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

[[VR] Mad Mike]

won't happen, stuff gets unbalanced.
unless cargo capacity is slashed.
buy a python. problem solved.

this may have been a problem 12 months ago... however with the inflation everything else has gotten, with some missions taking 10 mins to complete paying out in the millions AND stackable i think bulk trading is now a really poor paying career, esp if you take into account we have to risk 10s of millions of our own capital as a float.

 

[Ozram]

this may have been a problem 12 months ago... however with the inflation everything else has gotten, with some missions taking 10 mins to complete paying out in the millions AND stackable i think bulk trading is now a really poor paying career, esp if you take into account we have to risk 10s of millions of our own capital as a float.

Used to be the most profitable task, way back in the day. A good trade rout (and build) were coveted secrets.

 

[Gryphorim]

won't happen, stuff gets unbalanced.
unless cargo capacity is slashed.
buy a python. problem solved.

Stuff can be balanced like it has been before. Honestly, they've adjusted the T7's stats before, they could do it again. I don't see how the T7 as a dedicated trader would unbalance anything drastically by being able to land at outposts. Python already does this, at similar cargo cap, and it's a multirole.
Why should the multi-purpose ship out-trade the equivalent trader? And before you say they aren't equivalent, based on price, consider that a multi-role has to be capable of, well, multiple roles and this will drive up costs.

 

[Ozram]

Stuff can be balanced like it has been before. Honestly, they've adjusted the T7's stats before, they could do it again. I don't see how the T7 as a dedicated trader would unbalance anything drastically by being able to land at outposts. Python already does this, at similar cargo cap, and it's a multirole.
Why should the multi-purpose ship out-trade the equivalent trader? And before you say they aren't equivalent, based on price, consider that a multi-role has to be capable of, well, multiple roles and this will drive up costs.

If the choice is between supercruise superiority (pretty much can't be interdicted) and a medium pad access, then I'd rather it stay as is. So far as I'm concerned, that's it's superpower.

 

[Crank Larson]

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.

Why should ships have to be made to match landing pad sizes? That doesn't make sense. A ship will be allocated to the appropriately sized pad - which will be the one large enough for it to land on. If a ship is slightly too big for a small pad, it just means it has to land on a medium - to suggest that either pad or ship needs a redesign is completely unnecessary.

 

[Noctover]

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

Can you imagine a ship as good as the ASP with Imperial styling! Omnom.

 

[Danieros]

I really don't understand how the medium ship with the most cargo capacity is NOT the T7 freighter with its 304 cargo space, but a multipurpose ship that is the Python with its 292 cargo space. And that's not even considering how illogical it seems that they would be so close in capacity in this fight for medium pad ships though it's fair enough that the freighter is much cheaper to buy and rebuy.

FDEV could give Freighters some love by giving a specialized compartment or two for cargo, or create a specialized cargo compartment that is like 50% bigger for the same class but can only be used by Freighters. So while the 5-E rack fits 32 tons of cargo, this specialized 5-D rack would fit 48. This would bring the T6 hold up to 168 cargo, the T7 hold up to 456 and the T9 would be barely a decent freighter with 798 cargo (really close versus the 792 a clipper can fit).

 

[Ozram]

Why should ships have to be made to match landing pad sizes? That doesn't make sense. A ship will be allocated to the appropriately sized pad - which will be the one large enough for it to land on. If a ship is slightly too big for a small pad, it just means it has to land on a medium - to suggest that either pad or ship needs a redesign is completely unnecessary.

If you're talking about logistics, one would absolutely be made with the other in mind, so yes, a dedicated hauler would haul the most that can fit within its pad size, for obvious reasons.

 

[Cervantes01]

I'm totally with the OP on this. It's like the team making the hangers didn't really consider the ship sizes and rolls. The T7 should definitely be a medium pad ship, plus cargo capacities should be boosted across the Lakon 'T' range as my Type 9 doesn't carry near anything like enough to be worth the 70+ million investment in it and that's without A rating it.

 

[StiTch]

Instead of trying to rewrite bulk trade ships as miniature couriers, how about we put forward proposals for the bulk trade ships to actually be better at bulk trading?

If they're meant to be big, make 'em big. I would rather call on a large freight vehicle to take a sizeable quantity of goods somewhere than a fleet of delivery mopeds.

 

[Crank Larson]

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.

But ships are not a good comparison. Aircraft are better, and they just require a runway that is long enough and wide enough for them to land on. With spacecraft, it's even easier - they just need a landing pad large enough for the spacecraft. Suggesting that a spacecraft should be designed to the size of a landing pad makes no sense (except that a large enough pad must exist). Why would any spaceship designer want to be limited to three specific sizes?!

 

[DukeIronHand]

Yes indeed OP. The T-ships need a few things to make them make sense most of which have been pointed out in this thread...again. This has been brought up in these forums perhaps a dozen times.

Just sold my T6 and T7 as they make no sense in the game. Keeping my T9 for sentimental reasons. Like to buy the 6 and 7 back once FD does something.

And if it wasn't mentioned "small pad only" locations need to happen. I posted on that a while ago.

Since the noisest group seems to get the most attention hopefully FD will finally pay attention. Keep the dream alive!

 

[Ozram]

But ships are not a good comparison. Aircraft are better, and they just require a runway that is long enough and wide enough for them to land on. With spacecraft, it's even easier - they just need a landing pad large enough for the spacecraft. Suggesting that a spacecraft should be designed to the size of a landing pad makes no sense (except that a large enough pad must exist). Why would any spaceship designer want to be limited to three specific sizes?!

Sorry crank, but that's a silly argument. Why are aircraft better comparisons than ships when talking about pad sizes? Frankly, here we are talking about commerce and the pad size dictates the amount that can fit per trip. Any engineer worth his/her salt would make it fit to the limit of where it can go. Standardised sizes in the transport business are a must. Anything less would be moronic.

 

[Simon Darkstep]

I keep wondering if we'll ever get places to go that are small-only.

If that ever happens, I'd hope FD will consider this suggestion to accompany their inclusion.

 

[DukeIronHand]

I keep wondering if we'll ever get places to go that are small-only.

If that ever happens, I'd hope FD will consider this suggestion to accompany their inclusion.

Hopefully. Why there are not "small pad only" locations now is a mystery to me. Small(er) science outposts and stations, military detachments and "observation/intel/surveillance" locations, etc, etc.
And, of course, these locations will need supplies and data moved in and out in addition to personnel.
And the T6, along with the other small pad ships, will finally have a legitimate use and a reason to have one in this billionaire galaxy.

 

[Ozram]

Hopefully. Why there are not "small pad only" locations now is a mystery to me. Small(er) science outposts and stations, military detachments and "observation/intel/surveillance" locations, etc, etc.
And, of course, these locations will need supplies and data moved in and out in addition to personnel.
And the T6, along with the other small pad ships, will finally have a legitimate use and a reason to have one in this billionaire galaxy.

That'd be awesome... and a microdock allowing anything Eagle/vm3 and smaller (including SLFs) to dock.

 

[777Driver]

I keep wondering if we'll ever get places to go that are small-only.

If that ever happens, I'd hope FD will consider this suggestion to accompany their inclusion.

They could start with opening up those planetary settlements, thousands of settlements around the bubble that could be equipped to handle small ships with dedicated missions. Currently many of those settlements have small/Med pads that are only available to NPC'S

 

[Kaocraft]

If the choice is between supercruise superiority (pretty much can't be interdicted) and a medium pad access, then I'd rather it stay as is. So far as I'm concerned, that's it's superpower.

A worthless superpower at the moment, given that interdictions have been made so easy that there might as well be a pop up window asking "Would you like to win this interdiction? Click yes/no"

There's no indication that this mechanic will ever be fixed or improved, so I'm gonna request a different superpower for the T7 since every ship has it now.

 

[Arthur Shappey]

...
FDEV could give Freighters some love by giving a specialized compartment or two for cargo, or create a specialized cargo compartment that is like 50% bigger for the same class but can only be used by Freighters. So while the 5-E rack fits 32 tons of cargo, this specialized 5-D rack would fit 48. This would bring the T6 hold up to 168 cargo, the T7 hold up to 456 and the T9 would be barely a decent freighter with 798 cargo (really close versus the 792 a clipper can fit).

I may have suggested this before - but given the boxy utilitarian shape of the haulage class ships, I think they should get flexible storage bays. That is: you have a CUBE to fill up inside, and it is wired up in such a way that you can easily convert it to 3 x Class 8 or 27 x Class 4, or some other combination that uses up all the cubic capacity. That would give the haulage class an edge when it comes to carrying things.

I wouldn't fix them being slow, thin-skinned, cheap rust buckets [which I love] - but it would just give them a kiss of love.

 

[Crank Larson]

Sorry crank, but that's a silly argument. Why are aircraft better comparisons than ships when talking about pad sizes? Frankly, here we are talking about commerce and the pad size dictates the amount that can fit per trip. Any engineer worth his/her salt would make it fit to the limit of where it can go. Standardised sizes in the transport business are a must. Anything less would be moronic.

Because ships can only travel on one plane (not aeroplane ). Aircraft can change plane, as can spacecraft. Though incidentally, ships come in all shapes and sizes - the standardisation is in the transportation of the goods themselves (their containers), not the ships - the equivalent of this in E: D is the cargo canisters.

It's not the pad size that dictates how much a ship can carry (meaning spaceship, this time). It is the ship. All the pad needs to be is large enough for the ship to land on.