Explorer Phantom

waldgeist

W
Okay, so far i will go with this build:

Coriolis EDCD Edition

A ship builder, outfitting and comparison tool for Elite Dangerous
coriolis.io coriolis.io

  • boosting possible (not important)
  • shield possible with the 2a, but won t need it
  • for this trip no srv

  • due to a bug i can t engineer my power plant, so i took an old one. would go to oc grade 5 and experimental lightweight with that
  • life support so far only grade 3, in colonia it will be upgraded some day on grade 5

- with the smaller fuel tank i will only do exploring in rather dense reagions, and plot with a lot of fuel stars (o, a, f, g and the rare ones)

- for a deep space trip i would get the bigger fuel tank, (maybe plasmaslug rail), srw, maybe the small engineered shield

- luxury which can (power) be opted out are the docking and sc assist

so a deep space-safe build would be under 70kly, - an optimised one of the build above could have a little more even (life support)

... o7 and many thanks
 

waldgeist

W
Yeah, so - this would be my safe build:

(still not with colonia engineering)

Coriolis EDCD Edition

A ship builder, outfitting and comparison tool for Elite Dangerous
coriolis.io coriolis.io

...but the fuel tank can be 4c too, one has to watch out a little bit more, but no prob in dense star regions....
then it would be still above 70lys
 

Libluini

Libluini
Woah, didn't expect the diminishing returns hitting quite so hard. 71-72 ly per jump is a lot, sure, but my crazy taxi with large guns on it already gets up to ca. 65. Insane thinking that even after stripping down completely, I'd only get a couple more ly out of it.

For comparison's sake, here's my Phantom.

Almost every part that could be engineered, was engineered. Mostly lightweight, with some exceptions like overcharging my power plant so I could get a size smaller one and still power everything, and clean engines to make it running cooler. The special effects on my weapons let them shoot through shields, so it doesn't matter that I'm a bad shoot, at the very least I can scratch the paint off someone before dying horribly!

Of course, from the standpoint of optimizing jump range, my own fit isn't fully optimal (since I didn't want to but that's beside the point). :p
 

waldgeist

W
Yeah true, but i d say (just imho) that your build IS definately already way more a jumprange build and not a combat build...

So with that in mind, the little difference is easier to accept.
 

Orvidius

Orvidius
There's always a big trade-off between jump range, and utility. I love that we have the flexibility to balance the ships the way we want to, based on individual preference.

Jump range is always useful, but I've found that a few lightyears doesn't usually make a huge difference, unless you're specifically going to visit very sparse regions or stars that are difficult to reach. After about 50, the exploration experience is mostly the same no matter what the number is. But having said that, if the goal is to get around more quickly, then more is always better. ;)

As another point of comparison, here's my current phantom build. You can see that I've sacrificed a few lightyears compared to others, but the jump range is still pretty decent. I've eliminated the power juggling (I don't mind it that much, but it's nice to leave everything turned on sometimes too), however the main purpose of a larger power plant is to have the 40% threshold high enough to power critical systems in case of a powerplant malfunction (which almost never happens). I've filled all the slots and hardpoints (guns are mainly for shooting at asteroids when I'm bored), and it runs fairly cool. The thrusters are slightly undersized, but not as small as they can go. I tried 4D thrusters, but decided I'd rather have the 5D performance. Plus, it can perma-boost.

It also has A-rated life support and a small repair limpet controller, for emergencies. Like a fire extinguisher, I almost never need them, but they give me options if an emergency arises.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom