Well, I'm at the other end of the galaxy right now … this whole "try out" thing is why I'm asking. Because i haven't been on a station for several thousand jumps and am a bit worried about all the precious data.Try it out on a neutron star, e.g. Jackson's Lighthouse which is quite close to the bubble, until you're familiar with how the boost is done
Ah well, been there, done that … without neutron boosting though[…] then you can swiftly make your way around […] the Milky Way.
First i read something very different and wanted to tell you about how life always finds a way … but then I realized it was not off-topic. Well, that sounds more like the "traditional" way … I almost did that yesterday … but then I chickened out shortly before entering the jet cone and conitnued with conventional jumping.I use to pull up so i enter the cone along the way not perpendiculary and then after it charges i accelerate and let it throw me out
Uh! My Kassiopeia is agile lie a "wet-sack-filled-with-bricks" a.k.a. an Anaconda … I guess that's good for me in this case. But I would greatly appreciate to know the results of your experimentsNot sure about ships more agile (so more prone to jet cone turbulence) than an iceberg-like Annie. Will try it with my Phantom and let you know.
This is definitely true, however additional AFMUs are never a detriment. You can repair faster (proportionately), and go longer before synthesizing refills. Plus, they're a good fit if you have slots that you aren't otherwise going to use, since they also help absorb heat damage that otherwise would apply to your other modules.Four AFMUs? One AFMU is all you'll ever need, if it should somehow drop to 0% integrity you can repair it up to 1% with the reboot/repair option, and then it'll work just as well as if it was at 100%.
Yep, that totally works. You just have to be going at very slow speed to keep from coming out the other side of the cone before the supercharge completes. I found that method to be effective with the T9. Since I'm usually in something a little more maneuverable, I usually fly along the cone since it gives me a wider range of speeds to work with. The important thing is that you don't want to be throttling forward in the event that your ship gets kicked around to face backward along the cone, into the exclusion zone. So the safest thing is to throttle to zero once the charging begins, and throttle up afterward as long as you're facing a safe direction. The cone tries to keep your speed constant and push outward, so throttling to zero ensures that you never fly inward toward the star. But it also works to keep the throttle above zero (or even full throttle through the super-fast "millisecond pulsars"), as long as you're ready to pull back to zero should you get spun around to face the exclusion zone, which will usually alert you with an "impact" warning in the upper-right info panel if you're moving toward it quickly. You might not have time to react though, if you're already close to the base of the cone. Entering somewhere in the middle of the cone helps mitigate those risks too.Now THAT was very different to what I've seen before. That would simplify the whole thing like, A LOT. Can anybody confirm that this is a safe way to neutron boost?
And I guess I'll have to use the in-game route plotter, too. Otherwise too much time will be wasted "typing" the system names into the search field.
Now I ask myself in how far literally can be applied here. Obviously I wasn't there as a real person. But my in game alter ego was in that virtaul, not real galaxy. So … what is the opinion of the crowd regarding the use of "literally" in that case?I am right now, literally in front of a neutron star
Okay, so I've taken a couple of random days' logs from EDD and have the following info:-
3rd Feb ... 53 boosted jumps over a period of 137 minutes and travelled 5413LY = 39.5LY per minute
15th Feb ... 58 non-boosted jumps over a period of 100 minutes and travelled 1717LY = 17.2LY per minute
So, for me ... NS boosting is king