and not the thermal resistant; I'm quite surprised to notice this, but then when I started using the thermal resistant mod, I was just following something that I'd read and did not grok how the HP and resistance worked with the use of cell banks, which does change everything.

Reinforced generator shield setup can work - compared to thermal resist shield gen + resist aug & heavy duty boosters, you'd bring 1-2 thermal resist boosters and keep the rest resist/HD (whatever gets you the most effective MJs in the end), and the difference is you get stronger up-front protection against raw/absolute damage (ramming, PAs) and slightly stronger kinetic, in exchange for worse overall resistance values (in other words, your regenerated MJs from passive regen & SCBs will be worth less against oncoming damage) and worse thermal protection.

It's a difference you can feel when comparing the two shielding setups in practice, and which one to use comes down to a matter of style/taste - if you're frequently ramming and don't mind having to use SCBs more frequently (or else take breaks to regen & rearm at a station periodically), or just struggle with dodging NPC PAs, reinforced gen setup can be good, whereas if you prefer to use ramming as a last resort & are confident in your piloting ability to avoid getting hit by PAs, the stronger regen value of the thermal gen setup will keep you in the fight for longer without needing to pay as much attention to your shield regen.

In general, use of Guardian Shield Reinforcement packages can shift the numbers in different ways on different ships - for instance, the "50/50 HD/resist aug" boosters advice you often see won't hold true on a Krait with enough GSRPs, where 3 resist aug + 1 HD will net you better overall effective MJs. The effective MJ total is the thing to pay attention to.

And yeah, SCBs are very well worth bringing - though for smaller ships, it's often the case that a GSRP will be better in optional slots of size 4 and under (some exceptions apply).

 

[V'larr]

I see what you are saying. I think there is a typo in the programming for that website. Looks like the integrity is calculating correctly but the .55% doesn't seem right. Look at the actual values in game and compare them. I'd be willing to bet that they will show different to what that 5D is saying out of game.

Coriolis has been undergoing a change in hands recently, it's possible there's a mistake there but the vast majority of the time it's the websites that are correct and the issue is either a missed detail or just the ingame display rounding things oddly. Edsy can be trusted with absolute certainty, I haven't used coriolis for long enough that I can't say for certain for it.

 

[Oh Seven Commander]

Coriolis has been undergoing a change in hands recently, it's possible there's a mistake there but the vast majority of the time it's the websites that are correct and the issue is either a missed detail or just the ingame display rounding things oddly. Edsy can be trusted with absolute certainty, I haven't used coriolis for long enough that I can't say for certain for it.

I second EDSY. The heat stats are also very good to be aware of, and they are best shown in EDSY in my experience.

 

[Kallipar]

Identified intent is naturally the most important thing. For general combat purposes, especially in CZs where NPCs will be outfitted with lots of hull reinforcement, attrition is usually the name of the game & for most budding pilots, losing a large chunk of survivability is not worth the opportunity cost & risk for a miniscule amount of extra maneuverability that won't really change the way you can fly - I've tried it in practice, it's not a difference that will be felt, even on the likes of a Chieftain or Courier. Using a mixture of gimballed and fixed weapons will get you a lot more mileage where enabling more combat maneuvers is concerned.

D2EA's shield calculator is a very misleading tool that will give you bad information if you do not put in specifically correct inputs - he himself reached several wrong conclusions with his infamous "cucumber ship", and it's led to longstanding misunderstandings about what's going on with shielding, unfortunately.

Most youtubers for Elite, frankly, are incorrect about many of their assumptions and findings - it does speak to the complexity of outfitting ships.

Ship integrity, as viewed in station services, is a "wear and tear" mechanic that simply applies a multiplier to your overall hull hitpoints, up to a maximum of -25% at 0 'integrity'. It's a generally negligible consideration, especially if you just repair/fuel everything all the time.

Breach/penetration is only a factor against targets with a sufficient hull hardness whose shields are down. For players, it's negligible for weapon consideration due to the presence of Corrosive (basically speaking, with Corrosive hardness will only affect small hardpoints that aren't railguns against larger opponents, which already do little enough damage that it's not that much of a difference).

I cannot agree that I like Engineering, I've just gone to great lengths to understand it, optimize it, and share my knowledge about it when opportunity arises, in an effort to minimize frustration & waste of invested time-and-effort. It's more of a "it is what it is" situation, where because it is such a massive power increase in all aspects, it cannot be ignored or avoided, and that also means the difference between unengineered - or improperly engineered - outfitting, versus optimized outfitting, can literally be to an exponential degree. And at the same time, almost nothing about Engineering is balanced - there's many blueprints that are just outright worse in all use cases and never worth using, which also leads to mistakes by players who trust that all blueprints are useful.

That said, keeping an open mind is definitely important. Identifying and respecting one's intent with outfitting is just as important as observing the objective facts and details about all these variables and numbers involved.

Feel free to send an invite yourself if you like, I'm not all that active ingame (currently, I'm waiting for the Engineering & powerplay changes promised earlier this year), but I pop up now and then.

Do you have access to the original and still valid breach flow chart? Your assertion is incorrect due to application of excess damage to modules or indirectly to hull if the roll hits a cap.

Also it would be worth while looking up the Imperial Courier image- on reddit out of context, which shows targeting and with the information on the flow chart you can see how targeting affects internal and external modules along with the 50% rule for external modular protection from module reinforcements. BTW I agree on his cucumber build etc. Also trying to find the google docs lol for the above - cant type in the printout lol

 

[Wily Rites]

I'm kind of intrigued to see where they will go with engineering, there are a LOT of bugs in this system that need fixing, it would be really nice to have better way to organise and store or sort once engineered pieces, I've got two concurrent builds going on my krait at the moment, one is all out combat, and the second is a combat/cargo/mercenary capable platform, very similar except that the more versatile ship has very few hull hitpoint, so if the shields go down, you've got to run, the other has very healthy and hard hull with strong shields too. Both are just as manoeuvrable.

I'm still learning to fly these things, I must say that I do really like the engineering, I'm a big fan of IL2 sturmovic, in that game/model the engineering is historically accurate and the date in the game makes a big difference as to how you really need to fly any particular plane and what to look out for. The engineering system in elite seems to go a long way in dealing with this, which is to say that it would otherwise be lacking a very important dynamic.

It's taking me an age to stop trying to fly these things as if they are planes, and to really get used to the model that does not use lift and banking. Getting there, turn rate speed and altitude are really important aspects of atmospheric flight, and anything that you can do to get the upper hand can really make the difference. This seems to be present in elites flight model, by way of the ability to engage or leave when you want if your ship is fast enough, and then, raw shield strength seems to kind of replace altitude, you can't get it back if you burn it up in a turn fight in the same way that you burn up shields standing your ground and jousting.

Anyhow, the bottom line is that engineering is extremely important in warfare, and any game that does not either set up some mechanism, else use a time line of evolving engineering effects will be a Childs toy, rather than any kind of simulation. The flight model of elite is definitely more to the simulation side than a toy. I love it!

 

[Wily Rites]

It is one of those weird cases with Engineering where the blueprints just don't make sense from a use-case point of view. Unless your objective is very specifically to strike some sort of middle ground between "gotta go fast" and "be combat capable", which in reality...will just mean you're less effective at either goal - much like how in Elite, "multi-role" is not "be able to do everything at once", but rather "capable of being outfitted to do different things well".

Yes I see what you mean, no real use for them, but they fit the pattern that does work for most of the engineering system, just a case of knowing what works and what does not. Not that this itself is not unrealistic though either, when you consider some of the engineering designs about aircraft, that folks tried, the things that flopped.

I'm going for the turn rate as at the moment this really helps me to get my cannons on target, with no gimbals on them. I gather that this can really be done using flight assist off too. But there are cases when flight assist off is not as fast as following the flight assist curve, especially when it is quick. I've not flown a Far De Lance yet though, to draw any comparison, and am aware that the krait is not as nimble. I suppose time will tell as to whether or not I keep on this 'pin the weight to the min thruster weight' tack.

Thanks for all you input, all great food for thought, clarifies the whole thing to be able to rationalise it.

 

[V'larr]

Do you have access to the original and still valid breach flow chart? Your assertion is incorrect due to application of excess damage to modules or indirectly to hull if the roll hits a cap.

Also it would be worth while looking up the Imperial Courier image- on reddit out of context, which shows targeting and with the information on the flow chart you can see how targeting affects internal and external modules along with the 50% rule for external modular protection from module reinforcements. BTW I agree on his cucumber build etc. Also trying to find the google docs lol for the above - cant type in the printout lol

I'm not sure what part of my assertions appear incorrect. I'm not challenging how breach mechanics work.

The breach mechanics are complex and ultimately not worth fussing over so long as you use corrosive, and not relevant to making considerations where damage type engineering is concerned - as you may note consulting the chart you linked me, explosive damage type resistance doesn't enter into the calculations for explosive breach chance anywhere. They are two distinctly different and separate things.

Like, no matter whether you know or don't know module breach mechanics, the way you outfit & the way you play won't change; in outfitting, optimize for the much-more-prevalent damage types in terms of effective MJs so you can count on shields never dropping (which you can do while still keeping a 'safety net' amount of hull hitpoints & a MRP if you're paranoid), and in combat, target powerplant/FSD, get opponent shields down quickly, use Corrosive, and if you want to really focus on coring target powerplants to death (which will work well enough with typical gimballed lasers + multicannons), you can bring railguns, cannons, PAs, and possibly penetrator-munitions dumbfire missiles - all of which have enough innate piercing values that they won't suffer even against the likes of a Type 10, so long as Corrosive is in the mix, where damage-dealing is concerned.

The big key thing here is Corrosive (easily the most overpowered special in the game); with it in use, the only case where you need think about piercing/breach stuff is if you're trying to use small hardpoints to kill larger opponents with & you are deliberately avoiding use of railguns, cannons, and penetrator dumbfires.

NPCs ships aren't engineered and so won't be using corrosive, with two specific & avoidable exceptions - Wing Assassination targets, and Spec Ops wings in Combat Zones - and in those cases, the answer is, firstly, to not let your shields drop (which is easily achievable, with all the hitpoint inflation possible), and if they do drop and you want to continue the engagement to the bitter end, ensure you have sufficient hull + module protection (just a single MRP will suffice, 2 MRPs are only worthwhile for dedicated hull tanks) to deal with it.

p.s. If you're looking for ship anatomy, it's here: https://siriuscorp.cc/edsa/

 

[V'larr]

I'm kind of intrigued to see where they will go with engineering, there are a LOT of bugs in this system that need fixing, it would be really nice to have better way to organise and store or sort once engineered pieces, I've got two concurrent builds going on my krait at the moment, one is all out combat, and the second is a combat/cargo/mercenary capable platform, very similar except that the more versatile ship has very few hull hitpoint, so if the shields go down, you've got to run, the other has very healthy and hard hull with strong shields too. Both are just as manoeuvrable.

I'm still learning to fly these things, I must say that I do really like the engineering, I'm a big fan of IL2 sturmovic, in that game/model the engineering is historically accurate and the date in the game makes a big difference as to how you really need to fly any particular plane and what to look out for. The engineering system in elite seems to go a long way in dealing with this, which is to say that it would otherwise be lacking a very important dynamic.

It's taking me an age to stop trying to fly these things as if they are planes, and to really get used to the model that does not use lift and banking. Getting there, turn rate speed and altitude are really important aspects of atmospheric flight, and anything that you can do to get the upper hand can really make the difference. This seems to be present in elites flight model, by way of the ability to engage or leave when you want if your ship is fast enough, and then, raw shield strength seems to kind of replace altitude, you can't get it back if you burn it up in a turn fight in the same way that you burn up shields standing your ground and jousting.

Anyhow, the bottom line is that engineering is extremely important in warfare, and any game that does not either set up some mechanism, else use a time line of evolving engineering effects will be a Childs toy, rather than any kind of simulation. The flight model of elite is definitely more to the simulation side than a toy. I love it!

As someone who once earned a pilot's license and has played aviation combat games as well as Elite, these assertions are off and my advice is to discard atmospheric flight ideas altogether. Elite does have some "Star Wars arcade" applied, in terms of putting a cap on acceleration & not having fully newtonian physics, but it is very much still full freedom in all 6 axes of movement. It's just that all the ships in the game have the majority of the thrust concentrated in the rear, by a large margin, so lateral thrust movements are weaker in comparison and tend towards that "Star Wars arcade"-iness.

Shielding especially, I would encourage you to throw away any thoughts of equating it to altitude. Shielding is very much replenishable (through passive shield regen [as in, Bi-weaves], and through SCBs [of sufficient size relative to your shielding amount]), and it is easy to stack so much of it that you need not worry about it in most combat engagements. SCBs especially enable you to replenish it on-demand in the heat of any given moment - best treated as a panic-button health potion, really.

Jousting is a symptom of approaching space combat with the ideas of atmospheric flight in mind & boosting too frequently - again, it's an idea you should throw away. What you should be doing is "distance control" - trying to match your ship's current velocity (speed + direction) to that of your opponent's vector (specifically not their orientation), and then orbiting them (through the use of latheral thrusters + throttle control, forward and back) to mitigate the damage you take while keeping them in optimal range for you to deal damage to them. Use of boost should be done sparingly to catch up to an opponent and match up your vectors again. (There's a useful trick - if you feel a boost you've used is ill-timed, deploy your landing gear/cargo scoop and it will 'choke' the boost so long as they remain deployed).

Of course, there's also ramming tactics to consider - risky to you, but very effective in terms of damage-dealing (it's often called the "class 5 hardpoint"), but that too demands you being able to maintain distance control on your opponent. Ships that can't maintain distance control need to have a loadout that gives you more options against more maneuverable opponents (railguns with Long Range, gimbals), but should still try to maneuver with distance control in mind (which you can cheese through 'reverski', which forces your opponent to come to you if they want to deal any damage to you).

At any rate - Engineering literally exponentially increases every potential variable of combat, for better or for worse, so yeah, you can't ignore it if you want to take combat seriously in this game. It's the most glaring "noob trap" of the Elite Experience, and I hope the changes will undo the rather insane power gap created between "vanilla" and "fully engineered" ships, and instead of the "MMO power spike", give us the originally-advertised "interesting tweaks and customization" we were told we would get back in the kickstarter.

But of course reaching that goal would require a lot of drastic changes, so who knows. Time will tell.

 

[V'larr]

Yes I see what you mean, no real use for them, but they fit the pattern that does work for most of the engineering system, just a case of knowing what works and what does not. Not that this itself is not unrealistic though either, when you consider some of the engineering designs about aircraft, that folks tried, the things that flopped.

I'm going for the turn rate as at the moment this really helps me to get my cannons on target, with no gimbals on them. I gather that this can really be done using flight assist off too. But there are cases when flight assist off is not as fast as following the flight assist curve, especially when it is quick. I've not flown a Far De Lance yet though, to draw any comparison, and am aware that the krait is not as nimble. I suppose time will tell as to whether or not I keep on this 'pin the weight to the min thruster weight' tack.

Thanks for all you input, all great food for thought, clarifies the whole thing to be able to rationalise it.

The thing about maneuverability is everything you can improve about the thruster performance modifier, improves everything equally. So going faster also means being able to turn faster, and because for combat-fitted ships weight is a moot point to consider, it's just "improve thrusters as much as possible (dirty tuning + drag drives) and you're done, where outfitting for turn speed is concerned, short of selecting another ship.

As I mentioned already, you can try to make a ship that sacrifices very significant amounts of combat sustainability to get to the point where reducing mass will give you appreciable gains in maneuverability - but you should do so knowing it is not going to be optimal for combat, and there's really only a few specific ships where that potential exists. Most 'made-for-combat ships' are just going to be too heavy for it to be a thing.

Regarding flight assist - it can be useful to turn off for doing certain maneuvers, but it's definitely easier to aim with it on. Full HOTAS/joystick users have a (much) easier time making FA-off work, but it's not necessary to use it by any means. The default game settings are jank, and it's worth fiddling with them til you're comfortable and can keep your aim precise on a moving dot.