If the Keelback can, why can’t Type 7?

Niels83 · May 16, 2018

So the Keelback ship can carry SLF and even got upgraded with a multicrew seat (though I doubt anyone uses multicrew anymore) then my question is.
Why can’t the type 7? It is like twice the size or length of the Keelback. Needs large landing pad.
To me it makes no sense it can’t have SLF... Also
i noticed that that the type 7 has one extra small hard point underneath, next to the other one.
So I’m kinda curious why it only has 4 small hard points when clearly it was designed to have 5.
Did the ship become too powerful or what is the deal Frontier?

So I personally think that if you ever plan on revisiting some of the older ships. Maybe you could consider
adding
SLF capability
One extra small hard point = 5 instead of 4.
seems kinda lame a ship that size is so weak.

look at the Asp Explore. two medium and 4 small and that one is mainly for exploring. Though i guess it is a multi purpose ship. But still.
Anyway just a suggestion to the type 7. It definitely has been upgraded with better power plant now so why not use it.

Like I said just a suggestion. Thx

Tezcatlipoca · May 16, 2018

The Type-7 is a dedicated trading vessel, whereas the Keelback is a "combat trader" version of the Type-6.

It would make sense for a "combat trader" version of the Type-7 to have SLF capability, if Frontier ever make one, but not for the Type-7 itself.

Niels83 · May 16, 2018

Tezcatlipoca said:
The Type-7 is a dedicated trading vessel, whereas the Keelback is a "combat trader" version of the Type-6.

It would make sense for a "combat trader" version of the Type-7 to have SLF capability, if Frontier ever make one, but not for the Type-7 itself.

True indeed. But type 9 is dedicated trader as well. That one has.. Also have you noticed the extra empty hard point slot underneath. Design wise looks like it was meant to have 5 hard points instead 4. Anyway thx for input. o7

NewBlacksmurf · May 16, 2018

Doubt there is any logical response to this....
I asked why the Imperial Clipper cant...

Shrug

mossfoot · May 16, 2018

It's largely because it wasn't designed with a fighter bay, and that's about it. You'd have to make a variant model that included a bay for it to be a possibility, and they don't want EVERY ship to carry fighters.

tafkabb · May 16, 2018

People have been asking for this since 2016 - before 2.2 Guardians even came out. I think the above is probably correct; all ships that have SLFs were deisigned to have them. The Type 7 wasn't. It would need a variant if it did, à la Keelback. The Type 7 won't get one.

Niels83 · May 16, 2018

Well I guess that makes sense then. But what do you guys think about the extra hardpoint? Right now it has 4 small. But underneath next to the small hard point there is one extra but not in use... What do you think about that. Should they make that empty one active or just leave it. Curious to hear

GoldenSilver484 · May 16, 2018

Niels83 said:
Well I guess that makes sense then. But what do you guys think about the extra hardpoint? Right now it has 4 small. But underneath next to the small hard point there is one extra but not in use... What do you think about that. Should they make that empty one active or just leave it. Curious to hear

My guess is that enabling the fifth hardpoint would then make the power plant and distributor sizes seem even worse, so threads and posts would start popping up asking for buffs.

I'm not opposed to either since the T-7 is a terrible ship, any improvements would be nice. I still wouldn't use it for anything other than module storage though.

NewBlacksmurf · May 16, 2018

Niels83 said:
Well I guess that makes sense then. But what do you guys think about the extra hardpoint? Right now it has 4 small. But underneath next to the small hard point there is one extra but not in use... What do you think about that. Should they make that empty one active or just leave it. Curious to hear

I've never been able to figure out how to do much with this ship.
I can't even say it has potential for anything at this point.

I'd hope it was replaced with a different design (replaced as a new ship released, not to remove the old). Maybe but that is still a long shot but I don't even see NPCs using it much unless its a distress call or something

ZeroAi · May 16, 2018

Honestly, I wish more ships could carry SLF's!

Crusina Luachra · May 16, 2018

Niels83 said:
True indeed. But type 9 is dedicated trader as well. That one has.. Also have you noticed the extra empty hard point slot underneath. Design wise looks like it was meant to have 5 hard points instead 4. Anyway thx for input. o7

It's a dedicated trader that was designed from day one, even before SLF's were a thing, with a fighter bay.

NewBlacksmurf said:
Doubt there is any logical response to this....
I asked why the Imperial Clipper cant...

Shrug

I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY TIMES I HAVE TO GO AND SAY THIS BUT HERE WE GO AGAIN.

The clipper literally isn't wide enough for a fighter bay. The fighter bay is actually wider then the body of the clipper is. Ships like the python...have you not seen how thin that ship is? Look at the FGS and Keelback, both ships designed day one for SLF are both WIDE and TALL.

In order to get a SLF on the clipper, you'd literally have to redesign not just the internals of the ship, but the entire design of it. Not to mention you'd have to rebalance gameplay mechanics as well like internal space.

I don't know why people still think this is a thing.

And even for ships that "could" house an SLF...guess what, not every car made has every feature. Not every ship is going to have every feature either.

There's no logical reason for it to be added, people who think they should have it, aren't being realistic. They just want the feature.

Colossus1921 · May 16, 2018

The t7 is a dedicated trader, intended to be a step between the t6 and the python. What does the t6 have hardpoint wise? Does the python have a slf?

The t9 has an slf because it's used as a battle barge by some system navies, and also because it's easily large enough to carry one. I'm genuinely not sure that the t7's chassis' can handle an SLF bay. Besides, are you really gonna sacrifice the t7's already limited internal slots for an fighter bay? Why?

NewBlacksmurf · May 16, 2018

Crusina Luachra said:
It's a dedicated trader that was designed from day one, even before SLF's were a thing, with a fighter bay.

I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY TIMES I HAVE TO GO AND SAY THIS BUT HERE WE GO AGAIN.

The clipper literally isn't wide enough for a fighter bay. The fighter bay is actually wider then the body of the clipper is. Ships like the python...have you not seen how thin that ship is? Look at the FGS and Keelback, both ships designed day one for SLF are both WIDE and TALL.

In order to get a SLF on the clipper, you'd literally have to redesign not just the internals of the ship, but the entire design of it. Not to mention you'd have to rebalance gameplay mechanics as well like internal space.

I don't know why people still think this is a thing.

And even for ships that "could" house an SLF...guess what, not every car made has every feature. Not every ship is going to have every feature either.

There's no logical reason for it to be added, people who think they should have it, aren't being realistic. They just want the feature.

You keep saying it but I'd argue that your information isn't accurate.
Its larger than at least two of the ships that have hangers:

Crusina Luachra · May 17, 2018

What information isn't accurate?

Are you going to tell me that the wings of a clipper should be included when talking about an SLF? Name ONE SHIP that has a SLF bay in the wings? Or has ANY PART of the hanger on the wings. You can't because they don't exist, no ship in the game has that. Every ship with SLF has them in the body.

Yeah "technically" it's wider if you include the wings but the BODY of the clipper is not. Go ahead, take the body of the clipper and compare it to the gunship or keelback.

"But the keelback is only 14 meters tall!"

Yes it is, and guess what? Nearly the entire body of the keelback is taken up by the fighter bay. So much space is taken up by it that it dramatically cuts into the total cargo space vs a Type6. The keelback was literally designed completely around the SLF. It's shorter (shorter as in height) then the python but every single bit of the ship was also designed around it.

The python, which is only about 5 meters taller wasn't. In order to add a SLF you would have to completely change the entire internals of the ship and re-arrange it. Sure you could do it, but then IT WOULDN'T BE THE PYTHON. It'd be a brand new ship.

So again, nothing I said was wrong. The clipper's body isn't wide enough and it's not tall enough to add an SLF without completely redesigining and rebalancing the ship. The same goes for other ships like the python.

And even for ships where it is possible like the type-7 it's not going to happen because again, you're redesigning, rebalancing, and then putting out a brand new ship. Even if the height and width permits it, you're still completely redoing a ship. It's like the difference between a stock mustang and one that's been supped up. Same car, completely different performance.

So no, I am not wrong. It's not possible to add them and still have the same ship.

When they were designed there wasn't a SLF bay built into the superstructure. Ships that can carry SLF were designed for that job since their creation. This will NOT change.

That is simply how things are.

Faulcon DeLacy never designed it to carry fighters and Lakon never designed the T-7 to carry fighters and Gutamaya never designed the Clipper to carry fighters. If they had they would have added 20 million to the price, reduced the cargo capacity, and decreased the jump range.

Look how big the fighter bay is on the keelback!

http://elite-dangerous.wikia.com/wiki/Keelback?file=Keelback4.png

You design a ship around having a SLF, you don't add it in after it's been made.

NewBlacksmurf · May 17, 2018

https://youtu.be/vnGqbFut0MU?t=29s

Crusina Luachra said:
What information isn't accurate?

Are you going to tell me that the wings of a clipper should be included when talking about an SLF? Name ONE SHIP that has a SLF bay in the wings? Or has ANY PART of the hanger on the wings. You can't because they don't exist, no ship in the game has that. Every ship with SLF has them in the body.

Yeah "technically" it's wider if you include the wings but the BODY of the clipper is not. Go ahead, take the body of the clipper and compare it to the gunship or keelback.

"But the keelback is only 14 meters tall!"

Yes it is, and guess what? Nearly the entire body of the keelback is taken up by the fighter bay. So much space is taken up by it that it dramatically cuts into the total cargo space vs a Type6. The keelback was literally designed completely around the SLF. It's shorter (shorter as in height) then the python but every single bit of the ship was also designed around it.

The python, which is only about 5 meters taller wasn't. In order to add a SLF you would have to completely change the entire internals of the ship and re-arrange it. Sure you could do it, but then IT WOULDN'T BE THE PYTHON. It'd be a brand new ship.

So again, nothing I said was wrong. The clipper's body isn't wide enough and it's not tall enough to add an SLF without completely redesigining and rebalancing the ship. The same goes for other ships like the python.

And even for ships where it is possible like the type-7 it's not going to happen because again, you're redesigning, rebalancing, and then putting out a brand new ship. Even if the height and width permits it, you're still completely redoing a ship. It's like the difference between a stock mustang and one that's been supped up. Same car, completely different performance.

So no, I am not wrong. It's not possible to add them and still have the same ship.

When they were designed there wasn't a SLF bay built into the superstructure. Ships that can carry SLF were designed for that job since their creation. This will NOT change.

That is simply how things are.

Faulcon DeLacy never designed it to carry fighters and Lakon never designed the T-7 to carry fighters and Gutamaya never designed the Clipper to carry fighters. If they had they would have added 20 million to the price, reduced the cargo capacity, and decreased the jump range.

Look how big the fighter bay is on the keelback!

http://elite-dangerous.wikia.com/wiki/Keelback?file=Keelback4.png

You design a ship around having a SLF, you don't add it in after it's been made.

Thanks for the details and while I do appreciate those its a game not an actual manufacturer who would need to recall and literally redesign ships.

I'm suggesting in your comments you are wrong regarding the ship not being of size to handle a hanger. None of that has anything to do with whats in the game right now as the conversation is around why X ship cant do Y in terms of the game.
The developers have already changed existing ships as well as even have upgraded module sizes and/or added modules, etc

I'm point blank saying according to what exists, the ship is large enough to have a hanger
Notice that per below, smaller ships have a hanger so its not due to size but at this time its just a developer decision.
(Edit) I included the Cutter as there is a video that points at the hanger taking up a large part of the bottom of the Cutter and that was the only suggestion so far but look again at the blue prints....is it really too small? (No)

Crusina Luachra · May 17, 2018

Oh my god. I literally...ugh.

its a game not an actual manufacturer who would need to recall and literally redesign ships.

Forum rules exist, so let me state this really nicely. I'm using both realistic reasons why and gameplay reasons why it's NOT going to happen. Nowhere did I say anything like you're indicating. Obviously if FD really wanted to, they could change it. But they won't so as always with these topics it's pointless to ask.

I'm suggesting in your comments you are wrong regarding the ship not being of size to handle a hanger. None of that has anything to do with whats in the game right now as the conversation is around why X ship cant do Y in terms of the game.

Why doesn't every ship have a class 4 mount? Why can't every ship jump 60ly? Why doesn't every ship have a size 8 powerplant?

What do I have to do, to prove to you that different ships are going to do different things and that just because you posted some dumb blueprints (but didn't take into account the size of the fighter bay, because somehow the clipper being "large enough" automatically means it should launch figthers. Seriously, stop posting blueprints and take the exact height and length of a fighter bay and superimpose it on the clipper or python. Now look where every single one of their internals is located in that area and move every single one of them to a different place. And then after all of that, increase the max height of the python so that it doesn't have about a meter's thick hull) I mean why don't battleships all launch jet fighters? Why doesn't every car in the world hit 500mph?

Just because a BMW could have a hitch, doesn't mean they will put one on every car.

The developers have already changed existing ships as well as even have upgraded module sizes and/or added modules, etc

And yet not a single one of them was anything on the scale of adding a hanger, redesigning a ships exterior and interior, and then reblancing the entire gameplay of that ship.

I'm point blank saying according to what exists, the ship is large enough to have a hanger

And I'm saying point blank that (forum frontier rules exist so this part of the text is not included) you are wrong. Stop posting those stupid blueprints.

the hangar is roughly cubic - it's as tall as it is wide, you want to fit that magically into the python and clipper? Great, so now they carry less cargo and have less internals. But hey, i have my magic fighter bays on ships that have to be completely redesigned.

Notice that per below, smaller ships have a hanger so its not due to size but at this time its just a developer decision.

OH MY GOOOOOOOOD

THE KEELBACK IS LITERALLY JUST A HANGER WITH THRUSTERS. IT BEING SMALLER THEN THE CLIPPER HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CLIPPER NOT HAVING A FIGHTER BAY. IT HAS TO DO WITH BEING DESIGNED, SINCE DAY ONE TO HAVE A FIGHTER BAY.

is it really too small? (No)

Sometimes I really hate the strict forum moderation here.

Crusina Luachra · May 17, 2018

DO YOU SEE HOW MASSIVE THE HANGER IS ON THE CLIPPER?!??! IT DOESN'T EVEN FIT THE FUSELAGE!

What more do i need to show you to make you understand that including a fighter bay on these ships would force you to make them wider, taller, completely change the internals (not just what it looks like inside, but also what it can carry like total cargo space or amount of interal module slots) and gameplay balancing like combat and hardpoints. BECAUSE REMEMBER THE FIGHTER BAY IS AS TALL AS IT IS WIDE IN HEIGHT, WIDTH, AND LENGTH.

It's not just "THESE BLUEPRINTS SHOW THE CLIPPER IS LARGE ENOUGH!"

NewBlacksmurf · May 17, 2018

Crusina Luachra said:
DO YOU SEE HOW MASSIVE THE HANGER IS ON THE CLIPPER?!??! IT DOESN'T EVEN FIT THE FUSELAGE!

What more do i need to show you to make you understand that including a fighter bay on these ships would force you to make them wider, taller, completely change the internals (not just what it looks like inside, but also what it can carry like total cargo space or amount of interal module slots) and gameplay balancing like combat and hardpoints. BECAUSE REMEMBER THE FIGHTER BAY IS AS TALL AS IT IS WIDE IN HEIGHT, WIDTH, AND LENGTH.

It's not just "THESE BLUEPRINTS SHOW THE CLIPPER IS LARGE ENOUGH!"

Honestly, its not a situation of what you need to say...

The OP is around size which is literal. That is what we are talking about and with that the OP mentions revisiting so the only that matters is the overall size. The stuff you keep bringing literally doesn't matter if the ship is being changed by the devs. Consider the changes typically occur when a new ship is introduced so we already know more ships are coming and while we dont' have exact details....they are looking at existing ships before introducing the new ships announced. Will they make changes...who knows...but why would anyone suggest that the current ships can't be changed to have a hanger when existing changes increased modules and added new modules.

At that point a hanger is a very minor thing vs those.

The OP writes "

So I personally think that if you ever plan on revisiting some of the older ships. Maybe you could consider
adding
SLF capability "

We literally know the Clipper is large enough and its also a Large ship not medium but blue prints or photo comparisons, or looking at the actual info in the game all point to one literal conclusion. The Clipper is large enough to have a hanger, even larger than the Type 7.

So as the topic continues on, the OP mentions the Type 7 which is literally larger than the Keelback and suggests if revisited that possibly would the devs consider adding a hanger and with that I thought to add in the Clipper as its...larger than the Type 7

Crusina Luachra · May 17, 2018

That is what we are talking about and with that the OP mentions revisiting so the only that matters is the overall size.

[haha][haha][haha][haha][haha][haha][haha][haha][haha][haha][haha][haha][haha][haha][haha][haha][haha]

Overall size doesn't mean you can fit whatever you want in it, the SHAPE of the object matters too. As does width, height, and length. Who taught you that overall size meant that you could fit anything you wanted in it as long as it was smaller? Good luck fitting your hand in a milk jug despite it being large enough to hold your hand inside of it.

The stuff you keep bringing literally doesn't matter if the ship is being changed by the devs.

It's not going to happen. For all the reasons I listed. Funny how you ignored the pictures I posted because you know it proves that your posts are wrong.

You still haven't explained for what reason FD would add them and how they would change the ships. Because you can't.

current ships can't be changed to have a hanger when existing changes increased modules and added new modules.

Do you read anything I write or do you just make stuff up. I didn't say you couldn't do that, I said you'd HAVE TO DO THAT IN ORDER TO MAKE ROOM FOR A FIGHTER BAY. Why do you think the gunship has less internals then the dropship desite being larger? Why do you think the keelback has less internals then the type-6 despite being similar in size?

So I personally think that if you ever plan on revisiting some of the older ships. Maybe you could consider

AND I EXPLAINED TO OP AND YOU WHY IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. EVER.

We literally know the Clipper is large enough and its also a Large ship not medium but blue prints or photo comparisons,

Being a large ship has literally NOTHING to do with being able to launch fighters.

So as the topic continues on, the OP mentions the Type 7 which is literally larger than the Keelback

You literally read nothing that I wrote.

I'm done.

NewBlacksmurf · May 17, 2018

Crusina Luachra said:
[haha][haha][haha][haha][haha][haha][haha][haha][haha][haha][haha][haha][haha][haha][haha][haha][haha]

Overall size doesn't mean you can fit whatever you want in it, the SHAPE of the object matters too. As does width, height, and length. Who taught you that overall size meant that you could fit anything you wanted in it as long as it was smaller? Good luck fitting your hand in a milk jug despite it being large enough to hold your hand inside of it.

It's not going to happen. For all the reasons I listed. Funny how you ignored the pictures I posted because you know it proves that your posts are wrong.

You still haven't explained for what reason FD would add them and how they would change the ships. Because you can't.

Do you read anything I write or do you just make stuff up. I didn't say you couldn't do that, I said you'd HAVE TO DO THAT IN ORDER TO MAKE ROOM FOR A FIGHTER BAY. Why do you think the gunship has less internals then the dropship desite being larger? Why do you think the keelback has less internals then the type-6 despite being similar in size?

AND I EXPLAINED TO OP AND YOU WHY IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. EVER.

Being a large ship has literally NOTHING to do with being able to launch fighters.

You literally read nothing that I wrote.

I'm done.

Take care because its not that I didn't read it but somehow you've decided you're the developer and that you're on the developer team. You're inserting things that you literally have no idea or context on as you aren't a developer.

There's a difference between, you sharing....I don't think they will change this or that ship because " from dev...." vs what you're doing which is using your own ideas and suggesting those as developer decisions on changes that haven't even been shared with the community if they are going on.

All we know is new ships are being added and in the recent past, older ships were updated in ways such as adding another cockpit seat, new modules and even changing existing modules sizes, as well as Core module changes.
Its not unlikely that such a change would allow a hanger especially due to the fact that its been asked since it was announced years ago.
:S