Ships Introducing the Diamondback Explorer

[jabberwalkie]

Canopy + huge FSD drive + huge scoop + duct tape (don't overdo the duct tape)!

Seriously I wouldn't be surprised if a high tier explorer ship comes with an A6 FSD, A4 PP, A3 or A4 thrusters, A4 power coupling, two small weapons mounts placed on the dorsal and ventral sides of the ship, a 32t fuel tank, an A5 scoop, a ridiculously low mass (around 100t), and with enough module slots for one AFMU, a DSS, and an ADS in addition to the fuel scoop.

Fuel tank size does not influence travel speed (other than having to replot). It's worthwhile for you to think about why that is. If you have two equal sized pipes, one pumping water into a bathtub, and one draining water from a bathtub at the same rates, then the size of the bathtub doesn't matter, the water level will not change.

Pumping pipe = scoop, draining pipe = FSD, bathtub size = tank size.

Yeah... See below...

I know all that. But you apparently don't get that refilling a smaller tank goes faster then refilling a larger tank. Basic math. And my balance takes jump range into account, so that's probably where you're stumbling over when reading my post. Of course I'm generous here with "reading", considering I'm pretty sure I've mentioned how the FSD increases fuel usage with range before.

Also you forgot to mention tank size also determines the maximum amount of fuel your FSD can use. So if you're downsizing tanks, you can't go too far, or you're jump range drops again because the fuel tank becomes too small to feed your FSD with the amount of fuel a maximum range jump needs.

You should research more before posting more fact based arguments.

+rep for you.

 

[Ziljan]

The only issue that we have with your point is the implication that anything less than a perfect scoop makes the craft a dud. There's a lot more to an explorer than a pilot's seat and a scoop (@Frontier: a Lakon Pilot-Seat-And-A-Scoop, make it happen!).

I appreciate your thoughtful comments. In point of fact, I have repeatedly said that I am happy for other people that they like this ship. I REALLY want to like it too, but if is outclassed by other ships for my exploring purposes, then for me, it is effectively a "dud." Wish it were otherwise, as I have been rooting for this ship to be released for months, and have spent most of my time in ED wishing I was flying a Diamondback, grinding credits to buy one and upgrade it, participating in the CG... all just for the looks alone unfortunately, looks don't a make a ship. At least for me they don't.

 

[puca]

Also you forgot to mention tank size also determines the maximum amount of fuel your FSD can use.

As long as your tank contains enough for a max jump, it has no influence on that. Maximum fuel usage is fixed by FSD class, e.g. 5A uses 5T per max range jump. As long as your tank contains that much fuel, you will always use that much.

 

[Libluini]

As long as your tank contains enough for a max jump, it has no influence on that. Maximum fuel usage is fixed by FSD class, e.g. 5A uses 5T per max range jump. As long as your tank contains that much fuel, you will always use that much.

Are you always rewording what other people said slightly differently? Like, duh of course you can still make a max jump when your fuel tank is large enough, that's my point. I literally said the problems start when you go below that.

 

[Ziljan]

I know all that. But you apparently don't get that refilling a smaller tank goes faster then refilling a larger tank. Basic math. And my balance takes jump range into account, so that's probably where you're stumbling over when reading my post. Of course I'm generous here with "reading", considering I'm pretty sure I've mentioned how the FSD increases fuel usage with range before.

Also you forgot to mention tank size also determines the maximum amount of fuel your FSD can use. So if you're downsizing tanks, you can't go too far, or you're jump range drops again because the fuel tank becomes too small to feed your FSD with the amount of fuel a maximum range jump needs.

You should research more before posting more fact based arguments.

Your math is so flawed I don't know where to begin. Filling a small tank faster is not a benefit over filling a larger tank slower. It's the same amount fuel per time scooped. Taking a larger tank decreases your jump range fuel efficiency because you weigh more. Filling a tank once it's empty is the slowest possible way to to fill it because the FSD cool down on all previous jumps was wasted not scooping. So tank size is only a benefit if you are in bad patch, or not paying attention. Otherwise, you should be refueling at each jump to go any where at speed.

you can slot a smaller tank size and that will increase your jump range, but it will NOT alter your fuel usage per jump. 5T fuel used per jump, regardless of tank size. Hopefully that clears things up.

the only way to fill a DBE tank under the FSD cool down is to jump in 15LY increments. You can do this, and it will increase your efficiency once you arrive at a destination for exploring. But will take much longer to get there in any case.

 

[jabberwalkie]

Your math is so flawed I don't know where to begin.

What?

Filling a small tank faster is not a benefit over filling a larger tank slower. It's the same amount fuel per time scooped. Taking a larger tank decreases your jump range fuel efficiency because you weigh more. Filling a tank once it's empty is the slowest possible way to to fill it because the FSD cool down on all previous jumps was wasted not scooping.

Incorrect. It takes less time to fill a smaller tank and it limits the number of jumps you can do before needing to refuel which leads to more refueling and decreased range. But you and puca have been making a point to bring up the 93 seconds required to fill the tank from empty, so why change this now? There is not denying that it takes less time to scoop when you scoop each star available...... That's a big duh there....

If I understand how the computer plots jumps correctly, it plots your jumps based on your current values.

So tank size is only a benefit if you are in bad patch, or not paying attention. Otherwise, you should be refueling at each jump to go any where at speed.

You assume that you can fuel at each star you jump to, and your former sentence is indication of why this wrong.

Edit to add:

you can slot a smaller tank size and that will increase your jump range, but it will NOT alter your fuel usage per jump. 5T fuel used per jump, regardless of tank size. Hopefully that clears things up.

But it will decrease the distance you can jump at one time. That is the consequence for going that route. You can extend your overall range (if you choose the right tank) but your singular jump distance will decrease. I know I saw one region posted in the forums where having an extra fuel tank or two would be nice to have as there is very little in the way of stars to scoop.

the only way to fill a DBE tank under the FSD cool down is to jump in 15LY increments. You can do this, and it will increase your efficiency once you arrive at a destination for exploring. But will take much longer to get there in any case.

Interesting note on the cool down point and I think that it was brought up when the Scout came out, but if I wanted the efficiency you are seaking I probably would have chosen another profession in game than exploring.

 

[Ziljan]

What?


Incorrect. It takes less time to fill a smaller tank and it limits the number of jumps you can do before needing to refuel which leads to more refueling and decreased range. But you and puca have been making a point to bring up the 93 seconds required to fill the tank from empty, so why change this now? There is not denying that it takes less time to scoop when you scoop each star available...... That's a big duh there....

If I understand how the computer plots jumps correctly, it plots your jumps based on your current values.


You assume that you can fuel at each star you jump to, and your former sentence is indication of why this wrong.

Wow. You don't understand how FSDs work.


class 5A uses 5T of fuel per jump

class 4a uses 3T of fuel per jump

class 3a uses 1.8T fuel per jump

This is true regardless of fuel tank size!

smaller tanks holds less fuel, and less jumps, larger tank holds more fuel and more jumps. Size only impacts how much you need to refuel per tank, not per jump. If anything a smaller tank will make you travel slower if you hit a bad patch and need to fiddle with the Gal Map. A larger tank will reduce your range. It's a wash and neither is relevant to fuel scoop rate for fast travel.

Neither size tank alters your input or output of fuel per jump. Neither will make you refuel any faster over the same number of jumps.

 

[WR3ND]

Guys, we keep running around in circles here. Only the names change from time to time. I just hope the developers have taken a critical and open minded honest look at our posts, our reasoning, and our hopes for a capable exploration oriented ship or ships. I'm somewhat doubtful though given some of the responses I've seen.

I guess our only other real option beside debating (unfortunately, and perhaps needlessly) the merits and relevance of our positions in the forums is to try and contact the developers somewhat more directly outside of the heated context of the open forums. At this point I doubt that changing either of the Diamondbacks' exploration capabilities is a realistic goal and that isn't something I'm hoping for. What I'd like now in this regard is outlined in my previous post.

Either way, I'll most likely get the Diamondback Scout for a bit of fun at resource extraction sites and because I think it looks cool, but finding a ship for progressing through my exploration ranks that's both capable and that I enjoy piloting will seemingly have to wait for now. At least I have other things to work on before then, like finishing up working on my trade rankings while making a larger credit cache for my future ED endeavors.

 

[puca]

Yeah, what's happening is math fail + unwilling to admit wrongness in public. Going to wind down participation here.

 

[Libluini]

Your math is so flawed I don't know where to begin. Filling a small tank faster is not a benefit over filling a larger tank slower. It's the same amount fuel per time scooped. Taking a larger tank decreases your jump range fuel efficiency because you weigh more. Filling a tank once it's empty is the slowest possible way to to fill it because the FSD cool down on all previous jumps was wasted not scooping. So tank size is only a benefit if you are in bad patch, or not paying attention. Otherwise, you should be refueling at each jump to go any where at speed.

you can slot a smaller tank size and that will increase your jump range, but it will NOT alter your fuel usage per jump. 5T fuel used per jump, regardless of tank size. Hopefully that clears things up.

the only way to fill a DBE tank under the FSD cool down is to jump in 15LY increments. You can do this, and it will increase your efficiency once you arrive at a destination for exploring. But will take much longer to get there in any case.

Again, someone rewords what others have said and somehow come to a different conclusion. How is my math more flawed then yours when you're just saying the same thing, slightly more agitated?

Oh wait I forgot all the obvious things you sprinkled in to post more words, like "an empty tank takes longer to fill". What is that supposed to mean? It's completely irrelevant to what was said. You make me think you really mean you're hammering your jump-button as soon as FSD-cool-down ends. Which sounds to me like a good method of getting burned up. It's also sometimes not even possible, when a jump target is too close or obscured by the sun, for example. Where's your precious 100 billion % efficiency, then?

As soon as robotically "efficient" jumps aren't possible, your entire argument falls apart. And it gets worse when you're exploring, instead of travelling in a straight line. Plotting a new course, taking a look at the system you're in, all this takes time. Time you could spend scooping.

I guess the trouble we're in here is different philosophies on fuelling. I absolutely hate it if my fuel scoop is uselessly idling around after filling up too fast, you're hating it if you're tank refuels 1/2 of a second too slow. So in hindsight, this discussion is fruiteless. Just accept that other people have other things they're mindlessly obsessing about and move on with your life.

 

[Ziljan]

Yeah, what's happening is math fail + unwilling to admit wrongness in public. Going to wind down participation here.

I am am going to write an FSD tutorial to help out those that are having math problems here. I think all of us could benefit from seeing how speed and CR/hr efficiency actually plays out on each of the ships used for exploration. That way people can make informed choices when going for explorer rank, or are simply trying to get to the Thargoid home world a little faster.

 

[Commander Scott Weyland]

Now let's be fair, all you explorers have right now is what, one ship supposedly dedicated to the role (Asp)? That's actually more of a multi-roler, as I've used it as a trader and gunship, and not exactly light. Unless I'm mistaken, the rest are trade or combat ships stripped down for the purpose. I don't see any really dedicated lightweight, low armament, high jump range ships in the line up.

Here, I have to say the Imperial Courier was perhaps a missed opportunity. It could have been like an America's Cup yatcht, built for speed and long range, but light on everything else. From the teaser pictures, honestly, that's what I thought it was going to be; instead, it's a light figher which is kind of up against the DB Scout.

Just my opinion, but I find it strange that in 3301, humans haven't thought to design ships specifically for the purposes of breaking jump distance and endurance range records.

So true, bro ... -.- i was seriously expecting that the courier (it was love on the first sight - still having my clipper in a far distant station) could finally be THE vessel for my trip to the core. but i just dicovered 20 min ago via the edshipyard tool that there are two versions of the diamondback incoming (yes a have no beta), and after some dropdown juggling i quickly discovered that the explorer version doesn't even beat the bulky ASP. no offence to the 280t + allrounder, but i actually wanted some sexy screenshots from Sag A including my ship...

FD do me some personal favour pls: increase the Frame Shift Housing of the Courier from class 3 to class 4...(!) its just 5 additional tonnes of mass form 3A to 4A and i would really like to joyfully wet my pants if this could come true!

 

[Mengy]

I appreciate your thoughtful comments. In point of fact, I have repeatedly said that I am happy for other people that they like this ship. I REALLY want to like it too, but if is outclassed by other ships for my exploring purposes, then for me, it is effectively a "dud." Wish it were otherwise, as I have been rooting for this ship to be released for months, and have spent most of my time in ED wishing I was flying a Diamondback, grinding credits to buy one and upgrade it, participating in the CG... all just for the looks alone unfortunately, looks don't a make a ship. At least for me they don't.

I understand your argument about the DBE's scoop size, but the ship isn't designed for people who can afford 6A scoops in Asps. It's designed for people like me, people who have been exploring the galaxy in an Asp with an A3 scoop and completely enjoying themselves. My entire Asp isn't worth the price of that little 6A fuel scoop! Simply put: not everyone can afford the absolute best of everything in this game, not yet anyway. That "small" 4A scoop on the DBE, which I can easily afford, will fill the DBE's tanks in less than half the time I can currently fill the tanks in my Asp. And for a far lower price.


For myself and the explorers like me, the DBE is an awesome little ship. For the incredibly wealthy explorers who have Asp's or Anaconda's with the best of everything, yeah the little $2 mil DBE isn't meant for you.


You don't go replacing BMW's with Ford Escorts and expect the same kind of performance!

 

[jabberwalkie]

Wow. You don't understand how FSDs work.

Well aware of how they consume fuel thank you.

smaller tanks holds less fuel, and less jumps, larger tank holds more fuel and more jump. That only impacts how much you need to refuel per tank, not per jump. If anything a smaller tank will make you travel slower if you hit a bad patch and need to fiddle with the Gal Map. A larger tank will reduce your range. It a wash and neither is relevant to fuel scoop rate for fast travel.

You really are trying to avoid the point aren't you? While a smaller tank allows you to travel further in a single jump, you may or may not make up the difference with you FSD range. In the case of the DBE and Asp, they use 5t with the best FSD available and both have a 32t standard but you can equip a 16t tank in its place. It isn't a wash at all, its important as shorter available max range of the tank can require you to divert more to scoop fuel when you don't have enough in the tank to do the next maximum jump. That's time lost and more distance traveled towards your goal location. Or in the terms you have been using, that is loss of efficiency for your time.

In case you misunderstand: I am agreeing that the fuel required for maximum singular jump distance is constant for each class of FSD. That's not what I am discussing.

Yeah, what's happening is math fail + unwilling to admit wrongness in public. Going to wind down participation here.

Hilarious.

I am am going to write an FSD tutorial to help out those that are having math problems here. I think all of us could benefit from seeing how speed and CR/hr efficiency actually plays out on each of the ships used for exploration. That way people can make informed choices when going for explorer rank.

Why waste your time when the formula is on the wiki and the information is already available on the ED Shipyard?

I guess the trouble we're in here is different philosophies on fuelling. I absolutely hate it if my fuel scoop is uselessly idling around after filling up too fast, you're hating it if you're tank refuels 1/2 of a second too slow. So in hindsight, this discussion is fruiteless. Just accept that other people have other things they're mindlessly obsessing about and move on with your life.

I don't have a problem with a scoop sitting idle, it does that anyways when I am scanning the system. I just don't see the reason to get upset over having to scoop slower. I think it goes deeper than just philosophies on fueling. It's how someone wants to use the ship for the given task and if it meets their needs/requirements, but very few have actually answered is the ship capable of doing actual exploration? Most of the discussion for the ship in this thread has centered around a fuel scoop. A FUEL SCOOP! I'd say that the shipyard numbers seem to indicate that it is as capable as the Asp to visit locations around the galaxy, but the combat aspect of the ship is still up for debate.

You are correct though, the debate is fruitless.

 

[himurastewie]

It matters not, but all I really wanted from the original Diamondback spec was 5 spaces inside the ship. I'm fine with 3x C3s, and 2x C1s. I want my shield, my scoop, an SCB or AFMU, and the scanners. That's how I personally would build a Diamondback.

Having a C4, 2x C3s, and 2x C1s also makes a lot of sense, and it rectifies a "problem" with the ship in that it's the only ship that doesn't have at least one non-fixed module that is equal in size to its FSD. It also forces the pilot to choose (assuming a fuel scoop is being used) if they want a more powerful shield, or shorter refueling times. If a pilot is not taking a fuel scoop, then the smaller slots are likely going to be used for SCBs, and the two little ones for who knows what. Likely more SCBs, given the state of combat in this game.

Neither suggestion is overpowered given the price point of the ship, and both suggestions transform the ship from "Viper with range" to "combat-explorer" in my book. The reason is because it's not giving up two larger module slots in order to accommodate scanners. That's the only difference.

Given the suggestion above, we have a Viper-like dogfighter that has a Cobra's range, but that can still fit the modules that a combat pilot would want(bigger shield, SCB), and ones that an explorer would want(bigger scoop, AFMU) while also including both scanners. What it gives up is trade capacity, and price. A combat pilot starting out is likely to choose and max out a Viper before ever considering a Diamondback. A maxed Viper is about ~2-3m. A combat kitted Diamondback is ~10.5m. Likewise, a combat kitted 'explorer' will run ~14m. A stripped out pure explorer will run ~9.5m.

It's a niche ship, yes. But so is an Orca, or a Driftship.

I came up with a scenario perfect for a combat-explorer. It's a mission given by a power, or bulletin board or whatever, that has the player flying out some random distance into deep space, and having to detail scan planets/objects. The goal is to find an enemy R&D facility, or some other planet-based enemy something. Or a pirate's nest based out of a moon, or planetary asteroid ring. Upon detail scanning the target object, NPCs spawn in that will attempt to interdict and destroy the player. The goal is to return the data intact to the mission giver.

It's a simple scenario, but would give this style of ship loadout a real use.

Now to watch moar arguing.

 

[who?]

I appreciate your thoughtful comments. In point of fact, I have repeatedly said that I am happy for other people that they like this ship. I REALLY want to like it too, but if is outclassed by other ships for my exploring purposes, then for me, it is effectively a "dud." Wish it were otherwise, as I have been rooting for this ship to be released for months, and have spent most of my time in ED wishing I was flying a Diamondback, grinding credits to buy one and upgrade it, participating in the CG... all just for the looks alone unfortunately, looks don't a make a ship. At least for me they don't.

I'd still argue dud is a bit strong, but I can't dispute it's not ideal. If you're trying to get from A -> B quickly (which people will be doing more and more as the systems around populated space become tagged, categorised and Starbucked) then those few seconds add up. Normally a few seconds wouldn't matter, but at 35-40 jumps per KLy and it's a 100 KLy galaxy..

I have to admit as I made my way back from the Rift (with aforecursed 3C scoop), the further I travelled the more I was willing to pay for a faster scoop! Still, I always scan at least the primary star, and check the system for WWs or ELWs, so the slower scoop didn't actually affect me much. If there's one thing that's worse than a long, boring trip, it's a long, boring trip where you're making no money. A few thousand for maybe 10 seconds is easy money.

I'll definitely try the DB, mostly because I like variety. I don't like that the Asp doesn't really have any challengers for exploration. (Ok, the Anaconda is better, but that's a bit like using a Death Star to bullseye womp rats!) If there are any aliens out there, they must think we're pretty dull and unimaginative. I wouldn't mind at all if they introduced seemingly redundant ships, such as an Asp challenger with similar stats, but different design, sound, and slightly different performance envelope. Or a Vulture challenger, that's roughly equal in combat, but again with different look 'n' feel.

 

[Mengy]

I don't have a problem with a scoop sitting idle, it does that anyways when I am scanning the system. I just don't see the reason to get upset over having to scoop slower. I think it goes deeper than just philosophies on fueling. It's how someone wants to use the ship for the given task and if it meets their needs/requirements, but very few have actually answered is the ship capable of doing actual exploration? Most of the discussion for the ship in this thread has centered around a fuel scoop. A FUEL SCOOP! I'd say that the shipyard numbers seem to indicate that it is as capable as the Asp to visit locations around the galaxy, but the combat aspect of the ship is still up for debate.


You are correct though, the debate is fruitless.

The debate is interesting but ultimately pointless for the simple fact that there are two very different mindsets of explorers in this debate:


1) the explorer who values number of systems scanned per hour, the min/max'ers, the pilots who struggle to shave seconds off of every jump in an effort to horn one more system per minute


2) the explorer who values a good screenshot or a pretty vista more than a speed record


To one of them, the DBE is a great value of a ship which can do the job of the Asp at a much lower price, and look stylish while doing it. To the other, the DBE is worthless junk. It's just a difference of what you value in an exploration ship. Personally, I'm usually perusing the system map or galaxy view whenever I'm refueling (or refreshing my beverage / snacks), so a minute or two difference in scooping time really doesn't mean much to me. But I can still understand the Buckyball pilots who think the DBE is pointless. Simple fact is that the DBE just ain't built for them, it's mission was never to do the Asp's job better but to do a similar job at a more affordable price.

 

[InMemoriamSirocco]

There's a Shakespeare quote from Hamlet that describes what happened here.

Oh! Me! Me! Pick me!

Is it "Much ado about nothing"? Okay, that's not really a quote, more of a play title... but still.... :S

 

[Murishani]

I am sorry, but in which way are the DB Explorer and Asp Explorer not explorers?

In the way that they do things like carry six hard points, have many many slots for customization and can be equipped as many things, including an explorer and thus better fit into the concept of all-purpose ships.

And according to your logic, there are no dedicated traders, because they can mount guns, too.

I don't believe I ever stated that being able to carry or not carry guns or cargo racks made it not a dedicated anything. What I was saying is that vipers, vultures, t6's and t9's etc. CAN be fitted for combat or trading, each in their turn, but that they are overwhelmingly balanced towards a specific function. Whereas other ships, ASP's Cobras and sidewinders come to mind, are more evenly balanced but not particularly good at any one thing. So if we have flexible ships, combat ships and trading ships, why not a dedicated explorer which is balanced overwhelmingly to exploration.

Also, what is wrong with a 30+Ly jump range? In which way does a 40Ly jump range suddenly transform a ship from "not a true explorer" into a "true explorer"?

Again, I'm sorry but I don't believe I ever said anything is a true explorer or not.

Not that I wouldn't welcome a decent, stylish (Gutamaya!) explorer with that kind of jump range, but I don't see how that is a sheer necessity. If the DB Explorer and Asp had a 40Ly jump range, you'd probably complain we had no ships with a 50+Ly jump range.

I didnt say anything was or was not a necessity, but by this logic we should be perfectly content with only medium and small weapon hardpoints yes? Why would you need a large hardpoint? That's not a necessity. If they give you a large hardpoint you'll probably complain that we have no ships with two or more!

Finally, who says we aren't ever going to need weapons out there? What if we meet the Thargoids out there? What if we need combat equipped Asps and Diamondback Explorers and Scouts and Anacondas etc. eventually?

I don't know who said it, but it wasn't me! When the thargoids come out, by all means we're going to need more balanced combat ready ships with high jump range and we certainly wouldnt want a lightly armed, lightly framed, high jump range non combat exploration vessel out there trying to fight them. But until that point maybe we could have one?

Look at where some explorers have been already. Exploration is very compelling already the way it is - why should the game artificially incentivise it any further? I am not saying it shouldn't also pay accordingly, of course, but that is true of any activity; you shouldn't do something just because it gives you 2x as many credits as the second-efficient activity.

And once again I do not believe I ever said a single word about incentivizing exploration with more credits, in fact if you look at the type of exploration i've participated in in this forum, the monetary rewards are farthest thing from my mind. All I asked for was a ship specifically balanced for exploration instead of a neutral ship that can be fitted into one, or a trade vessel that can be altered into one.

Edit, epilogue: So I know how you people feel. You have a specific image in your mind what an explorer should be like, and FD did not fulfill that hope. But these ships are viable. They are decent. For 95% of all exploration purposes, it matters little whether you use a DB Scout, DB Explorer, or Asp; or, heck, an Imperial Clipper. The remaining 5% are split into 4% exploring where the stars thin out and every Ly jump range count, and thus the Conda > Asp > all, and 1% are things like Buckyball A* where raw interstellar speed is the only thing that matters.

I think I specifically said I like the new ships! Im not criticizing anything and actually stated how grateful i was for new ships, I just asked why we cant have a ship balanced specifically with explorers in mind. interstellar speed is VERY relevant to many explorers who have a specific area of space that they intend to examine and just want to get straight there, and then come home. For that privellege I would gladly sacrifice hardpoints, defenses, and several internal or utility slots to make the trip out and back faster, and I dont think that's an unreasonable request. Im not asking for the perfect ship in any way, I just want a ship thats as good to exploration as the viper or vulture is to combat or the t6 or t9 are to their respective fields.

If you make a ship capable of accepting an "oversize" fuel scoop, then it can fit "oversize" shields for OTT defence, or "oversize" cargo bays for OTT trade earnings.
If you make such a ship a dedicated explorer by making it completely unarmed, then it'll get used with oversized shields as a rare-trade-circuit specialist pirate dodger. It'll get used with the oversize cargo bay as a trade earnings multiplier in a relatively safe trade run.
I guess you could make a dedicated explorer by hardwiring in a fuel scoop - no option to remove - and cutting up the bays into teensy Class 1/2 bits.

one small or medium hardpoint only, one or two utilities. A 5 or higher FSD, 1X size 5 internal 1X size 3internal 2X size 1 internals. Downgrade the armor class max, Downgrade the thrusters class max, heck downgrade the PP class max and the distro max too. drastically reduce mass.
It'll jump far, scoop fast, it will have a minor bite, it can carry a small shield, a couple utilities, but you're not using it in a fight even if you specifically fit it for combat since it handles poorly and wont last long, and I guess you COULD fit it with cargo racks to haul, but the price point of a ship like this will already be outclassed by cheaper freighters for raw tonnage. It's a ship that is heavily balanced towards exploration.

Any ship equipped with correct scanners which are used to scan diverse celestial objects is a exploration ship.

I personally would not classify a heavy T9 fully laden with no fuel scoop as an "exploration ship" simply because it has the scanners. Its quite clearly just a hauler with scanners in it. Theres more to an exploration ship than the scanners.

Second, could you please give me any actual aircraft or ship model which is a dedicated mass produced exploration aircraft or ship ?
Exploration vessel are most of the time adaptation of commercial vessels (so exploration T6 is one of the most realistic vessel).

Actually exploration vessels have traditionally almost always been bespoke creations for the purpose. There have been many retrofitted vessels, (the Calyspo and Challenger come to mind) they were often afforded to the explorers by a military state. The problem with this logic is I can turn it around and say: "can you give me a single example of a military grade fighter or naval craft that was mass produced for civillian use?" Were in a sci-fi game here let's not ask about realism. I just asked for a more dedicated explorer.

Third, any ship should have disadvantages. Any.
It should never be possible to have "the perfect ship".

Again, as I said above, Im not asking for the "perfect ship" I just want a ship that is balanced specifically towards exploration and not flexibility, trade, or combat.


I'm not sure why asking for a more heavily exploration balanced ship with features specifically desired by explorers at the cost of defense/arms/cargo, raises such rancor in the forums. I LIKE the diamondback, (both kinds) I LOVE my ASP, I suspect I will love an anaconda, I certainly loved my T6 and my cobra and I adore my vulture. Im a fan of FD for what theyve done, I cant wait to try the new powerplay additions. I'm just observing the current mechanics of how far we can jump, how much space there is out there to jump in, and seeing that there's definitely room for a non-combat, large jump range explorer that would make many explorers very happy and justify having such an enormous simulation that many many ships stuck in the bubble will never get to see.

 

[jabberwalkie]

I'll definitely try the DB, mostly because I like variety. I don't like that the Asp doesn't really have any challengers for exploration. (Ok, the Anaconda is better, but that's a bit like using a Death Star to bullseye womp rats!) If there are any aliens out there, they must think we're pretty dull and unimaginative. I wouldn't mind at all if they introduced seemingly redundant ships, such as an Asp challenger with similar stats, but different design, sound, and slightly different performance envelope. Or a Vulture challenger, that's roughly equal in combat, but again with different look 'n' feel.

The DBE is a good, cheaper alternative to the Asp. Especially for those who want a slightly higher range than what the Cobra offers and want to transition into a different ship. I think you will see a good few people who don't want to sink the money in the Asp requires it, like Mengy, transition to the DBE platform. It still has the space available to equip an AFMU or SCB and a fuel scoop if the CMDR so desires in addition to the scanners. It's a pretty minimalist ship, but to make a car comparison this is the base economy sedan while the Asp is a luxury sedan with all the amenities you could want or need. As long as one takes some amount of care when exploring, the DBE should be able to go the almost same places that the Asp can for a far cheaper price tag. Personally, I could find myself almost trading my my Asp for the DBE just because because of difference in insurance and overall price. I feel that I ultimately under use the Asp most of the time, and I could free up some capital with this ship as it does the same job I need it to. I'm still toying with the idea.

Also, I feel like a bit of a broken record but I want to say it again: the Asp and the DBE jump similar distances in both an explorer or combat outfitting. And with that said, the Asp could probably do with a slight buff to its stats to allow it to jump a two or three lightyears further. A slight reduction in mass of the ship could probably do the trick, or give us a MkII version with an A6 FSD. so we can really reach out and touch some places at the fringe of the Galaxy. I think the next explorer variant or minded ship we get will have a similar type of layout where the FSD will be of a higher class than the rest of the modules in the ship.