Hey folks; I saw a lot of comparisons of these two ships, but as to be expected, no real consensus... and a lot of misinformation. So I wanted to give my own, detailed guide to the two.
Overview: The Anaconda Is Still The Greatest Range And Functionality, The Mandalay Is Close, Runs Colder and Faster.
Both builds have been set up for identical functionality with exploring; stripped down to save as much weight as possible, including all that will be needed for exploration including planetary roving with a buggy. They also have enough jumps too, with care, to have a reasonable range to constantly move with fuel scooping; the stripped specification to get maximum range gets you one jump and done. Neither require reputation to unlock, and one thing to bare in mind, with landing gear down, and horizontal, ALL ships have the same counter to gravity and can be landed with the same ease. The only difference is if you're not horizontal, it's easier to bang larger ships tails/nose into scenery, and it can be trickier to find clear space for a larger ship.
Why no heatsinks? On a trip to Beagle Point and back in the podgy Anaconda, I never found I needed them as long as I throttled back to zero speed during the countdown, when you arrive you should always be outside of the overheating zone and have time to look around to get out of sticky situations.
Why shields? At the smallest possible for the hull size, they can be enabled for planetary landings and give you a bit of accident insurance, as well as that all important docking to deliver your precious data. They wont save you from catastrophic miscalculations or kamikaze speed docking malarky, but I like to have them. Take them off if you prefer to live Dangerously at all times, or wont be going near planetary landings you might get all excited and boosty near.
Why Docking Computers? They weigh nothing, so why not have them to help in case you've forgotten how to dock after months in the black...
Of course, feel free to tweak to personal taste. Here are the direct comparisons then;
Mandalay Build
Range (4 pips Eng, full fuel) : 86.54 LY
Max Range Equipped: 89.51 LY
Stripped Bare: (Fuel Tank 4, additional 2t internal) 91.15 / 91.53 LY
Full Range Jumps On A Tank: 3
Advantages:
Makes an ideal explorer within a system, due to be able to SCO boost out to remote planets faster, and it's speed and maneuverability make it feel like a sports car for planetary flying. Just be careful when doing so as like a sports car, it's twitchy and just as likely to get you into trouble as well as get you out of it. As built above, you need to remember to power off the fuel scoop to enable shielding, and then also turn the shields off when landed to enable the Scarab's bay. Its combination of range, speed and handling also makes it an ideal short range deliverer for Courier Data missions and smaller cargo/upgrade schlepping.
Anaconda Build:
Range (4 pips Eng, full fuel) : 92.67 LY
Max Range Equipped: 96.81 LY
Stripped Bare: (Fuel Tank 8, additional 2t Internal) 97.54 / 98.04 LY
Full Range Jumps On A Tank: 4
Advantages:
This was the undisputed king of exploration for nearly a decade, and we got used to it's podgy foibles over that time; if you remember how to fly it cautiously, it's still the best for long distance pure system honking... People online seem to be curiously unaware of how far it can be pushed, perhaps because they want to believe the new shinyness is automatically best. I read so many posts saying the Mandalay outranged it, but that's simply not true. And at the extreme edges, it can still reach places the Mandalay can't. It's fat but uncomplicated; You can leap, leap, leap with minimal attention (and we have). Can be turned into a gun boat or a heavy hauler too if you dont want to do the Naval Reputation grinds. But it struggles compared to the Mandalay within the systems themselves, due to not easily being able to use SCO to get to the planets.
The question is... is that range a worthy trade off?
Well, it adds up so roughly every 14 jumps in the Mandalay, the Anaconda will have done 15 jumps worth in equivalent distance.
If you're scanning systems to gain data/cash/Elite Reputation, the number of jumps is irrelevant, you'll scan each system in the time it takes each system; but the Anaconda is going to be much slower as it can't move around the system as well.
If you're scanning as you go somewhere specific far away, the Anaconda will be better as you'll have less systems to scan. But it might be more frustrating to do. Your call.
If you're just going somewhere far away, the Anaconda will get you there faster. But not by as much as you might think when just shuttling; Sol to Beagle Point, still one of the most extreme hauls is 65,279LY, so divided by 92.67 you're looking at 705 jumps approximately (assuming perfect range, but all values are naturally approximate). At Mandalay range you're looking at 755 jumps, 50 more. Without scanning, just honking, I could do a jump every 1.5 minutes, so an extra 1 hour 15m saved (50 x 1.5m) over all those jumps... about 19 hours in total for the Mandalay, 17hr30 for the Anaconda. Worth it? Possibly not. But if you're scanning and mapping at every jump... it'll add up. A lot.
And you can't look like a cow doing it in the Mandalay. So maybe you should.
But you can still get places in the Mandalay.
So pick what suits your gameplay and needs the most...
Overview: The Anaconda Is Still The Greatest Range And Functionality, The Mandalay Is Close, Runs Colder and Faster.
Both builds have been set up for identical functionality with exploring; stripped down to save as much weight as possible, including all that will be needed for exploration including planetary roving with a buggy. They also have enough jumps too, with care, to have a reasonable range to constantly move with fuel scooping; the stripped specification to get maximum range gets you one jump and done. Neither require reputation to unlock, and one thing to bare in mind, with landing gear down, and horizontal, ALL ships have the same counter to gravity and can be landed with the same ease. The only difference is if you're not horizontal, it's easier to bang larger ships tails/nose into scenery, and it can be trickier to find clear space for a larger ship.
Why no heatsinks? On a trip to Beagle Point and back in the podgy Anaconda, I never found I needed them as long as I throttled back to zero speed during the countdown, when you arrive you should always be outside of the overheating zone and have time to look around to get out of sticky situations.
Why shields? At the smallest possible for the hull size, they can be enabled for planetary landings and give you a bit of accident insurance, as well as that all important docking to deliver your precious data. They wont save you from catastrophic miscalculations or kamikaze speed docking malarky, but I like to have them. Take them off if you prefer to live Dangerously at all times, or wont be going near planetary landings you might get all excited and boosty near.
Why Docking Computers? They weigh nothing, so why not have them to help in case you've forgotten how to dock after months in the black...
Of course, feel free to tweak to personal taste. Here are the direct comparisons then;
Mandalay Build
Range (4 pips Eng, full fuel) : 86.54 LY
Max Range Equipped: 89.51 LY
Stripped Bare: (Fuel Tank 4, additional 2t internal) 91.15 / 91.53 LY
Full Range Jumps On A Tank: 3
Advantages:
- Can run Supercruise Overdrive as long as you have fuel, always caps out at 60% heat.
- Extremely maneuverable and fast.
- Due to the above two, can escape stars quickly and colder.
- Fits on all landing pad sizes
- Window in the floor allows you to look below you somewhat when flying across planet surfaces, helps with exobiology.
- Has speed boosting in local flight.
- Down to personal taste, but prettier, more active cockpit to keep you interested during long flights.
- Doesn't have the range, even when stripped, of the equivalent equipped Anaconda
- Slower fueling around stars than the Anaconda due to smaller size scoop.
- Less hull so less survivability.
- Temptation to burn all your fuel with SCO. Don't do this.
- Power needs a little management to switch between roles.
- Can't be made to look a bit like a cow, boo.
Makes an ideal explorer within a system, due to be able to SCO boost out to remote planets faster, and it's speed and maneuverability make it feel like a sports car for planetary flying. Just be careful when doing so as like a sports car, it's twitchy and just as likely to get you into trouble as well as get you out of it. As built above, you need to remember to power off the fuel scoop to enable shielding, and then also turn the shields off when landed to enable the Scarab's bay. Its combination of range, speed and handling also makes it an ideal short range deliverer for Courier Data missions and smaller cargo/upgrade schlepping.
Anaconda Build:
Range (4 pips Eng, full fuel) : 92.67 LY
Max Range Equipped: 96.81 LY
Stripped Bare: (Fuel Tank 8, additional 2t Internal) 97.54 / 98.04 LY
Full Range Jumps On A Tank: 4
Advantages:
- Greater range even when equipped than a completely stripped Mandalay.
- Larger fuel stocks gives a greater margin of safety in finding fuel stars.
- Larger fuel scoop ensures near full fuel just passing by fuel stars.
- Doesn't require power management to run all its equipment
- More hull which gives you somewhat more survivability.
- Greater potential customizability, especially with internal space. Stick fighters or cargo holds in there if you want.
- Can be given little horns and a black/white patterned skin, so it can look a bit like a cow. Mooo!
- It's a chonky boi, which some people might find uncomfortable, especially compared to the nimble Mandalay around planets.
- Will overheat quickly with SCO, and eats fuel fast. The Mandalay is clearly superior here.
- Large landing pads only.
- If trying to fly manually, you'll be banging this into a lot of station slots due to size, you need that Docking Computer powered.
- Absolutely no boost at all. Ever. So if you're coming down too fast on a planet, you're in for a bad time.
- Honking great nose, you won't be seeing much from below you from inside the cockpit.
- And it's such a bland cockpit. Not as bad as the Corvette, but you'll be looking at it for jump after jump...
This was the undisputed king of exploration for nearly a decade, and we got used to it's podgy foibles over that time; if you remember how to fly it cautiously, it's still the best for long distance pure system honking... People online seem to be curiously unaware of how far it can be pushed, perhaps because they want to believe the new shinyness is automatically best. I read so many posts saying the Mandalay outranged it, but that's simply not true. And at the extreme edges, it can still reach places the Mandalay can't. It's fat but uncomplicated; You can leap, leap, leap with minimal attention (and we have). Can be turned into a gun boat or a heavy hauler too if you dont want to do the Naval Reputation grinds. But it struggles compared to the Mandalay within the systems themselves, due to not easily being able to use SCO to get to the planets.
The question is... is that range a worthy trade off?
Well, it adds up so roughly every 14 jumps in the Mandalay, the Anaconda will have done 15 jumps worth in equivalent distance.
If you're scanning systems to gain data/cash/Elite Reputation, the number of jumps is irrelevant, you'll scan each system in the time it takes each system; but the Anaconda is going to be much slower as it can't move around the system as well.
If you're scanning as you go somewhere specific far away, the Anaconda will be better as you'll have less systems to scan. But it might be more frustrating to do. Your call.
If you're just going somewhere far away, the Anaconda will get you there faster. But not by as much as you might think when just shuttling; Sol to Beagle Point, still one of the most extreme hauls is 65,279LY, so divided by 92.67 you're looking at 705 jumps approximately (assuming perfect range, but all values are naturally approximate). At Mandalay range you're looking at 755 jumps, 50 more. Without scanning, just honking, I could do a jump every 1.5 minutes, so an extra 1 hour 15m saved (50 x 1.5m) over all those jumps... about 19 hours in total for the Mandalay, 17hr30 for the Anaconda. Worth it? Possibly not. But if you're scanning and mapping at every jump... it'll add up. A lot.
And you can't look like a cow doing it in the Mandalay. So maybe you should.
But you can still get places in the Mandalay.
So pick what suits your gameplay and needs the most...
.
