Ships Query about Anaconda's and Corvette's

Mr Steve

Mr Steve
Apologies if this is an old conversation, but I struggle to comprehend why both ships behave differently and would love some expert feedback please. The corvette has a terrible jump range compared to the Anaconda. Both Ships have a type 6 Jump Drive. I can accept that knowing the base tonnage of the corvette is double that of the base Anaconda. having engineered modules like crazy, drop the mass and the jump range increases. so far so good.
However, both ships have type 7 Thrusters. Once again, understanding optimised mass when engineering leads me to accept that lower mass means better turn rate. The corvette turns faster but the base tonnage is again more than double an Anaconda. Ok the corvette has a Type 8 Power Distributor but a Type 8 over the Anaconda Type 7 cant make up that difference, or does it?. I feel it can't as a cutter has type 8 thrusters and a type 7 power distributor but turned like a dead horse in comparison to both Corvette and Anaconda.
Could anyone explain and clarify what I am not seeing or am I just expecting too much Real life physics type stuff to a Sci-Fi game.

Thank you in Advance.
 
Last edited:

Helmut Grokenberger

Helmut Grokenberger
If you look at the hull stats in EDSY, you will see that the Anaconda and Corvette have very different base values for pitch, roll and yaw as well as speed, boost and maneuverability. I would assume the basic answer is: Because they are designed to handle differently. A Type 9 has less base hull mass than the Corvette and still moves like a cow... because its base stats say so.
 
Last edited:

Imo

Imo
Mr Steve said:
Apologies if this is an old conversation, but I struggle to comprehend why both ships behave differently and would love some expert feedback please. The corvette has a terrible jump range compared to the Anaconda. Both Ships have a type 6 Jump Drive. I can accept that knowing the base tonnage of the corvette is double that of the base Anaconda. having engineered modules like crazy, drop the mass and the jump range increases. so far so good.
However, both ships have type 7 Thrusters. Once again, understanding optimised mass when engineering leads me to accept that lower mass means better turn rate. The corvette turns faster but the base tonnage is again more than double an Anaconda. Ok the corvette has a Type 8 Power Distributor but a Type 8 over the Anaconda Type 7 cant make up that difference, or does it?. I feel it can't as a cutter has type 8 thrusters and a type 7 power distributor but turned like a dead horse in comparison to both Corvette and Anaconda.
Could anyone explain and clarify what I am not seeing or am I just expecting too much Real life physics type stuff to a Sci-Fi game.

Thank you in Advance.
Click to expand...
💡both the Anaconda and the Federal Corvette can take a class 8 power distributor.
 

Lhorndra

Lhorndra
Like @Helmut Grokenberger said, it's all in the base stats that were defined by the developers.
Mr Steve said:
Apologies if this is an old conversation, but I struggle to comprehend why both ships behave differently and would love some expert feedback please. The corvette has a terrible jump range compared to the Anaconda. Both Ships have a type 6 Jump Drive.
Click to expand...
You have to take into account not only the mass of the hull, but also the fixed base jump range of a ship that's independent of the FSD.

Mr Steve said:
However, both ships have type 7 Thrusters. Once again, understanding optimised mass when engineering leads me to accept that lower mass means better turn rate.
Click to expand...
All ships have a basic "agility" value. How that works exactly, I don't know. Also, the location of the maneuvering thrusters on the hull of a ship could be responsible for diverging pitch/roll/yaw values of somewhat similar ships.

Basically, if you want a made up "scientific" explanation: maybe Gutamaya and FauIcon deLacy use a totally different toolchain in their ships to transfer power from the generators to the actual engines/thrusters, so that the amount of energy produced by a 6A FSD is not equal the amount of energy used to actually jump. Maybe the Cutter has to divert some of the FSD energy to its shock absorbers and sound isolation to offer its Imperial passengers a smoother ride. It's basically a Rolls-Royce, whereas the Anaconda is more of a Volvo.
 

Authari

Authari
Shadowsnog said:
id say
tldr
anaconda is all-rounder while corvette is a small frigate.
one made for anything, other made for battle.
Click to expand...
Well actually sir the Federal Corvette is not a Frigate its a Corvette, the difference between a Frigate and Corvette can overlap in terms of size and firepower but a Corvette sticks close to the coastline or port while a Frigate goes deep into the Sea. The Anaconda has a very good Jump Range so it can jump to far away star systems while an unengineered Corvette gets about 12 LY jump range after making it battle ready. One CAN get a Guardian FSD Booster for the Corvette and Engineer it to give it a roughly 30 LY jump range which would qualify it as a Frigate after engineering but without it. It is a Corvette.
 

CMDR X

CMDR X
Why both ships behave differently?
Because developers..

Untitled.png
 

Raz Griffin

Raz Griffin
Can we take this opportunity and ask again for the 10 utils and 2 large instead of 2 small hard points in the corvette? no? ok...
 

Aleks Zuno

Aleks Zuno
Mr Steve said:
I feel it can't as a cutter has type 8 thrusters and a type 7 power distributor but turned like a dead horse in comparison to both Corvette and Anaconda.
Click to expand...

To add a little extra consideration here, those poorer base rotation rates need to be valued against something which is seldom listed and near-impossible to quantify together—the boost multiplier, boost duration and how a starship boost affects its rotations while using the landing gear. Once you start using the landing gear to control your boosts and gain a lot of lateral agility, everything changes! High-speed starships such as the Mamba and the Imperial Cutter lose their worst drawbacks, because their long, powerful gear-boosts let them change any trajectory into any other trajectory, with the choice to end anywhere between half and full speed.

The cargo scoop can be used in place of the landing gear, at cost of a bit more power. This is necessary if you are using a Fighter hangar, and it can be useful in a starship such as the Fer-de-Lance where the landing gear blocks the class 4 hardpoint physically; only a few weapon types still have a line of sight while the gear is deployed.

As an aside, I find also that the extent to which rotation is affected by high speed can differ a lot between starships. For example, the Alliance Chieftain seems to enjoy very respectable rotation while at high speed, whereas the otherwise-agile Krait 2 rotation becomes almost nothing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom