Formula for fuel usage on laden FSDs absolutely needs changing

[Oshirigami]

It's fine, I guess, that one max engineered ship can only get 19LY jump range like the FGS while the Conda can hit 71LY.
What's not fine is that that Conda roughly gets a 275 jump range on its 32 tons of fuel while the FGS only gets a measely 50-62lY on its 16 tons.

Where the heck does 50LY of total travel get you? There's lots of places where it's an extreme pain to plot jumps where you can refuel (especially without having to travel many additional minutes to reach the station to refuel each time) and make it there.
It's understandable that you'll need to transfer a 1.2ton ship around with a 2D FSD. But I have a 5A FSD with near perfect g5 jump on it and it's still a huge pain to jump it anywhere even within the bubble. It's obnoxious.

The 17-19LY jump range is okay, I guess. Not great, but whatever. But how far it can jump in total is absurd and absolutely needs to change.
Whereas a Conda can do economical jumps and go an insane distance, choosing economical routes with only a 17-19LY jump range usually changes literally nothing. The economical route ends up still being roughly the same and saves no fuel, or nearly no fuel.
Low jump ranges should work like economical by using less fuel. Laden FSDs shouldn't only have lower jump ranges, they should also use less fuel. Something like half the fuel used at their optimal mass. So as jump range goes down, so should the "max fuel".
So say a Conda can go 70LY on 5.2 tons of fuel, fine whatever, a maxed out FGS should at least be going its 19LY on 3 tons used or so and not the same 5.2 tons used.
Same with ships carrying a lot of cargo. Their max fuel usage should go down half as much as their jump range goes down, so their total range isn't as affected as the range of each jump.
One of the FSD drives like B rated could further be more economical than usual. So while the range of each jump is lower and it's heavier, the same size fuel tank can take you much further.

That, or you need to be able to hop into any ship you own at another station like "holo-me" multi-crew does. Really both things should be changed, but I'd settle for either.

 

[Adjuster666]

There's lots of places where it's an extreme pain to plot jumps where you can refuel (especially without having to travel many additional minutes to reach the station to refuel each time) and make it there.

Thats why you use a fuel scoop.

Have you tried one? If not do so and begin the exploration

 

[Raino]

or set your map to economical

or fit another fueltank

or get another ship ......

 

[Oshirigami]

Thats why you use a fuel scoop.

Have you tried one? If not do so and begin the exploration

And after you swap out your fuel scoop for actual combat components, then how do you get anywhere? Not all stations near a combat area sell a 5D hull or 6D fighter bay with the fighters you want with LYR bonus.

or set your map to economical

Already covered in OP. You clearly didn't read it.

or fit another fueltank

Then how do you get anywhere after switching to combat components?

or get another ship ......

Already covered in OP. You clearly didn't read it.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Here's the DDF thread where the final proposal for fuel was discussed: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=15547

 

[Lucifera Danzig]

It's fine, I guess, that one max engineered ship can only get 19LY jump range like the FGS while the Conda can hit 71LY.
What's not fine is that that Conda roughly gets a 275 jump range on its 32 tons of fuel while the FGS only gets a measely 50-62lY on its 16 tons.

Where the heck does 50LY of total travel get you? There's lots of places where it's an extreme pain to plot jumps where you can refuel (especially without having to travel many additional minutes to reach the station to refuel each time) and make it there.
It's understandable that you'll need to transfer a 1.2ton ship around with a 2D FSD. But I have a 5A FSD with near perfect g5 jump on it and it's still a huge pain to jump it anywhere even within the bubble. It's obnoxious.

The 17-19LY jump range is okay, I guess. Not great, but whatever. But how far it can jump in total is absurd and absolutely needs to change.
Whereas a Conda can do economical jumps and go an insane distance, choosing economical routes with only a 17-19LY jump range usually changes literally nothing. The economical route ends up still being roughly the same and saves no fuel, or nearly no fuel.
Low jump ranges should work like economical by using less fuel. Laden FSDs shouldn't only have lower jump ranges, they should also use less fuel. Something like half the fuel used at their optimal mass. So as jump range goes down, so should the "max fuel".
So say a Conda can go 70LY on 5.2 tons of fuel, fine whatever, a maxed out FGS should at least be going its 19LY on 3 tons used or so and not the same 5.2 tons used.
Same with ships carrying a lot of cargo. Their max fuel usage should go down half as much as their jump range goes down, so their total range isn't as affected as the range of each jump.
One of the FSD drives like B rated could further be more economical than usual. So while the range of each jump is lower and it's heavier, the same size fuel tank can take you much further.

That, or you need to be able to hop into any ship you own at another station like "holo-me" multi-crew does. Really both things should be changed, but I'd settle for either.

Different ships are going to perform differently depending on their given task. What you're describing are two very different vehicles. Comparing the FGS to an Anaconda is like comparing an F-15 to a 737 MAX 8 airliner. The F-22 Raptor gets a dismal 0.4mpg, while the 737 MAX 8 airliner gets over 100mpg.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

And after you swap out your fuel scoop for actual combat components, then how do you get anywhere? Not all stations near a combat area sell a 5D hull or 6D fighter bay with the fighters you want with LYR bonus.

Put the combat module in storage, and when you get to/near your destination have the module transferred to the nearest station with outfitting. Alternatively, fly a fast taxi ship with a scoop, and have your entire combat ship transferred when you get there. More expensive, but saves re-outfitting.

That said, 5D hull reinforcements aren't universally available but it would be a rare system that didn't have *somewhere* within 20 LY you could buy one. Sure, it won't have the LYR discount - on a 5D HRP that will cost you 67,500 extra, which you get back when you sell it again, and should be a "don't bother me with small change" amount to anyone not still flying the Sidewinder.

 

[Oshirigami]

Different ships are going to perform differently depending on their given task. What you're describing are two very different vehicles. Comparing the FGS to an Anaconda is like comparing an F-15 to a 737 MAX 8 airliner. The F-22 Raptor gets a dismal 0.4mpg, while the 737 MAX 8 airliner gets over 100mpg.

Having 100LY maximum fuel range on an FGS doesn't suddenly turn it into an explorer. It's still limited by its per-jump range.

Put the combat module in storage, and when you get to/near your destination have the module transferred to the nearest station with outfitting. Alternatively, fly a fast taxi ship with a scoop, and have your entire combat ship transferred when you get there. More expensive, but saves re-outfitting.

That said, 5D hull reinforcements aren't universally available but it would be a rare system that didn't have *somewhere* within 20 LY you could buy one. Sure, it won't have the LYR discount - on a 5D HRP that will cost you 67,500 extra, which you get back when you sell it again, and should be a "don't bother me with small change" amount to anyone not still flying the Sidewinder.

All the time it takes waiting to transfer modules around is forever. Especially Maia and back.
To do this to engineer everything literally takes days and is a huge pain to track and manage to make sure you're doing it all right, especially if you're doing multiple ships at a time.

I guess putting every single module on a conda and engineering the modules there then transfering them to sell the Conda is actually
But do none of you not understand how absurd that sounds to be the best way to "play the game"? To have to figure out some cryptic loophole of a strategy to do something optimally because the most straight forward way (which most new players are going to experience) is a huge chore?

Dunno I just feel like quitting, even though I now see a better way to do it. It's just so dumb, and even dumber the way people on the forums defend it being like this.
I actually haven't logged in for a few days since I started engineering that FGS when I was playing daily. I just can't bring myself to go back to that poorly designed madness. Even worse that people will defend it when it could be easily fixed with a quick FSD formula change that would really have no detrimental effects to the rest of the game despite the hyperbole spouted by some people.

 

[Hooplah]

A basic test...

Anaconda D-rated, 692 Tons gets 30.31LY jump laden with a 6A FSD.
Anaconda D-rated, 672 Tons gets 17.50LY jump laden with a 5A FSD (same as the FGS).
FGS D-rated, 744 Tons gets 16.21LY jump laden with a 5A FSD (cannot install a 6A FSD).

Just D-rated core internals with the same class shield for both. Nothing else installed. The numbers are working.

It is often hard to see per the depth of the math in this game. Easier to see visually when players complain the
mail slot entry to an orbiting station is too small while it is actually huge. It is a visual illusion some evil Dev at
FD came up with!

Regards

 

[Alex Brentnall]

My 2p:

Elite is a tradeoff game. Heavy combat ships have the tradeoff that they don't have jump range. Exploration ships have weak defences and weapons (if any).
It's possible to get multi-role ships that have decent range and firepower. Cobra III, Diamondback variants, Asp Explorer can pack a punch. Python/Anaconda/Cutter also get decent range at the other end of the scale.


If you travel often then you want a multi-role ship. Or get a fast 50ly Hauler or something and ship-transfer. The bubble is maximum about 400ly across (ignoring Maia and the odd outlying system). Even at 20Ly it takes 20 jumps to get across. Lets say 25 for non-straight/perfect jumps.
At 1 jump per minute (easily achievable) that's 25minutes flight time maximum you'll ever do to reach a destination. Lets say you travel once per week for community goals. You may make say 10mil in the goal (top 50% + trade/combat profits). If you ship transfer it may cost you 1mil credits. Is the 25 minutes per week worth 10% earnings loss?


Many choices, Elite makes the ship you choose a choice. If all ships could get 500ly with maximum armour and combat fit then it'd be dull as everyone would be in the same ship. I kinda get what you are saying about the efficiency but the way Elite works is there's an optimal mass for the FSD and it's an exponential curve afaik the further you are away from the optimal the less effect savings/extra weight has.

 

[Oshirigami]

Again, you're speaking to extremes to make a nonsense argument where there should be no argument.

The problem is it's far too punishing for combat ships. They can't get anywhere. They have to be transferred around. This is a huge pain with CGs constantly rotating around, having so many engineers in different places to visit, friends wanting to do something in a wing somewhere, or simply wanting to go somewhere else on a whim.

There is a stupidly massive disparency between one ship jumping 71LY in a single jump, and being able to do that 3 and a half times on its core fuel tank, while another ship can't go that far while expending its entire fuel tank in many jumps.

And the problem is simple, that these short jump ranges by overloaded FSDs use far too much fuel. It's fine that their per-jump range is small (which is punishing enough as it is), but their total range is too short.

Stop ignoring the issue with trying to conflate having a longer fuel range with suddenly making an FGS an explorer and somehow invalidating the jump range and total range of the more dedicated explorers. Even if its total range was doubled from ~65LY to ~130LY, that still doesn't get you far even in the bubble let alone outside of it. That's complete and utter nonsense. It's hyperbole.
And stop pretending the Conda is bad at combat. It's one of the best when it comes to PvE. Better than the Corvette is, for that matter.

The only thing that changing the fuel usage formula/limit would change for the ships who suffer the most by it is that they'd be made less infuriating to play. It'd help make it more ships besides the FDL/FAS/Cutter/Conda aren't useless to play.

I don't understand why you guys have to defend utterly bad design so hard on this forum instead of helping pressure FDev to make their game better.

A basic test...

Anaconda D-rated, 692 Tons gets 30.31LY jump laden with a 6A FSD.
Anaconda D-rated, 672 Tons gets 17.50LY jump laden with a 5A FSD (same as the FGS).
FGS D-rated, 744 Tons gets 16.21LY jump laden with a 5A FSD (cannot install a 6A FSD).

Just D-rated core internals with the same class shield for both. Nothing else installed. The numbers are working.

It is often hard to see per the depth of the math in this game. Easier to see visually when players complain the
mail slot entry to an orbiting station is too small while it is actually huge. It is a visual illusion some evil Dev at
FD came up with!

Regards

That's per-jump range. Please read the OP. Heck, you didn't even read the title.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Why should a ship optimised for combat also be optimised for travel?

.... and by that, I'm pointing out that the player who optimised the ship for combat consciously compromised some of the ship's other capabilities.

 

[Oshirigami]

Why should a ship optimised for combat also be optimised for travel?

Why can a combat ship fit any FSD larger than 2D FSD when it's not meant to go anywhere and is only meant to be transferred in somewhere? Why does it even allow larger FSD and A grade when it's simply more expensive and heavier yet gives no benefit since you're not supposed to even travel around the bubble with it?
As you say, you're not supposed to ever jump with those ships. You're supposed to transfer them around. So why does it even give you the option to attempt some crappy range that is often not far enough to get between two of the closest stations to one another within the bubble?
It clearly shouldn't give you such an option, since as you all keep saying you're not supposed to jump around with them at all.

Whether you realize it or not, you're admitting to this design being bad and giving examples of how it's bad.

And you're also using nonsense hyperbole. You're equating "getting 130LY in 8 jumps" being as "optimized for travel" as "getting 260LY in 4 jumps"

 

[Robert Maynard]

Why can a combat ship fit any FSD larger than 2D FSD when it's not meant to go anywhere and is only meant to be transferred in somewhere?

And you're also using nonsense hyperbole.

Hmmmm....

Why does it let you fit a larger FSD and A grade when it's simply more expensive and heavier yet gives no benefit since you're not supposed to even travel around the bubble with it on ships like the FSG and others?

I'm fairly sure that some combat ships have made it to Sag A* and possibly even Beagle Point. Actually, here's an incomplete list:

Quick analysis of ship types from the (incomplete) arrival list:

Anaconda - 137
Asp Explorer - 261
Cobra Mk III - 3
Cobra Mk IV - 1
Diamondback Explorer - 13
Federal Corvette - 1
Federal Dropship - 1
Hauler - 1
Imperial Clipper - 8
Imperial Courier - 2
Imperial Cutter - 3
Imperial Eagle - 1
Keelback - 1
Python - 8
Sidewinder - 1
Type 6 - 3
Type 7 - 1
Type 9 - 1
Viper Mk IV - 1

19 different models and counting, never expected to see that!

.... and this was before the release of 2.1 Engineers, so all FSDs were stock.

Whether you realize it or not, you're admitting to this design being bad and giving examples of how it's bad.

Whether the design is good, or bad, is a matter of opinion.

You're equating "getting 130LY in 8 jumps" being as "optimized for travel" as "getting 260LY in 4 jumps"

That wasn't me.

 

[Alex Brentnall]

Again, you're speaking to extremes to make a nonsense argument where there should be no argument.

The problem is it's far too punishing for combat ships. They can't get anywhere. They have to be transferred around. This is a huge pain with CGs constantly rotating around, having so many engineers in different places to visit, friends wanting to do something in a wing somewhere, or simply wanting to go somewhere else on a whim.

There is a stupidly massive disparency between one ship jumping 71LY in a single jump, and being able to do that 3 and a half times on its core fuel tank, while another ship can't go that far while expending its entire fuel tank in many jumps.

And the problem is simple, that these short jump ranges by overloaded FSDs use far too much fuel. It's fine that their per-jump range is small (which is punishing enough as it is), but their total range is too short.

Stop ignoring the issue with trying to conflate having a longer fuel range with suddenly making an FGS an explorer and somehow invalidating the jump range and total range of the more dedicated explorers. Even if its total range was doubled from ~65LY to ~130LY, that still doesn't get you far even in the bubble let alone outside of it. That's complete and utter nonsense. It's hyperbole.
And stop pretending the Conda is bad at combat. It's one of the best when it comes to PvE. Better than the Corvette is, for that matter.

The only thing that changing the fuel usage formula/limit would change for the ships who suffer the most by it is that they'd be made less infuriating to play. It'd help make it more ships besides the FDL/FAS/Cutter/Conda aren't useless to play.

I don't understand why you guys have to defend utterly bad design so hard on this forum instead of helping pressure FDev to make their game better.

I'm not defending the game more attacking your hypocritical and in some cases inaccuracies in the argument:

So lets start:
1) 99.99% of Anacondas if not more don't make 71ly. In fact there's only 6 known that do and even then they are literally only capable of doing a single jump (another inaccuracy as the core fuel tank of 32T would make the 71ly jump impossible) and not even exploration capable as they have no scanners or any other modules/utilities/weapons etc. Stop inflating figures to the extremes to make your point. See, works both ways

2) There's only like 4 neutron stars in the bubble and 2 are way far away from the main star. Unless you are travelling to Colonia in your combat ship for an excursion this doesn't matter one jot. + 3x is irrelevant if you can't use it on most of your trips.
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/373259-MIND-THE-GAP

3) Not ignoring the issue merely debating it's validity and accuracy. Lets not forget to change a fundamental concept of the game that will affect every single ship, profit, income and loss as well as balance and everything in between there needs to be a solid ironcast reason. This currently isn't looking that way even by a long stretch.
Also remember that by increasing one ship you increase them all so the Anaconda will be able to get even further and if they increased it this week someone would come along with the same complaint next week.

4) The bubble and therefore CGs are maximum 400ly apart, on average probably 200ly apart or less. Thats 15 jumps a week with 4 refuel stops. Hardly a lot in the scheme of things, it takes longer than that to outfit a ship.

5) Then use a Conda if its good at combat, that can get 30Ly even with a heavy combat fit.

6) Nope, not defending bad game design, merely discussing what appears to be bad choice making on behalf of the user.

But the main point I'll always come back to:
Sacrificing one module for a Fuel scoop is hardly a big deal in most ships. Alternatively storing 1 module for the fuel scoop and transferring it (takes about 30 minutes and say 100k credits maximum) is really no big deal. Just fight 1 module down for a while, in CGs against AI it hardly matters.

So questions to you:
Why don't you use a scoop and replace via module transfer?
Why don't you use a Conda or a ship that is designed for what you want? Why are you deliberately hampering yourself?
Why are you inflating figures to make your point?
Why is it that many people get along fine with the ship but you don't. Is it something everyone else is just putting up with or are they doing things differently to you?

You can travel in combat ships, just with a fuel scoop and time. If you lack either then pick an appropriate vessel. You don't take an F1 car to a 500 mile endurance rally even though you'd win the final sprint you won't make the distance.

Edit: My FGS, not engineered: https://eddp.co/u/u6pXrdSL
Gets 12.28Ly with the 2A fuel scoop. Replacing that I could get another module or hull package, but a 2A gives next to nothing for either of those. 190 armour for the hull package when I'm already at 1600 isn't that big a deal, an additional 105 module into my existing 705 again isn't that big a deal. It shouldn't be the deciding factor between life or death.

 

[Oshirigami]

Someone else had a better idea in chat.
Just remove fuel. It's pointless these days and does nothing except force combat ships and their modules to be transferred around instead of actually used. No one is worried about fuel because of those various mechanics. It just makes the game grindier and less fun having to wait 1.5 hours for transfers multiple times like some dumb facebook game.

Make fuel scoops collect materials to synthesize the improved fuel for more jump range.

I'm not defending the game more attacking your hypocritical and in some cases inaccuracies in the argument:

So lets start:
1) 99.99% of Anacondas if not more don't make 71ly. In fact there's only 6 known that do and even then they are literally only capable of doing a single jump (another inaccuracy as the core fuel tank of 32T would make the 71ly jump impossible) and not even exploration capable as they have no scanners or any other modules/utilities/weapons etc. Stop inflating figures to the extremes to make your point. See, works both ways

I was comparing max fits vs max fits. If you drop the Conda down to 64/250LY then you're dropping the FSG to 17/60 (which in practice is more like 50 max because of star distance).
Does not change my argument at all. Just slightly different numbers.

2) There's only like 4 neutron stars in the bubble and 2 are way far away from the main star. Unless you are travelling to Colonia in your combat ship for an excursion this doesn't matter one jot. + 3x is irrelevant if you can't use it on most of your trips.
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/373259-MIND-THE-GAP

No clue how this is relevant.

3) Not ignoring the issue merely debating it's validity and accuracy. Lets not forget to change a fundamental concept of the game that will affect every single ship, profit, income and loss as well as balance and everything in between there needs to be a solid ironcast reason. This currently isn't looking that way even by a long stretch.

Um no. A properly made formula would not affect the jump ranges of the best ships. Or not anymore than 0.1LY or so.
Higher jump range ships have their mass very far below the optimal mass. Lower jump range ships have theirs closer. It's very simple. It's math.

4) The bubble and therefore CGs are maximum 400ly apart, on average probably 200ly apart or less. Thats 15 jumps a week with 4 refuel stops. Hardly a lot in the scheme of things, it takes longer than that to outfit a ship.

It's a lot when you just come on, see where the new CG is, want to play, except now you have to switch to your taxi, taxi there, then wait an hour to transfer. How can you defend this?

5) Then use a Conda if its good at combat, that can get 30Ly even with a heavy combat fit.

I don't want to. There's like 33 ships in the game. Why are only 4 relevant?

6) Nope, not defending bad game design, merely discussing what appears to be bad choice making on behalf of the user.

The "choices" are forced on me. I don't want to transfer a ship around all the time. Only real choice I have is to not play.

So questions to you:
Why don't you use a scoop and replace via module transfer?
Why don't you use a Conda or a ship that is designed for what you want? Why are you deliberately hampering yourself?
Why are you inflating figures to make your point?
Why is it that many people get along fine with the ship but you don't. Is it something everyone else is just putting up with or are they doing things differently to you?

You can travel in combat ships, just with a fuel scoop and time. If you lack either then pick an appropriate vessel. You don't take an F1 car to a 500 mile endurance rally even though you'd win the final sprint you won't make the distance.

1. Because I don't want to wait 35-90 minutes. And dont forget when I want to go back somewhere, that's transfer time again. It's bad enough if you had to do this ONCE. It's terrible to have to do it dozens of times in a month.
2. I wanted to use an FGS. Why does the ship exist if it's basically unusable in practical terms?
3. I'm not.
4. Most of those people seem to have quit the game, too? The people telling me "you put the smallest fuel tank and 2D FSD on your combat ship and transfer it around" are people who have quit playing and agree the game is poorly designed.


And lets use an analogy with real cars.
A Prius gets 55 MPG and has a 11.3gal fuel tank. This gives it a 621 mile range.
A CX-5 gets 27 MPG and has a 14.8gal fuel tank. This gives it a 400 mile range.
An Expedition gets 20MPG and has a 25gal fuel tank. This gives it a 500 mile range.

Notice how the less fuel efficient something is, the larger a tank it has? The Expedition, despite having almost a third the fuel economy of a Prius, gets nearly the same range.
Someone messed up not giving the ships with poor jump ranges bigger internal tank options, at least. Swapping out a 5C internal fuel tank on the FGS down to a 1C to lighten it up in combat wouldn't have been nearly as much of a chore as swapping modules since fuel tanks are almost always available.

That wasn't me.

You literally posted it yourself.

Why should a ship optimised for combat also be optimised for travel?

120LY in 8 jumps is not "optimized for travel". A conda does that in 2 jumps with half its fuel tank still left over.
It's simply reasonable but still very inefficient.
Only getting 4 jumps total to MAYBE go 60LY is unreasonable and dumb.

 

[Robert Maynard]

120LY in 8 jumps is not "optimized for travel". A conda does that in 2 jumps with half its fuel tank still left over.

How far does a battle-conda jump?

 

[Alex Brentnall]

I was comparing max fits vs max fits. If you drop the Conda down to 64/250LY then you're dropping the FSG to 17/60 (which in practice is more like 50 max because of star distance).

Lol, you are so far off. Max fit FGS in the same fit that the 71ly Anaconda gets will give the FGS 29.44Ly.
https://eddp.co/u/o6aqAWUg
https://eddp.co/u/tW3nzhk7


And no, when I travel weekly to the CG in my Corvette I fly there. I do it with a scoop and it takes max 30 minutes. CGs are a week long, if CGs were 1 day events then I'd agree but loosing 30min or 1hr or whatever to travel time to get an optimum ship to the destination is not a big deal. I've been to both combat CGs this week and am currently top 25% in one and top 50% in the other... Work in progress as they say.

Jump ranges have increased 460% since first release. It's possible to get from Sol-Colonia in 1hr 47 minutes, Sol-Sag A* in 2 hours dead. Sol-Beagle point in 6.5 hours. Jump ranges are more than high enough as they are now. How do you defend that?

Your choice is to either
1) Fight locally
2) Pick an appropriate ship
3) Travel and take the time
4) Take a taxi and use the transfer time to do something like get engineer mats or whatever.


In the end Elite is built like an MMO and as with every single MMO the currency is time. Some have credits, some have XP bars, some have levels. You can optimise your use of time to hit these values or you can not. If you don't have the time there's ways to play to do that but it will restrict you in the same way WOW won't give you raid boss loot if you can only play 1hr a week.

And here we have it. "I don't want". You don't want the travel time but you do want an ace combat ship. Hey, I want a combat ship that has 600T of cargo capacity and 500Ly jump range. That'd be dandy but it'd also break the game. Elite isn't built like that, it won't give you everything you want easily. Again 90 minutes is way higher than it should be to get from CG to CG. Even literally across the entire bubble its 30 minutes maximum if you jump with your combat ship and a fuel scoop.

If you don't want the travel time then don't force yourself to do it. I find this arguement entirely insane, like me saying I want to do combat yet fly a ship without weapons. I just cannot fathom the logic.



Anyway. I'm out of this thread. I just can't understand the reasoning or logic and frankly I don't think I ever will.

How far does a battle-conda jump?

oooh ooh pick me, 100ly at 26ly per jump. I know because I made a multicrew one with all rapid fire cannons, been running the modules around the engineers lately. Nearly finished too, like 3 more mods to do, should be ready next month sometime.
https://eddp.co/u/dBx4dlpe

Or unlimited with a fuel scoop as fitted if the map filters are set to scoopable only.

 

[Oshirigami]

You're missing the point in the OP, Alex. Worse, you're missing the point right there in the title. Heavily laden FSDs should use less fuel. An absolute lightest FGS is not that heavy for its FSD.
But yes, for argument sake, if the FGS could use a 5C fuel tank then it'd get nearly the same total range as an exploration conda.
So what?

I also don't care about jump ranges for the best jumping ships and how fast they get to Sag A*. I'm making no suggestion to impact those at all, that should be clear.
The problem is traveling through the damn bubble that's not than many LY wide. That should be possible in a combat ship. You shouldn't have to transfer stuff around all the damned time.

How far does a battle-conda jump?

Roughly 27.5/110LY if you're running with heavy life support and sensors (which you should so their integrity isn't too low)
Which you'll notice I've been saying 120LY should be the floor for the range of the worst ship that's max engineered, which roughly lines up with that total range of a heavy combat Conda. That total range would raise higher with a change to the fuel usage formula for a combat conda, while that of the worst ships would be around where it is now.

Again, max engineered. More realistically around 26/100LY.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Roughly 28/114LY if you're running with heavy life support and sensors (which you should so their integrity isn't too low)
Which you'll notice I've been saying 120LY should be the floor for the range of the worst ship that's max engineered, which roughly lines up with that total range of a heavy combat Conda.

Again, max engineered. More realistically around 26-27/105-110LY.

Comparison with the Anaconda is basically saying "I want all ships to jump as well as the ship with the best jump range in the game".