FDEV please, T6 should be a small pad ship and T7 medium.

Gryphorim

G
Gunnet said:
This right here is my main issue with the T7 not being a medium pad ship. It would be like churning out cargo ships that are half a foot of draft beyond panamax.

In a universe where every single station uses a standardised system of pad/hangar sizes, dedicated cargo ships should tend towards being boxes just barely small enough in each dimension to fit in a hangar.
Click to expand...

Couldn't have said it better myself, but I felt this thought needed to be raised as a thread in it's own right.

The boxy shapes of the T6 and T7 are just like what would be churned out to just barely fit on regulation landing pads. And the only limiter here is the height of both ships, which are within a meter or two of hangar limits. Surely the hangar spaces can be stretched just a little, or the T6 and T7 shrunk just a bit so that they fit on the landing pads they were clearly designed for.
 

Blaize Meduenin

B
I completely agree and have said the same as the quote above myself in a revious thread. Its not logical for a specialised cargo ship to be made just slightly too big for a more useable hanger size in 1 dimension when its got room to be bigger in the others if need be to do the same thing while being more versatile.

Further to elites world logic is the game balance, if t6 was small and t7 medium the best cargo ships for small and medium pads would be these 2 specialised cargo ships, rather than the current situation where all purpose ships are the best cargo ships.
 

Ozram

Ozram
Gryphorim said:
Couldn't have said it better myself, but I felt this thought needed to be raised as a thread in it's own right.

The boxy shapes of the T6 and T7 are just like what would be churned out to just barely fit on regulation landing pads. And the only limiter here is the height of both ships, which are within a meter or two of hangar limits. Surely the hangar spaces can be stretched just a little, or the T6 and T7 shrunk just a bit so that they fit on the landing pads they were clearly designed for.
Click to expand...
I use and love both of those ships. They're very good at what they do and fine where they are IMO. While I wouldn't do any sort of rally cry if your suggestion were to come true, I don't see any need for it.
186970x1537.jpg

T7 is quite possibly the safest ship in SC. I've yet to have a player successfully interdict mine.
20133x1566.jpg

T6 is fast and versatile, only outmatched by the far more expensive ASP (and frankly, I prefer how it handles).
They're also not exactly small ships. This is like when people ask for the Clipper to be made into a medium ship. Unnessessary.
 

Ozram

Ozram
Blaize Meduenin said:
I completely agree and have said the same as the quote above myself in a revious thread. Its not logical for a specialised cargo ship to be made just slightly too big for a more useable hanger size in 1 dimension when its got room to be bigger in the others if need be to do the same thing while being more versatile.

Further to elites world logic is the game balance, if t6 was small and t7 medium the best cargo ships for small and medium pads would be these 2 specialised cargo ships, rather than the current situation where all purpose ships are the best cargo ships.
Click to expand...

Well, despite my previous post, I think you make a fair point.
 

Gryphorim

G
Ozram said:
They're also not exactly small ships. This is like when people ask for the Clipper to be made into a medium ship. Unnessessary.
Click to expand...

The Clipper is a different matter entirely, there's no (practical) way it can be made a medium. Best to design a new imperial ship.
The T6 and T7 though, I wouldn't suggest any changes to the functionality of the ships, and would honestly just prefer the hangars changed/coded to accommodate them. 1 meter. Just 1.

The Orca should probably be included in this discussion as well, because it should already be landing on medium landing pads. It has greater clearance in all dimensions on a medium than a Cutter has on a large.
 

UnhappyDev

UnhappyDev
Gryphorim said:
Surely the hangar spaces can be stretched just a little, or the T6 and T7 shrunk just a bit so that they fit on the landing pads they were clearly designed for.
Click to expand...

It might be possible to do this but I suspect that it's not going to happen. FDev have surely more important stuff to do?

Anyway, I like the T6 and T7 sizes the way they are. They are meant to be space freighters and accordingly are bulky and have a lot of cargo space. The T7 in particular can make you a lot of cash mid-game from trading alone. IMO there should be a downside, in this case its extra size.
 

K-Rose

K-Rose
Nah, they should just be given "Trader Module Slots" to allow for extra cargo racks.

The T6 should carry vastly more cargo than an ASP. I'm talking 250T

The T7 should carry 400-500T

The T9 should carry 700-800T


It's not like the rest of the game is balanced with earnings, Combat & Exploration now make vastly more sums if you know what you're doing (Massacre & Passenger).

It's time standard trading got a buff.
 

Arthur Shappey

Arthur Shappey
I prefer in-game solutions rather than resizing all platforms across all millions of stars; which if we are to continue the pretence that this is real, wouldn't ever happen.

The in-game solution is that a ship-manufacturing company spots the gap in the market, and releases new haulers each sized to max each pad-size.

Then the T6 & T7 might eventually become obsolete, in-game market economics should decide that, although there will bound to be a dedicated fan-club springing up, lovingly polishing their oil-stained chassis and showing them off in Elysium Fields (under twin-suns) whilst sharing pork pies, reminiscing about their fond memories of the good-ol' days when the T6 & T7 ruled the space highways...

I would also like a Panther Clipper so large for haulage that it cannot even dock at a space station, but it comes with an on-board shuttle to do cargo runs from and to space stations/outposts.
 

K-Rose

K-Rose
Arthur Shappey said:
I prefer in-game solutions rather than resizing all platforms across all millions of stars; which if we are to continue the pretence that this is real, wouldn't ever happen.

The in-game solution is that a ship-manufacturing company spots the gap in the market, and releases new haulers each sized to max each pad-size.

Then the T6 & T7 might eventually become obsolete, in-game market economics should decide that, although there will bound to be a dedicated fan-club springing up, lovingly polishing their oil-stained chassis and showing them off in Elysium Fields (under twin-suns) whilst sharing pork pies, reminiscing about their fond memories of the good-ol' days when the T6 & T7 ruled the space highways...

I would also like a Panther Clipper so large for haulage that it cannot even dock at a space station, but it comes with an on-board shuttle to do cargo runs from and to space stations/outposts.
Click to expand...

Definitely agree with you on the Panther.

And I agree I wish every ship had Mk versions, some would be like the Cobra Mk 3 to Mk 4 where they fill different roles. Others would just be priced differently. There could be a whole economy around new and improved ships constantly being developed.
 

[VR] Mad Mike

[VR] Mad Mike
T6 cant be a small pad its just too big.

but lore wise, think about it. who ever designed the T7 needs a smack to the head (i am not talking about the real world designer).... its like 0.5m too tall to fit in the medium hangar..... now, as a heavy trade ship, it is obvious that being able to land at outposts would be a huge selling point to potential customers, so you can bet your left nut, even if it was a squeeze, one way or another it would fit in.

my suggestion would be something to do with the landing gear, which would semi retract on landing to hunker down, and then could lift up to let out the srv on planets - kind of like those gangster cars the Americans seem to love so much with the awful adjustable suspension.
 
Last edited:

dognosh

dognosh
Download Janichsan's brilliant PDF(and zoom in) https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...gress-Complete-Full-Colour-ED-Ship-Size-Chart
==================
Imho:
Clipper is too big to go in to the Med range
T6 & keelback look out of place on Med range
T7 looks comfy in the Med range(except it's not!!!)
Python fits in well in Med range
Ignoring height,T7 & Python should be on the same pad size.

Here is my butchering of his wonderful chart to just show mediums, T7, and clipper
dJIObqR.jpg
 
Last edited:

Flimsey

Flimsey
Noctover said:
And the Clipper a medium with retractable wings :D
Click to expand...

In Frontier elite 2 ( do not remember but probably even elite 3) the wing of the imperial curier had retractebel wings.

Bit its better to let it be and make a new medium ship for the empire.
Maby a long range fighter that can double as a explorer, do not want to use my asp for everything :D
 
Last edited:

Ozram

Ozram
dognosh said:
Download Janichsan's brilliant PDF(and zoom in) https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...gress-Complete-Full-Colour-ED-Ship-Size-Chart
==================
Imho:
Clipper is too big to go in to the Med range
T6 & keelback look out of place on Med range
T7 looks comfy in the Med range(except it's not!!!)
Python fits in well in Med range
Ignoring height,T7 & Python should be on the same pad size.

Here is my butchering of his wonderful chart to just show mediums, T7, and clipper
http://i.imgur.com/dJIObqR.jpg
Click to expand...

Would you kindly re-butcher by adding in the largest of the small pad ships please? I'd do it myself but my ignorance knows no bounds.
Cobra 3 & 4, Vulture, Viper 4, maybe also the Dolphin and perhaps the DBE.
 
Last edited:

[VR] Mad Mike

[VR] Mad Mike
Gryphorim said:
It's shorter than the Dolphin and narrower than the Cobra and only a single meter taller than a DBX.
Click to expand...

<does some googlefu> actually yes.. you have a point, i didnt realise the T6 was that small... so it looks like the issue with the T6 is the same as with the T7 then.

I stand somewhat corrected :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom