try it, but my DBE can't run 4A DD on skardee 1 without overheating. it can run 4A CD, and (obviuosly) 4D CD. i have no 4D DD, so that would be something to test....
PSA: Clean Drive Tuning is NOT for Explorers
- Thread starter Konnivar
- Start date
try it, but my DBE can't run 4A DD on skardee 1 without overheating. it can run 4A CD, and (obviuosly) 4D CD. i have no 4D DD, so that would be something to test....
Aye Grade 5 has the most severe downsides
For my Sidewinder, I found the Grade 4 clean drives the way to go for the best results as the gain on Optimum multiplier is more than lost by the loss of Optimum mass lost at Grade 5 even with a beneficial side effect, but with a Grade 4 I can gain a little optimum mass on the Enhanced drive and thus get most from the multiplier
Think it depends on the roles and the ship itself.
I clean tune on my lighter/ smaller ships for the jump range. I Dirty Tune on my large ships because the weight doesnt effect the jump range as badly and the Hog of an Exploraconda needs as much oomph as possible to wrestle itself off a planets surface.
Yeah, clean drives for exploration ships is the same misconceived urban legend type as the one about B rated AFMU's being better than A rated dittos. The current power load on the plant is the most influential factor we can affect ourselves, which is most likely the reason your test favoured the dirty one. If you have multiple thrusters to pick from, always pick the most power efficient for travels, not the one with the lowest thermal load. The hull's heat management is of course the most important of them all. So, if you're squeamish about heat, get a ship that handles heat well. 
Wouldn't it make more sense if they'd go back and rebalance the ABCDE structure towards something more creative? I find it odd that A grade is always the best performer, B is always the toughest, D is the lightest, E is the cheapest and C is just stupid. Meanwhile we can see there's a brilliance in shield categories where the ABC method provides something vertical, but then branches off at the top with a horizontal spread of Bi-weaves and Prismatics. Technically those shields have C and A ratings respectively, yet we all know those two and the A grade are are the top 3.
As it stands, engineering on thrusters is a slightly overpowered in the cost to benefit perspective, and the flight model has a few goofy characteristics concerning top speeds and acceleration. There are also some bad physics characteristics with ships regarding rotational inertia. For example, an object can only spin on two axis at the same time. This is a fundamental law of motion, yet the game permits 3. This causes weird movement when ships bump into objects because the game actually has an overly complicated system of motion. We also have a very strange method of determining top speed, which probably aught to be determined by the ship or thruster itself rather than the mass. Mass is something that realistically only affects acceleration. There's a lot of room for improvement the devs could look at to make this game something very difficult to rival.
As far as thrusters go, maybe it would be better if they took a step back and addressed some of the options in outfitting that comes before engineering, to provide something like how shields provided Bi-weave and Prismatic. One that provides something focused on efficiency, and one (or more) that focus on other thrust aspects, all within a sort of horizontal fashion. I'm just personally not in favor of putting efficiency behind engineers. I think it's something a player should have an option to up-front as a thruster.
As it stands, engineering on thrusters is a slightly overpowered in the cost to benefit perspective, and the flight model has a few goofy characteristics concerning top speeds and acceleration. There are also some bad physics characteristics with ships regarding rotational inertia. For example, an object can only spin on two axis at the same time. This is a fundamental law of motion, yet the game permits 3. This causes weird movement when ships bump into objects because the game actually has an overly complicated system of motion. We also have a very strange method of determining top speed, which probably aught to be determined by the ship or thruster itself rather than the mass. Mass is something that realistically only affects acceleration. There's a lot of room for improvement the devs could look at to make this game something very difficult to rival.
As far as thrusters go, maybe it would be better if they took a step back and addressed some of the options in outfitting that comes before engineering, to provide something like how shields provided Bi-weave and Prismatic. One that provides something focused on efficiency, and one (or more) that focus on other thrust aspects, all within a sort of horizontal fashion. I'm just personally not in favor of putting efficiency behind engineers. I think it's something a player should have an option to up-front as a thruster.
Last edited:
Deleted member 38366
D
I wouldn't want to miss my G5 Clean Drives on my Explorers.
No later than you do some Afterburner-maneuvers over a Medium- to High-G Planet or try to fly inverted for a little moment over them... you'll soon realize why
Clean Drives = faster than unmodded Ship but no rapid cooking off over bigger Planets when doing some maneuvers or taking a peak flying inverted maintaining some Altitude.
PS.
If you're PAX-Exploring in a Beluga, Clean Drives are pure heaven compared to Dirties. Difference is nowhere bigger than on the Beluga.
But if you like smoke and sparks flying everywhere, try running it with Grade 5 Dirties, go inspect a higher G Planet and dare to tap afterburner while climbing up inverted with 30-40deg Pitch. Or charge the FSD while doing that
Thus :
PSA - Clean drives ARE for Explorers (as well as a few others). They're just not a mandatory thing, if you know what you're doing.
No later than you do some Afterburner-maneuvers over a Medium- to High-G Planet or try to fly inverted for a little moment over them... you'll soon realize why
Clean Drives = faster than unmodded Ship but no rapid cooking off over bigger Planets when doing some maneuvers or taking a peak flying inverted maintaining some Altitude.
PS.
If you're PAX-Exploring in a Beluga, Clean Drives are pure heaven compared to Dirties. Difference is nowhere bigger than on the Beluga.
But if you like smoke and sparks flying everywhere, try running it with Grade 5 Dirties, go inspect a higher G Planet and dare to tap afterburner while climbing up inverted with 30-40deg Pitch. Or charge the FSD while doing that
Thus :
PSA - Clean drives ARE for Explorers (as well as a few others). They're just not a mandatory thing, if you know what you're doing.
Last edited by a moderator:
Turn off your modules when exploring, including the SRV. Only keep the bear minimum switched on for travelling then turn on when needed. That way you can have grade 5 A drives and still rock cool temps and have huge jump distances in your builds.
Last edited:
I am done refueling before my FSD finishes cooling down from the previous jump, so I'm done refueling before I could even consider starting to charge my FSD for the next jump. I can not jump any faster. AspX+6A Scoop FTW
Last edited:
Since there's been a couple threads on this topic lately I decided to overwrite my clean drive 5 for a dirty drive 3 on my Asp Ex. I didn't take screenshots or write down the numbers to compare, suffice to say it's slightly faster, has more thermal load, and less power draw.
It is indeed much cooler while fuel scooping.
IMO, this is just an oversight in the mod that really should be looked into.
It is indeed much cooler while fuel scooping.
IMO, this is just an oversight in the mod that really should be looked into.
Cannot rep you ATM.
Personally, I prefer CDT over DDT due to the CDT providing lower overall emissions compared with DDT while still providing a decent gain in engine performance.
CDT G5: INT -25/16, OMA -10/-5, OMU 10/18, POW 25/16, TL -25/-60
DDT G5: INT -30/8, OMA -16/-5. OMU 35/30, POW 20/8, TL 100/40
RDT G5: INT 75/110, MAS 50/20, OMU -10/-5, TL -20/-50
CDT G3: INT -15/-8, OMA -6/-2, OMU 5/12, POW 14/8, TL -15/-40
DDT G3: INT -18/4, OMA -10/-2, OMU 14/20, POW 11/3, TL 60/20
RDT G3: INT 45/70, MAS 30/10, OMU -6/-3, TL -10/-30
The OP's stats don't really change anything for me - for exploration purposes, I would still favour CDT although if I was happy to compromise engine performance and jump range I might consider RDT as it may provide lower net emissions during normal flight (not super-cruise).
Their argument about the CDT name being misleading is incorrect IMO, as for efficient engines (EDT for the sake of argument) - RDT is close to that idea. I would expect EDT to be along the lines of RDT - overall loss in performance but lower power drain and thermal load. Integrity loss may be required for EDT as well to ensure it is not seen as too OP.
CDT G5: INT -25/16, OMA -10/-5, OMU 10/18, POW 25/16, TL -25/-60
DDT G5: INT -30/8, OMA -16/-5. OMU 35/30, POW 20/8, TL 100/40
RDT G5: INT 75/110, MAS 50/20, OMU -10/-5, TL -20/-50
CDT G3: INT -15/-8, OMA -6/-2, OMU 5/12, POW 14/8, TL -15/-40
DDT G3: INT -18/4, OMA -10/-2, OMU 14/20, POW 11/3, TL 60/20
RDT G3: INT 45/70, MAS 30/10, OMU -6/-3, TL -10/-30
The OP's stats don't really change anything for me - for exploration purposes, I would still favour CDT although if I was happy to compromise engine performance and jump range I might consider RDT as it may provide lower net emissions during normal flight (not super-cruise).
Their argument about the CDT name being misleading is incorrect IMO, as for efficient engines (EDT for the sake of argument) - RDT is close to that idea. I would expect EDT to be along the lines of RDT - overall loss in performance but lower power drain and thermal load. Integrity loss may be required for EDT as well to ensure it is not seen as too OP.
Last edited:
So I'm an explorer with an Anaconda with 5D drives. Do I go CDT or DDT?
This^ or use a Diamondback Explorer which has no heat issues of any kind, ever.
Edit.
Last edited:
I'm not going to argue against any of your test results as they appear to be sound and methodical.
For a long time, I've been irritated by the fact that my personal experience between clean and dirty drives shows very little reason to choose the former in all areas but one: fuel scooping.
Time and time again, I've seen how a ship (Anaconda, AspX, Corvette, Orca, etc.) is ok scooping with no mods (or minor overheating). Then you add in an overcharged powerplant (L1 to L3), trying to keep the heat efficiency loss as close to zero as possible, and fuel scooping might get a little worse. Then if you add in Clean drives, it gets better (sometimes much better, in the case of my Orca) and becomes nearly intolerable with Dirty drives.
This is why, even though I firmly believe the common wisdom (and all the tests) that Dirty Drives are the better choice, I still go with the clean version on a lot of my ships because I HATE slow fuel scooping and/or overheating problems.
The devs really need to do something to make the Clean drives stand out more - perhaps lower the power consumption or something. They are wonderful when fuel scooping and a massive waste the rest of the time (compared to dirty).
So frustrating.[sulk]
On my Anaconda I use G5 DD for my 6D drives. Idling I get ~16% heat and when on planet surfaces (1G+) I typically get 30-40% depending on ship angle, thruster use, and boost use. Unless you plan on landing on high G planets often (talking 3G+ uncommon sized planets) I'd recommend DD over CD based on my tests and experience.
I haven't conducted any tests with the different drive types and fuel scooping; thruster thermal load should not affect your heat at all while in supercruise (if you need some evidence just use the camera suite and take a look at your thrusters they are "off"). What will affect your heat while in supercruise is power hungry modules; thrusters (even though they aren't active) still generate heat through the powerplant associated with their power draw. You are much more likely to get a Clean drive tuning mod that has high power draw then you are a Dirty Drive tuning with high power draw simply due to the setup of each mod's min and max power draw.
When I get back from the black I may revisit this topic to reach a conclusion on fuel scooping, and I have an idea of the methods I would use to test it.
At the end of the day the thruster choice makes so little difference when compared to a Low Emissions Power Plant.
Last edited:
I still go Clean drive first on all my builds.
I don't do any dedicated exploring but I often find quite a difference when flying my ships around doing general tomfoolery in RES sites and canyons on high g planets etc.
With Clean drive I very rarely get any heat warnings when out and about but when I plug in my dirty drives I'm often getting them so regularly swap back to my clean drives.
I like the test that Konnivar has been doing with this but I feel the overall build of the ship has a much greater impact ALONG with the drives. With my own experience I haven't 'tested or documented' it as I do a lot of that with my job but it is noticeable enough to annoy me depending on my ship build and my activities, enough that I always plug in clean drives first before going dirty IF I need the extra performance.
I don't do any dedicated exploring but I often find quite a difference when flying my ships around doing general tomfoolery in RES sites and canyons on high g planets etc.
With Clean drive I very rarely get any heat warnings when out and about but when I plug in my dirty drives I'm often getting them so regularly swap back to my clean drives.
I like the test that Konnivar has been doing with this but I feel the overall build of the ship has a much greater impact ALONG with the drives. With my own experience I haven't 'tested or documented' it as I do a lot of that with my job but it is noticeable enough to annoy me depending on my ship build and my activities, enough that I always plug in clean drives first before going dirty IF I need the extra performance.
Personally, I go Clean Drive Tuning with all my ships.
Last edited:
Yeah, I have stuck with Clean drive tuning and Low Emissions Power Plants, rereolled until I get a over boost in Power output.
I like the Cooler running and lower signature, but I also like the idea it seems like a more Enviromentally freidnly ship for once we can land where that might matter (from an RP perspective)