So in this game, all that is already there, so yay! 2100! Mark 1, please, BECAUSE MARK 2 HOLDS LESS!
New ship: Panther Clipper
- Thread starter Rubbernuke
- Start date
As has been pointed out in this thread, the 2100 was before the core internals, not after.
Um...got that a tad backwards, I think.
It is already there, so it's already using up the spare cargo space. Without that, you would have a 2100 cargo warehouse that can't move.
Ok, let's say that this applies, and in this game, you could do that. What is the improvement in a Mark 2 next to a Mark 1? graphic excluded obvs
if you don’t like my comment, don’t reply?If you don't like the gameplay involved in colonisation, don't do it?
I would've thought the most obvious inference from my reply would be that I don't spend time on things I dislike. I find this leaves me with more time for stuff I enjoy, so I merely suggested you adopt the same approach. Do as you will, of course.if you don’t like my comment, don’t reply?
Native SCO compatibility?
Last edited:
Probably the fact that the Mk 1 does not exist and is not a real thing in elite dangerous and it belongs to a different game altogether?
thank you for your permission.
I would think that's a given. If not, stock up on earplugs, because it's gonna be loud.
I'm just imagining all the Payload Specialists across the galaxy slapping their heads and saying "Wait a minute! You can optimise those things?"
Re-listening carefully to the stream, I think it's definitely two class 7 slots, one of them being of the special kind, and the same for the two class 8 slots. Which would make 1238 tons the correct total.
Given that I'm currently having to transport 794 tons at a time, I'm quite happy with 1238.
Anyway, I was genuinely not expecting new cargo rack modules. That was a positive surprise.
If I understand correctly, these will be the only modules in the game that are specific to one single ship?
Given that I'm currently having to transport 794 tons at a time, I'm quite happy with 1238.
Anyway, I was genuinely not expecting new cargo rack modules. That was a positive surprise.
If I understand correctly, these will be the only modules in the game that are specific to one single ship?
Kind of, kind of not; if I recall correctly there was a time when the Orca was the only ship that could fit luxury-grade passenger cabins.
(Later would come the Dolphin and Beluga.)
Similarly, the Panther Clipper would be the only ship currently able to fit the enhanced cargo racks, but that state of affairs might not last
Last edited:
FE2/FFE ships don't compare 1:1 with E: D ships. If you consider everything that goes into the Anaconda in each game, the E: D Anaconda is way bigger than the FE2/FFE Anaconda, since PP, thrusters, life support PD and sensors were effectively part of the hull in FE2/FFE, and FSD & fuel came out of hull capacity.
So, comparing FE2/FFE Panther Clipper with E: D Panther Clipper Mk II just doesn't really work. They're different games, and FDev can do whatever they want.
However, if we compare the sizes of the most closely-related ship, the Imperial Cutter, using the size of each slot, whether hardpoint, core or optional internal as being 2 to the power of slot size (or the capacity, if larger), the cutter has 794t cargo + 1088t core + 64t military + 48t hardpoints, for 1994t.
The PC2 has 1238t cargo + 960t core + 40t hardpoints, for 2238 total.
That means that the PC2 is 122% the size of the iCutter. However, the PC2 has a far greater volume than the iCutter, probably more than double the internal volume... so where is all the extra space going? To the articulation for the engines?
Realistically, going by the volume of the game models, the PC2 ought to have at least 3988t total volume, less 960t core = 3028t cargo
However, I'd say that the easiest compromise would be to make the PC2 like Saud Kruger ships which are the only ships that can take luxury passenger cabins: make the PC2 the only ship that can take enhanced cargo racks which have +50% capacity, and allow every optional internal slot in the PC2 able to take an enhanced cargo rack... and make enhanced cargo racks in every size slot the PC2 has. That would give it a maximum cargo capacity of 1569t.
So, comparing FE2/FFE Panther Clipper with E: D Panther Clipper Mk II just doesn't really work. They're different games, and FDev can do whatever they want.
However, if we compare the sizes of the most closely-related ship, the Imperial Cutter, using the size of each slot, whether hardpoint, core or optional internal as being 2 to the power of slot size (or the capacity, if larger), the cutter has 794t cargo + 1088t core + 64t military + 48t hardpoints, for 1994t.
The PC2 has 1238t cargo + 960t core + 40t hardpoints, for 2238 total.
That means that the PC2 is 122% the size of the iCutter. However, the PC2 has a far greater volume than the iCutter, probably more than double the internal volume... so where is all the extra space going? To the articulation for the engines?
Realistically, going by the volume of the game models, the PC2 ought to have at least 3988t total volume, less 960t core = 3028t cargo
However, I'd say that the easiest compromise would be to make the PC2 like Saud Kruger ships which are the only ships that can take luxury passenger cabins: make the PC2 the only ship that can take enhanced cargo racks which have +50% capacity, and allow every optional internal slot in the PC2 able to take an enhanced cargo rack... and make enhanced cargo racks in every size slot the PC2 has. That would give it a maximum cargo capacity of 1569t.
More correctly that specific slot type which can carry the improved cargo racks are exclusive to the Panther for now. The way they worded it, there might be coming more special slot types with further new ships.
I was positively surprised by the Panther Clipper Mk.II - at least as far as I can tell without flying it. The aestetics are quite lovely for my taste. From the side it reminds me a bitt of a crouching panther, the landing gear even has a design reminiscent of claws... very nicely done. The next thing I liked is, that they actually built a completely new and unique ship. FD didn't cut corners this time. The copied cockpit of the Corsair ist still a big letdown for me.... it looks and feels off - and does not convey the size of the otherwise fine Corsair. Quite a shame.
But back to the PC: I actually like the stats. I was a bit worried, that FD might give in to the demands ('wishes' is a word not strong enough here) of some of the players. Having even more cargo space would have made the colonization-feature even worse for my taste. Having the whole galaxy littered with personal 'fleet-carriers' is bad enough, I don't want construction sites everywhere. The colonization-feature itself is great, but for my taste it is FAR to easy to colonize right now. For my taste it should take many times longer to build something, than it does... but things are like they are. And I feel the PC might be quite a powerful upgrade to the Cutter or Type 9.
For me it depends one the flight characteristics of the beast... let's hope it flies nicely. Cool to have something to look forward to.
But back to the PC: I actually like the stats. I was a bit worried, that FD might give in to the demands ('wishes' is a word not strong enough here) of some of the players. Having even more cargo space would have made the colonization-feature even worse for my taste. Having the whole galaxy littered with personal 'fleet-carriers' is bad enough, I don't want construction sites everywhere. The colonization-feature itself is great, but for my taste it is FAR to easy to colonize right now. For my taste it should take many times longer to build something, than it does... but things are like they are. And I feel the PC might be quite a powerful upgrade to the Cutter or Type 9.
For me it depends one the flight characteristics of the beast... let's hope it flies nicely. Cool to have something to look forward to.
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
50% is a pretty big jump imo
ps maybe I am blind , I have looked can someone link me to a post with the specs pleased. I missed FU
ps "everyone" told you no such thing. a number of people (myself included) warned you you were likely way off base with your capacity demands.
edit just found the part in FU.
I am looking forward to flying this monster. I love all the rotary bits.
I guess I will retire my T9 which is ok as will keep my T10 for mining which when sat inside has the same ship bridge
SCO optimised will give it another advantage, I just hope it can manage at least equivalent jump distances to the T9 with an A rated engineered SCO drive.
Last edited:
When the number of C1 slots a Panther Clipper has is an issue, something's not right.
There's a bunch of video's on Youtube where people do stuff like compare hauling cargo in a Cutter to a T9 to establish whether smaller capacity and more speed is better than bigger capacity and less speed.
The results I've seen haven't been especially optimistic.
Usually, it seems like a Cutter can haul more cargo in less time even though a T9 can carry more.
With that in mind, and given the PC's alleged cargo capacity, it's going to need to be really useful in some other, secondary, way for me even to consider buying one for credits, let alone Arx.
I currently have a T9 that I use exclusively as a "cargo ferry", for moving stuff to and from my FC and I suppose a PC could take on that job, although I'm kind of attached to my T9, which I've had for ten years.
Beyond that, I'd need to see how gank-proof the PC is before I consider using one for anything that I currently use my Cutter for.
nope - a Cutter hauls 794 to per load on optimized role, a T9 788 to, so the Cutter hauls 6 tons more.
Nevertheless I prefer the T9 over the Cutter as I cannot stand that ships drifting, especcially with Grade 5 dirty drives its a pain in the rear airlock....