Think I'd be happy to stick with my Cutter if that was the case, but alas.
New ship: Panther Clipper
- Thread starter Rubbernuke
- Start date
If K-9 took steroids
The pc does look nice...but I'm going to call mine "chief pie gobbler"
One possible rationale for the Optimised cargo racks might be how the cargo is handled.
If I stash 56t of gold into a size 8 rack, followed by 200t of silver, then try to sell just the gold, how do I get it out? There must be some system for accessing specific containers within the rack (unless everything gets unloaded at the port and then the silver is reloaded again). Maybe that system involves sacrificing some of the rack's volume, and maybe there's now a more efficient system that requires extra hardware that's built into the Panther.
If I stash 56t of gold into a size 8 rack, followed by 200t of silver, then try to sell just the gold, how do I get it out? There must be some system for accessing specific containers within the rack (unless everything gets unloaded at the port and then the silver is reloaded again). Maybe that system involves sacrificing some of the rack's volume, and maybe there's now a more efficient system that requires extra hardware that's built into the Panther.
If the hull is made from Hardened, Lightweighted, Anacondium, those 400t could be offset by a lesser hull mass, despite the ship being massive.
The PCII will need a hull mass of about 600-700t to match the Cutters jump range when carrying cargo since it has a class 7 FSD.
Someone once said to the effect, "what cannot be explained by current science is effectively magic".
a misquote I know, but it went something like that.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
I don't expect that the hull mass will be less than that of the Type-9, i.e. 850t. It may not be less than that of the Cutter, i.e. 1,100t.
Arthur C. Clarke’s third law:
“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”
I’m going to say it won’t. A very good chance exists it’s not even going to match the Corvette’s top end (boost) speed, though that’s a guess based on them saying it’s going to be more like a T9. Even if it has those size 8 thrusters… look at the speed indicated on the footage of it exiting the mail slot. If that (as I presume) is its E rated, unengineered speed… it’s not going to be fast in any category. Normal space flight, anyway.
I thought it was up at that point. I don’t recall seeing the gear down icon being lit up/filled in - and the thrusters were in the regular flight position.
… plus I don’t think that the Panther is going to fit the slot easily with the gear down.
I wonder if I'll be able to take my size 5 shield from my trade Cutter and fit it to this?
See, I would have deliberately done this, if it was up to me.
As I've said before, I think there needs to be more incentive for people to fly the T-ships.
If they gave the T7/T9/T10 magical cargo slots it'd create a reason to fly them instead of a Cutter and it'd help expand the "envelope" of hauling capabilities which, in turn, would mean FDev could have given the PC a capacity of >2000t without it seeming like an aberration.
When you've got all other ships capped at a capacity of around 700t - 800t of cargo and the PC has 2000t you create a situation where the PC isn't playing be the same rules.
Missions aimed at normal cargo ships would be a breeze for the PC and missions aimed at the PC would be laborious for other ships.
Boost the T7 so it has a capacity similar to a Cutter, give the T10 around 1000t of capacity, the T9 around 1400t and you create a whole bunch of choices for bulk-hauling, ranging from poverty-spec' to uparmored transport, and then it'd be more acceptable to have the PC show up with the ability to haul, say, 2200t.
Course, that'd mean FDev would have to twiddle the stat's for various cargo missions to create the desired level of effort within the new paradigm so I can see why they might not want to do that.
Aha, so many people have been waiting for this for years?
I'd like to know who makes these decisions on the development side.
If FDev had always involved the community, the game would be in a different state.
It's a shame.
I'd like to know who makes these decisions on the development side.
If FDev had always involved the community, the game would be in a different state.
It's a shame.
Hi 
I've never bought a T9, but from what I've read on the forum about the T9...isn't it a bit more agile at low speed than the Cutter?
If so (and the Panther was hinted at being somewhat 'ok' as a laser miner, not this has any real bearing on my question perhaps) then compared to the Cutter the Panther is more manoeuvrable at certain lower speeds?
Footnote, another question / debatable subject...well, as far as the recent livestream is concerned, there was no mention / hint of what the next new ship might be, or the next new (?) feature in the Autumn?...but staying on topic...what size of ship launched fighter can the Panther carry? (or any shipboard , player owned or otherwise for that matter?).
A single ship?...or more?
Jack
I've never bought a T9, but from what I've read on the forum about the T9...isn't it a bit more agile at low speed than the Cutter?
If so (and the Panther was hinted at being somewhat 'ok' as a laser miner, not this has any real bearing on my question perhaps) then compared to the Cutter the Panther is more manoeuvrable at certain lower speeds?
Footnote, another question / debatable subject...well, as far as the recent livestream is concerned, there was no mention / hint of what the next new ship might be, or the next new (?) feature in the Autumn?...but staying on topic...what size of ship launched fighter can the Panther carry? (or any shipboard , player owned or otherwise for that matter?).
A single ship?...or more?
Jack
Last edited:
No. No. Absolutely not. It has a roll rate equivalent to its pitch roughly at 30 degrees and it is extremely absymal (it’s even worse in supercruise). Like you think the Cutter turns bad, the T9 I’ve seen it described as an arthritic beached whale and I am very inclined to agree to that, experiencing it myself.
And the Cutter’s drift is only an issue if you boost straight at the mail slot from wherever you are, while I’ve found ways around that or just… not boosting and letting the Cutter’s even basic regular speed do the work.
It’s still a bit on the low side for Cutter-type speeds with whatever the top end might be, being how I recall or vaguely think that the gear down cuts speed roughly in half. Maybe slightly above T9 IF that footage was captured with a stock E rated build, but probably not that much faster.
A lot depends on how much speed it loses once it is fully loaded, but those answers are only going to come next month when players have their hands on it.
PC having hull mass somewhere between T9 and Cutter seems likely. Cutter is pretty much Empire's answer to Federal Corvette, so it's tuned for combat with strong hull. T9 is a utilitarian, cheap ship and the engineering department probably didn't go all-out on reducing mass wherever possible. PC is a high-end ship and SCO tuned hull is necessarily engineering heavy, so it makes sense it's lighter than Cutter even if it is a much larger ship because it doesn't need to fight in conflict zones and engineers could afford to optimize the hull structure to their heart's content. But even then it couldn't be lighter than T9 because it's simply a much larger ship. 900...1000 tons seems reasonable, resulting in around 26...27 ly jumprange when fully loaded and using the pre-engineered SCO drive.
Guess we'll know for sure in 3 weeks when the partner program streamers get preview access.
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
i am not so sure... its not like we the player base are united.
what we as a group want is an offline massively multiplayer game all in 1 open mode with the potential to PvP anyone at anytime whilst also played solo seeing no other players and in groups each with their own rules, with strict rules where the economy is plausible and sustainable whilst also being a full sandbox with all the best toys given day 1. A game built primarily around combat where combat is entirely optional and players able to chill out and explore in peace and with new shiny content with earth like worlds and under water bases and exploring gas giants funded by a monthly subscription but with no extra money needed to be paid over and above the (potentially free) copy that came on the epic store or prime gaming giveaway.
simples
My view is FD already detailed a pretty amazing game back with their design documents... i still would love to see that game in all its glory. They dont need to listen to us, they just need to follow their own plan better imo.
I went out and found them when I was bored of doing other stuff and stored them on a carrier. I try and often fail at keeping my hanger as poorly filled as possible, and only have the ships I use most with the SCO drive.
I am enjoying this discussion so much that the requested tonnage stays under the wild demands of some players but is critisised again as being too high because of space magic
I am seeing it like you: the new slots are a new alloy and have a miniaturized technology for storing the containers. End of story.
I had done it even more prescriptively and defined those two storage slots as '50% up, unchangeable'. Reason behind is that no matter if one kits out the ship as a miner or a transport ship, you would always need the cargo space.