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

Gryphorim

G
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...

Using info from that same .pdf there are ships longer or wider than T6, and some nearly same height as it, that fit on the small landing pad.
Similarly, there are ships longer, wider and almost as tall as the T7 that fit on the medium pad.
True, the T6 and T7 would look abnormally large on those pads, because they fill the entire space. That'd be the point though. A min-maxed freighter that fits literally as much cargo into that regulation box as is physically possible.
 

Ashnak

Ashnak
Just flew a T-7 for the first time in beta. The ship handles really well, but there are several things not quite right with the design as it is.

I love the suggestion of being able to fit it onto a medium pad by hunkering down - after all, the pad has apparently some kind of docking system and is flat, so you don't need the gear fully extended (although access to the lower HPs and Utility slots would be blocked... might make this difficult to implement).

But there is one thing even worse with the T-7: the main engines are placed wrong. They would need to be placed parallel to the axis through the center of gravity (ok, center of inertia), but as they are, they're much too high. With this engine placement, the T-7 could only fly loopings. Pull the engines down by a couple of meters to where they should be and maybe go across the top with a plane, and that half meter in height would disappear as if by magic.

The other thing that has me puzzled: why does the T-7 seem to have foldable wings when they're never folded?
 

[VR] Mad Mike

[VR] Mad Mike
dognosh said:
Googles Nacelle pronto
Click to expand...

lol in this sense its a star trekism (the engines on the enterprise that look like wings are nacelles).....

AFAIK the literal meaning is just a cover for any engine or compartment, usually that improves aerodynamics
 
Last edited:

Ozram

Ozram
Gryphorim said:
Using info from that same .pdf there are ships longer or wider than T6, and some nearly same height as it, that fit on the small landing pad.
Similarly, there are ships longer, wider and almost as tall as the T7 that fit on the medium pad.
True, the T6 and T7 would look abnormally large on those pads, because they fill the entire space. That'd be the point though. A min-maxed freighter that fits literally as much cargo into that regulation box as is physically possible.
Click to expand...

I'm starting to come around to your way of seeing it. I'm happy with them as they are, but you make a sound argument.
 

dognosh

dognosh
Ozram said:
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.
Click to expand...

yDBBDs6.jpg
 
Last edited:

dognosh

dognosh
If you ask for the rest of the meds to be put in, and the large ones too, I will bash your head and point you to Janichsan's thread :D
 

Flimsey

Flimsey
The question is not of the T ships are good or not its about wierd design.
In rl you build ships to fit locks where it is intended to go, and they do not have big clerenc often not much more then a meter. Locks as panama and suez set standards om big ships.

So there should be bulktraders that only have minimum clerance of the three pads. I hope they will come, and its ok with a medium ship with more cargo than a T9.... But with a much higher price.

We have only reference of space and non atmosfere bases we do not know about erlier standars on different planets lorevise. So when todays T ships was design they were intended for other platforms. In the old elite games when landing in atmosfere the higt was no issue.

So there is room to put in max size cargoships panter for large, T8 for medium and T5 or better shohorn in the T6 for small.
 
Last edited:

clinton

C
It doesn't really matter too much about the T6 going on a small pad, as outposts have medium pads anyway. The T7 is a bigger issue though.

I think Frontier should do either one of two things for the T7:

1. Reduce it to a medium pad OR
2. Add a fighter bay and extra seat, but keep it large.

Requiring the space for a fighter bay is a justification for the T7 to be large, but without a fighter bay, it should be medium. I'd rather them add the fighter bay and extra seat, the T7 would then fill a gap for non-rank locked fighter capable ships between the Keelback and Type 9. It will also allow the Python to remain in it's specialised role as the largest medium pad ship, and additionally keep the Gunship as the largest medium pad fighter capable ship.

Whilst we're talking about changes, here's the other changes I'd make:

- Upgrade the Hauler's size 3 compartments to size 4 (but keep the default fitting as size 2 racks). Upgrading both racks will cost 60k, more than the price of the ship, so it's not OP, but at least it gives the Hauler some longevity instead of just being replaced by the Adder ASAP.
- Upgrade one of the Type 9's size 4 compartments to size 9 (and add a new size 9 cargo rack in outfitting for 12.5 mil). This will give the Type 9 a 1028T of cargo space, and make it, as the top of the line specialised cargo ship, actually carry the most cargo. However, it will have some costs, firstly, an unengineered jump range of less than 10LY, even with a class-A frameshift drive, and a 4-pip engine speed that barely manages to break the speed limit. But for hauling cargo it will be top of the mill, although commanders may still pick the Anaconda or Clipper as they may find its better jump range and speed is worth the lower cargo space. But at least the Type 9 with this change will be competitive. With this change I think the FSD and speed should be kept at their current levels, the T9 should be a shockingly slow box, but a really big slow box.
- Give the Keelback an extra seat also! Having a fighter bay with only one seat is silly.
 

Ozram

Ozram
dognosh said:
If you ask for the rest of the meds to be put in, and the large ones too, I will bash your head and point you to Janichsan's thread :D
Click to expand...
Fine, I'll just teach myself:
2WkKSHI.jpg

Ooh, now that I can do that I may have to do a birds eye view of my fleet and throw those all together.
Further edit.
Maybe what we need is a micropad, for the tinny ships.
 
Last edited:

Flimsey

Flimsey
clinton said:
It doesn't really matter too much about the T6 going on a small pad, as outposts have medium pads anyway. The T7 is a bigger issue though.

I think Frontier should do either one of two things for the T7:

1. Reduce it to a medium pad OR
2. Add a fighter bay and extra seat, but keep it large.

Requiring the space for a fighter bay is a justification for the T7 to be large, but without a fighter bay, it should be medium. I'd rather them add the fighter bay and extra seat, the T7 would then fill a gap for non-rank locked fighter capable ships between the Keelback and Type 9. It will also allow the Python to remain in it's specialised role as the largest medium pad ship, and additionally keep the Gunship as the largest medium pad fighter capable ship.

Whilst we're talking about changes, here's the other changes I'd make:

- Upgrade the Hauler's size 3 compartments to size 4 (but keep the default fitting as size 2 racks). Upgrading both racks will cost 60k, more than the price of the ship, so it's not OP, but at least it gives the Hauler some longevity instead of just being replaced by the Adder ASAP.
- Upgrade one of the Type 9's size 4 compartments to size 9 (and add a new size 9 cargo rack in outfitting for 12.5 mil). This will give the Type 9 a 1028T of cargo space, and make it, as the top of the line specialised cargo ship, actually carry the most cargo. However, it will have some costs, firstly, an unengineered jump range of less than 10LY, even with a class-A frameshift drive, and a 4-pip engine speed that barely manages to break the speed limit. But for hauling cargo it will be top of the mill, although commanders may still pick the Anaconda or Clipper as they may find its better jump range and speed is worth the lower cargo space. But at least the Type 9 with this change will be competitive. With this change I think the FSD and speed should be kept at their current levels, the T9 should be a shockingly slow box, but a really big slow box.
- Give the Keelback an extra seat also! Having a fighter bay with only one seat is silly.
Click to expand...

You focus on what we have today, we know that alot more content is coming. I hope there will be land and space stations with only small, that would give small ships a revival. What about a T9 rebuilt to be a makeshift spacestation with a small pad. Or several cargo ships welded togeter to be outposts with both medium and small pads.
 

Jmanis

Jmanis
I wholeheartedly agree with the OP, however, there needs to be a couple additions for it to *really* work.

- there also needs to be small-pad-only outposts/bases. That gives some purpose to the dedicated trade vessels at all levels throughout the game.
- Introduce "Industrial" slots in the same vein as the "Military" slots that the various combat ships have, which allow Cargo Racks, Refineries, Prospector and Collector Limpets to be fitted.
- Apply Industrial slots to the Hauler, Keelback, T6, T7, T9. When applying them, have the net result be a boost to cargo capacity which makes a fully decked out T9 for hauling >= Anaconda, T7 >= Python. T6 is actually fine with it's current capacity. Future "Panther Clipper" >= cutter/corvette.

This way, multipurpose ships still maintain their multipurpose nature... Python, Anaconda and Vette/Cutter can still be haulers which are on-par with the hauling variants, but can be refit for combat, while the purpose-haulers can't fit combat effectively, but the base ship is a fraction of the cost.
 

ZeroAi

ZeroAi
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...

K-Rose said:
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.
Click to expand...

Second both options - hopefully FDev can address
 

JonLuis69

JonLuis69
If the Panther being so massive were a problem perhaps it could have a detachable cargo section or two. That would be fun I think. Parking 10km away and separating and flying in the sections.

:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom