Poor scan range

Slarty75

S
WHO in his/her infinite mind has thought that scan range is something to do with mass (or so it seems) (no empirical data, just hours, hours, hours... and hours of scanning) .
In every (my view) SCI-FI series/movie whole starsystem is scanned at once or much greater distance.
If REAL engineer or developer had thought it every planet, etc. should be detailed scannable at least 1000ls away, instead like some sizes rocks 5.5 ls???

AND where is navigation computer which can calculate most efficient way to scan starsystem???
Now you must use hours to scan simple system 'cos worst case you go utmost planet to utmost planet and travel two or three times optimal distance!!

HHGttU (HitchHikers Guide to the Universe) wouldn't be possible for such poor design flaws.

PS.
If You don't know what HHGttU is YOU don't belong in Universe.
(Of course this is just my view, not the view of any past, present or future God, and/or Deity, Vogons excluded).

All the Best
Slartibartfast.
 

Karacetamol

Karacetamol
I once scanned a 104-body system in 15 minutes. Try engineering.

Edit: Also, some bodies are tiny. Gonna be hard to focus on something barely visible.
 

Redfox

Redfox
Slarty75 said:
WHO in his/her infinite mind has thought that scan range is something to do with mass (or so it seems) (no empirical data, just hours, hours, hours... and hours of scanning) .
In every (my view) SCI-FI series/movie whole starsystem is scanned at once or much greater distance.
If REAL engineer or developer had thought it every planet, etc. should be detailed scannable at least 1000ls away, instead like some sizes rocks 5.5 ls???
...
Click to expand...
At first it looked like this was about (ancient/debatable) game design decisions, but then took a turn towards "empirical data" and "REAL engineer". Looks like these guys wen't through a lot of unnecessary fuss to get close enough for their scans.

As for Sci-Fi: Yes, all franchises exist in their own universe with their own set rules, just like Elite. Besides the topic being a common trope (e.g. "Sci-Fi Writers Have No Sense of Scale") there's also the question as to what type of scan we're talking about. I.e./e.g. in Star Trek (1min research, and no insult intended towards fellow friends of the most inaccurate trilogy) the Enterprise-D seems to be able to scan at disctances of up to 17ly (and Voyager's Astrometric Sensors up to 2500ly), but still/also regularily needs to go into orbit for more detailed surface scans (DSS). In ED we get all bodies within a system plus their basic data within a 5s scan (honk), which is quite generous (and not fully intended by FD, IIRC), and we need to get closer (DSS) for more detailed data (and tags) - that seems fair, at least to me.

Anyway, I think OP's sentiment overall is somewhat understandable, considering the high expectations set by the Total Perspective Vortex: "...since every piece of matter in the Universe is in someway affected by every other piece of matter in the Universe, it is in theory possible to extrapolate the whole of creation—every Galaxy, every sun, every planet, their orbits, their composition, and their economic and social history from, say, one small piece of fairy cake."; FD really needs to step up their game - I want that cake.
 

BlackMirror

BlackMirror
Orion_Ancient said:
Why are you bothering scanning rocks? Theyre not worth squat diddly
Click to expand...

Because it is there.

Because it is not in EDDN.

Because there might be jumponium.

Because I never could hear the stellar cartography music.

Because I damn well felt like it! :D

Kodiene said:
I once scanned a 104-body system in 15 minutes. Try engineering.

Edit: Also, some bodies are tiny. Gonna be hard to focus on something barely visible.
Click to expand...

DSS blueprints made me ragequit engineering. :mad:
 

Orion_Ancient

Orion_Ancient
BlackMirror said:
Because it is there.

Because it is not in EDDN.

Because there might be jumponium.

Because I never could hear the stellar cartography music.

Because I damn well felt like it! :D



DSS blueprints made me ragequit engineering. :mad:
Click to expand...


I guess I am a profit driven explorer. if its not gonna net me a fair amount of money or present good photo ops, I dont bother
 

iain666

iain666
Orion_Ancient said:
I guess I am a profit driven explorer.
Click to expand...

I suppose there had to be a few out there. You represent a rare breed, even within the rare breed of explorers.

(If you're all about the credits then I trust you are running ED Discovery to get the habitable zone when you scan a star so you can reliably pick out the terraforming candidates)
 

Orion_Ancient

Orion_Ancient
iain666 said:
I suppose there had to be a few out there. You represent a rare breed, even within the rare breed of explorers.

(If you're all about the credits then I trust you are running ED Discovery to get the habitable zone when you scan a star so you can reliably pick out the terraforming candidates)
Click to expand...

Let me rephrase. I love exploring just as much as the next guy. But 500k+ LY later, and i get tired of seeing the same **** every system. Exploration is a freelance job for me. Instead of working for a corporation trading or bounty hunting, ppl telling me what i should do, i packed my bags and said **** em and did my own thing.

But i still have to eat and pay the bills just like anyone else. Sure ill stop and explore or land on some stuff here and there, maybe do some flybys get some photos etc, but for the most part im in it to win it so to speak.

Theres nothing worse then tagging literally every damn body for 1000 ly, docking, selling the data, and only getting 10 million. Great im the first to explore X and X and X. I dont care. They dont put fuel in my ship. They dont keep the FSD running or keep the salt on my astro ramen from going bad.

(And no i dont run edd, and while we are in the topic ive never screwed with landing computers either, i have no use for them. As for edd, i leave it out cuz i still like to have some sort of chance and luck in my adventures)
 
Last edited:

Valije

Valije
AFAIK it is the size what makes the minimun scan distance, not the mass. The thing than changes with mass are the credits you get from the scan.
 

Zieman

Zieman
Valije said:
AFAIK it is the size what makes the minimun scan distance, not the mass. The thing than changes with mass are the credits you get from the scan.
Click to expand...
This.

Everything gets scanned at 5 Ls, with engineering the distances can be tripled.
Yes, that adds mass to the module, but 0.0x Ly reduction in jump range is a fair compensation in my book.
 

Numenor1379

Numenor1379
Orion_Ancient said:
Let me rephrase. I love exploring just as much as the next guy. But 500k+ LY later, and i get tired of seeing the same **** every system. Exploration is a freelance job for me. Instead of working for a corporation trading or bounty hunting, ppl telling me what i should do, i packed my bags and said **** em and did my own thing.

But i still have to eat and pay the bills just like anyone else. Sure ill stop and explore or land on some stuff here and there, maybe do some flybys get some photos etc, but for the most part im in it to win it so to speak.

Theres nothing worse then tagging literally every damn body for 1000 ly, docking, selling the data, and only getting 10 million. Great im the first to explore X and X and X. I dont care. They dont put fuel in my ship. They dont keep the FSD running or keep the salt on my astro ramen from going bad.

(And no i dont run edd, and while we are in the topic ive never screwed with landing computers either, i have no use for them. As for edd, i leave it out cuz i still like to have some sort of chance and luck in my adventures)
Click to expand...

Well, if you look at the hologram you can tell right away with pretty good accuracy what the planet is. That way you can concentrate on the higher value ones. I did a relatively quick trip of about 2500ly to the galactic west and came back after three days with over 20M Cr in data.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom