Hey Ya'll. Watch this!

[D.D.Hariman]

This is entirely inaccurate, and so is much of your other conclusions based on it.

I'm well aware that thrusters don't work in supercruise, but different ships have different levels of agility, based on a lot more than acceleration.

All ships do cap out at 2001c though.

But if you're going to claim that, for a given speed in supercruise, a T-9 is just as agile as a Sidewinder, you're simply wrong.

Didn't make that claim or didn't intend for it to be taken that way but, I can find nothing that says that the "agility" rating applies when the ship is in SC..
I have though done the test using a sidewinder and a DBX. That was part of why I bought a second subscription.
I have put the ships as close as possible to each other in SC at the same speed and then simultaneously activated a continuous YAW and both ships appeared to turn at the same rate. Same for Pitch.
The Sidewinder clearly accelerated away from a star faster. To me this would make sense since the sidewinder is 25 ton hull and the DBX is 260 tons hull. More mass so gravity has more effect.
It is tricky to get two ships moving close together at the same speed in SC and if they are not close together then they are influenced by gravity wells and that distorts the movements by causing speed differences.
This is part of why I am pushing to have the Billion CR. So I can get a T-9 or 10 and an Eagle and run the same test. Plan on going to a single star system and getting as far as possible from the star and then run the test and record it.
One of those thing on my to do list during the next 30 years.
YMMV

 

[CMDR Corlas]

Yeah, the "agility" rating is meaningless for ships in supercruise. To be honest, it's pretty meaningless for ships in normal space as well, lol.

What you're seeing there is that you're testing ships of similar supercruise performance, so your results are within your margin of error. If you fly something like an Anaconda, a Cutter, or especially a T-9, the difference is extremely self-evident.

 

[D.D.Hariman]

Yeah, the "agility" rating is meaningless for ships in supercruise. To be honest, it's pretty meaningless for ships in normal space as well, lol.

What you're seeing there is that you're testing ships of similar supercruise performance, so your results are within your margin of error. If you fly something like an Anaconda, a Cutter, or especially a T-9, the difference is extremely self-evident.

Well,, Having mined in a Cobra MKIII, an AspX, and a Python. The Cobra is hands down superior at getting around the core rock without banging into other stuff than the Python.
For combat I prefer the AspX simply because of weapons placement and my combat style. But that is for a different thread.
That is why I want to do the test way out in the middle of no where with ships at the extreme edge n "agility".

I would also like to try swapping interdictions with the smallest ship that can fit and run one and the largest ship. Not sure I can do this alone. I follow a couple other threads where a couple guys have played in wing, but they had different motives than I have.
This test would have to be done with the same class (I would do it with class 1E) interdictors because that is the only way it will become clear if relative ship Mass and Velocity have any effect and how pronounced it is.

My experience with starting out following the directions to have the throttle in the "blue" and routinely either spending 2-3 minutes fighting the interdiction and losing half the time, and putting the throttle at 5% and usually spending less than 40 seconds fighting and winning make me believe that relative ship Mass and Velocity have major effects.

Fighting and winning in the loaded Python is easier than fighting and winning in the Python empty. Same thing for my Dolphin when I was doing planetary salvage with it built to carry 64 t cargo although the Python difference is more pronounced because it can carry a higher percentage of it's hull weight than the Dolphin.

 

[Hank]

Nice video. Some of the new players don't know much about or practiced manual scooping. Up until a couple months ago I had not mined since before limpets where you scooped everything. Its sure a good skill to have. I've forgot limpets before and had to manual scoop goodies after combat. Good job. GL HF

 

[D.D.Hariman]

Nice video. Some of the new players don't know much about or practiced manual scooping. Up until a couple months ago I had not mined since before limpets where you scooped everything. Its sure a good skill to have. I've forgot limpets before and had to manual scoop goodies after combat. Good job. GL HF

I still scoop. I refuse to use a limpet to pick up just 1 or 2 fragments when the limpet expires. On a Python with the Siesmic Charge Launcher in that mount in the middle bottom, you need to stow weapons to scoop reliably.

 

[aRJay]

Cryogenics = play forever.

Only after they have added thought operated controls, other systems are likely to have issues in a cryo tank.

 

[IndigoWyrd]

It's been well over a year since I departed inhabited space, and probably 3 or 4 months longer since I did any mining, and a good 3-4 months on top of that since my preferred Richard Move:

Pull up close to a ship that is mining - an NPC will do. Deploy a mass of collector limpets. Watch and laugh.

Your collector limpets will collect the fragments the other ship generates.
With NPC's they nearly always manually collect fragments, which means your limpets will beat them to the punch 99 out of a 100 times.

Pretty funny on its own, but it gets better... it appears the NPC's are programmed "If NotCollectingFragments Then MoveToNextRock", and they'll do just that - move to another rock and start again. Follow them, keeping your collectors deployed. It's darn funny. You wind up with a refiner full of crap for it, but it's still darn funny.

Or it was - I don't know if this were ever fixed or not, because I rarely ever wanted my Refinery filled with random crap.