Range Question

Russet Meles

Russet Meles
Hi CMDRs,

I found that topic as I was looking for the same exactly practical answers on how much fuel capacity is more beneficial to have on deep exploration Conda.

And after reading through the points you have mentioned above I can share some data I have.

First thing I want to share is how much fuel conda spends on a smaller jumps. As you know the function probably, I'm not going to mention it here.
My build has max jump range in about 82.5ly, so there are practical numbers from the game log:

"JumpDist": 14.394, "FuelUsed": 0.090365
"JumpDist": 54.941, "FuelUsed": 2.843959
"JumpDist": 60.191, "FuelUsed": 3.566082
"JumpDist": 65.137, "FuelUsed": 4.359853
"JumpDist": 75.143, "FuelUsed": 6.594073
"JumpDist": 82.552, "FuelUsed": 7.988749

That means exactly what have been mentioned before. With 32t tank you can perform 4 max jumps, but with same same tank you can make about 350 jumps on 15ly. That means if you are exploring a region with average star density you are very likely will cover everything with 1 tank of fuel. As an example, I did my NS research project (200+ stars visited) and spent total of 22t on all of those jumps (the distance between stars was about 10-20ly).

I was using 24t tank on my conda a lot, and I agree that if you are going from point A to point B by scoopable starts its much more practical to use undersized tank, because you scoop to full every jump while just turning your ship to the next star and travel quite faster overall. My results (I used timer) is 10 min 15 sec for 1000ly, using this method.

However, the undersized tank starts being very unpractical if you plot your route through the neutron stars. With 24t tank you have to jump out from the route to the scoopable star every third jump. Time wise you will be getting better results in your travel if you make more NS jumps before refueling. I don't know what is a good balance in this particular case.

If anybody did a calculation, please share!

I'm currently using 32t tank which give me an option of 82+ jump on fumes and 4 NS jumps before refuel. And I'm thinking to change my build to accommodate extra 5C tank and carry up to 64t of fuel. Do you think it's practical for long travel and deep exploration? If I use NS supercharge everytime when it's possible. By doing this (build need to change few modules to accommodate extra weight) I will reduce my max jump range to 81ly and jump range with full tank will drop to 74ly (that will affect NS jumps distance somehow). I would appreciate a practical advise from commanders who tested all of these already.
 
Last edited:

goemon

goemon
Russet Meles said:
Hi CMDRs,

I found that topic as I was looking for the same exactly practical answers on how much fuel capacity is more beneficial to have on deep exploration Conda.

And after reading through the points you have mentioned above I can share some data I have.

First thing I want to share is how much fuel conda spends on a smaller jumps. As you know the function probably, I'm not going to mention it here.
My build has max jump range in about 82.5ly, so there are practical numbers from the game log:

"JumpDist": 14.394, "FuelUsed": 0.090365
"JumpDist": 54.941, "FuelUsed": 2.843959
"JumpDist": 60.191, "FuelUsed": 3.566082
"JumpDist": 65.137, "FuelUsed": 4.359853
"JumpDist": 75.143, "FuelUsed": 6.594073
"JumpDist": 82.552, "FuelUsed": 7.988749

That means exactly what have been mentioned before. With 32t tank you can perform 4 max jumps, but with same same tank you can make about 350 jumps on 15ly. That means if you are exploring a region with average star density you are very likely will cover everything with 1 tank of fuel. As an example, I did my NS research project (200+ stars visited) and spent total of 22t on all of those jumps (the distance between stars was about 10-20ly).

I was using 24t tank on my conda a lot, and I agree that if you are going from point A to point B by scoopable starts its much more practical to use undersized tank, because you scoop to full every jump while just turning your ship to the next star and travel quite faster overall. My results (I used timer) is 10 min 15 sec for 1000ly, using this method.

However, the undersized tank starts being very unpractical if you plot your route through the neutron stars. With 24t tank you have to jump from the route to the scoopable star every third jump. Time wise you will be getting better results in your travel if you make more NS jumps before refueling. I don't know what is a good balance in this particular case.

If anybody did a calculation, please share!

I'm currently using 32t tank which give me an option of 82+ jump on fumes and 4 NS jump before refuel. And I'm thinking to change my build to accommodate extra 5C tank and carry up to 64t of fuel. Do you think it's practical for long travel and deep exploration? If I use NS supercharge everytime when it's possible. By doing this (build need to change few modules to accommodate extra weight) I will reduce my max jump range to 81ly and jump range with full tank will drop to 74ly (that will affect NS jumps distance somehow). I would appreciate a practical advise from commanders who tested all of these already.
Click to expand...
great post!

  • generally i'd assume, as a neutron jump multiplies range x4, but scooping adds a jump (so -1x), and neutron boosting takes time, my personally "worth it" is 2,5. so you should aim for at least 3 full jumps before scooping.
  • but this massively depends on where you are exploring. if you take a neutronhighway from bubble to colonia, you can have 8 jumps or more (?) from neutron to neutron. where i am exploring i never had more than 3...
 

Russet Meles

Russet Meles
goemon said:
great post!
  • generally i'd assume, as a neutron jump multiplies range x4, but scooping adds a jump (so -1x), and neutron boosting takes time, my personally "worth it" is 2,5. so you should aim for at least 3 full jumps before scooping.
  • but this massively depends on where you are exploring. if you take a neutronhighway from bubble to colonia, you can have 8 jumps or more (?) from neutron to neutron. where i am exploring i never had more than 3...
Click to expand...

Thank you! I want to hear about such type of experiences to find a right balance (or some calculations even better). It's not for trips to Colonia and back (as for such trip you can fit specifically as you exactly know what to expect). When I was exploring between the bubble and SagA I was always could perform 8 ns jumps in a row (+ two scooping jumps). So I start thinking 64t can improve my travel time, but I didn't do any tests of that yet.

If on the other side of the galaxy the situation with neutron stars are different like it's not possible to make so much ns jumps in a row I would think against 64t of fuel. For the exploration itself it hardly needed, it's only to reduce time and hassle in long travel with superchange.
 
Last edited:

Numenor1379

Numenor1379
Russet Meles said:
This build can't be assembled in game. Your 4D thrusters (with this engineering) can handle only 413T of weight, and your ship is 518T.
Click to expand...

Funny how you say that, yet I can go fly that exact ship right now.

With proper manipulation of the thruster engineering you can do it.
-- Reduce the Anaconda mass to 515t fully equipped.
-- Engineer the 4D Thursters on something like a DBX with G1 Reinforced, Drive Distributors (max mass goes to 520t)
-- Transfer the 4Ds onto the Anaconda,
-- Reengineer the Drives to Dirty, Stripped as the game at this point doesn't care about the max mass.
-- Profit

Top Speed 217m/s.
 
Last edited:

Numenor1379

Numenor1379
Russet Meles said:
Could you please explain what exactly this 2T tank fixes?
Click to expand...

It improves the odds significantly that the in-game route plotter will give you three neutrons in a row then a fuel star jump. Without that small extra tank the game really dislikes doing more than two neutrons I have found.

If you are manually plotting your neutron jumps this is not an issue. I get lazy however, so it is a QoL thing. That is why I specifically mentioned it in relation to the "in-game" plotter.
 

Russet Meles

Russet Meles
Numenor1379 said:
Funny how you say that, yet I can go fly that exact ship right now.

With proper manipulation of the thruster engineering you can do it.
-- Reduce the Anaconda mass to 515t fully equipped.
-- Engineer the 4D Thursters on something like a DBX with G1 Reinforced, Drive Distributors (max mass goes to 520t)
-- Transfer the 4Ds onto the Anaconda,
-- Reengineer the Drives to Dirty, Stripped as the game at this point doesn't care about the max mass.
-- Profit

Top Speed 217m/s.
Click to expand...

I have applied this to my conda now.

I decided to go with Drag Drives instead of Stripped and I changed my 1D PD (system focused) to 4D PD (engine focused). So, what I got, my base speed had increased from 158m/s to 225m/s, and my boost from 210m/s to 301m/s. I am still able to perform 82.4LY jumps on fumes and ship handles much better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom