She's a beauty! (New ship revealed--Mandalay)

[Michael Ryan]

Reminds me...

One of the things I always used to moan about was that we should have the ability to enable/disable fuel tanks, just like other modules, to create a "reserve tank".
That way, you could fit an extra tank in an internal slot, fill it with fuel and then you could go to your right-HUD, disable the extra tank and the fuel in it would never get used.
You could fly around, using the fuel in your main tank and, if you ever ran out of fuel, you could go back to your right-HUD enable the extra tank and you'd have whatever amount of fuel was in it to get you to a fuel-star so you could refill both tanks again.

Seems like that would be such an easy change to make and it'd be a huge benefit to explorers or other people who do stuff (such as extended use of SCO) where they risk running out of fuel.

But at the end this doens't change anything, just it is easier to manage fuel.

(...)
I mean, how many players would that be likely to affect?
(...)

Probably too much to left them here. Frontier knows how many players do such activity. Explorers aren't visible in forums usually, because they play alone a lot.

Or just the next time they docked.

That's not how porgramming works. It probably needs a LOT more work that it looks. All core changes, like ships, needs an update.

For reference, I use a tricked out Krait Phantom with reduced fuel tank size so I can navigate between distant stars (which I can then pull the carrier in to, if desired). It's not really even an exploration ship. It just has good internals and excellent range. Ironically, the thing exploration can benefit from - even if that range isn't always needed. Yes I could use Anaconda, but it's not optimised for exploration, drives like a barge and more or less forces buggy use for exobio.

I knew we understand each other

My point has never been "Anaconda is bad", either -- (it is just blessed with very low hull mass; Frontier know it was not a good design decision, but it's one we all have to live with, even Frontier) -- it's that a dedicated exploration ship, designed for that purpose and intent, shouldn't really play second fiddle to a large generalist ship (the Anaconda).
(...)

But it has other advantages. At least it will be probably a choice if you want 2-3 years mode in jump range, or better handling, speed, sco, landing possibilities and probably even shields, because you still need compare exact builds. I have Annie with like 83Ly jump (full tanks), with SRV, smallest possible shield, but it is still ike paper plane in this size, and bad handling, bad speed, SCO usable almost only when I want to jump out from the planet.
Do I will be more satisfied when Mandalay would have 2-3 years more than Annie? Sure! Is it something what bothers me to the point I don't preffer Mandy than Annie? Not really, becasue I compare Mandalay to DBX, Asp X, or even Phantom rather than to the big Annie, and totally understand Frontier decision.
I see that almost everything in game is design to force players to accept compromise, and I like this design idea.

And, I wounder if Mandy would be like 100 Ly jump a lot of voices (as always) with texts like: "Oooh, why smaller ship has more jump range" "Now you foce me to buy Mandy for ARX" etc.

The fact is you can't satisfy everyone.

And still I am waiting to check really eddy build of Mandalay and second one: build what works for me, becase I feel like in my individual chocies Mandy could be even better in practical jumprange than Anaconda.

And really I can't wait.

Ah... and footprints looks like size of the vulture, so nice.

 

[Michael Ryan]

(...)
You don't really need all that many modules or cargo space for exploration.(...)

You can use empty containers to manage plotting route There is a place when you can change how many cargo you have (even with empty cargos ). Some people use that to decide how big jumps they want to do when traveling And empty cargo has 0T weight.

(...)
If Frontier introduce a brand new exploration ship, but people still use Anaconda more broadly, because it has more potential, then imho that brand new ship hasn't met the design brief. What is the point of something new being eclipsed by what already exists.
(...)

I am not sure if Anaconda is most common ship uses by players who do do exploration as the most common activity. I am pretty sure that Frontier has this stats, and that's why Mandalay is designed this way.

 

[Michael Ryan]

I wonder... if even Anaconda has like 3 Ly jump range more, that means maximum distance greater by 12 Ly
How many more stars you can reach with that distance, like precentage.

For an example:

82 vs 85 Ly jumprange, what means 328 Ly vs 340 Ly
or with jumponium 164 vs. 170 Ly.

I know that "better is always better", and "better to have something, than not" - and I don't want to discuss that for some pople this is enough to take Anaconda rather than Mandalay.

But for me, after 2,5k hrs i feel like I have no situation like that, when this few or even 12 Ly more jumprange would change anything. So practically it is probably just irrelevant.

Anyway, I would have rather 1000 Ly jump in my carrier

 

[kofeyh]

The problem with the Anaconda is that it's an exception; one we all know shouldn't exist, but we're stuck with it. If they balanced everything around that one erroneous data point it simply compounds that issue. I think any ship that can get close to the same jump range with similar utility, module based or otherwise, is pushing the envelope of what should be reasonably possible.

Correct, we are stuck with it. Anaconda is a good ship, and penalising other ships because of it, is no lesser waste (imho) than just leaving it be that one anomaly.

Frontier willing stated that "when you are maximising your jump range, it will beat the Anaconda" (around 1:49 for attached link) so I'd be pretty happy to have the Anaconda problem solved, by offering an alternative, and of all the types of ship, an exploration one is the most logical. Either Frontier mean what they said, or they don't. Technically it does, by having the smallest fuel tank and no optional internals, but I think that's very "technically correct" rather than being reasonable.

Edit: Ultimately I have every intent of getting Mandalay, it will be an excellent ship. It would not surprise me if Frontier perhaps thought the difference was a bit more than it actually turns out to be. To me that makes the most sense. There is a lot going on with PP 2.0 as well.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwO1Yhk5zbU

 

[CMDR Daiyus]

Correct, and since we are stuck with it.

Frontier willing stated that "when you are maximising your jump range, it will beat the Anaconda" (around 1:49 for attached link) so I'd be pretty happy to have the Anaconda problem solved, by offering an alternative, and of all the types of ship, an exploration one is the most logical. Either Frontier mean what they said, or they don't. Technically it does, by having the smallest fuel tank and no optional internals, but I think that's very "technically correct" rather than being reasonable.

Edit: Ultimately I have every intent of getting Mandalay, it will be an excellent ship. It would not surprise me if Frontier perhaps thought the difference was a bit more than it actually turns out to be. To me that makes the most sense. There is a lot going on with PP 2.0 as well.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwO1Yhk5zbU

I'll take "technically correct" on max jump range, and objectively better in multiple other areas, notably of importance for explorers is supercruise manoeuvrability, landing footprint, and visibility. I think having anything more than "technically correct" on jump range with the objective benefits, including SCO optimisation I might add, would be "unreasonable" when observing the balance across ships holistically and not focusing on max jump range.

Like you, I'm excited to get a hold of the Mandalay, and think it'll be a phenomenal ship (and borderline as broken as the Annie). I think Frontier knew exactly what they were saying with that statement, and they've delivered on it to the letter. The first question from the community was always going to be "how does it compare to Annie's jump range?" and they got out ahead of that.

At this point I can't imagine anyone picking an Annie over a Mandalay beyond personal preference.

 

[Michael Ryan]

(...)
Frontier willing stated that "when you are maximising your jump range, it will beat the Anaconda" (around 1:49 for attached link) so I'd be pretty happy to have the Anaconda problem solved, by offering an alternative, and of all the types of ship, an exploration one is the most logical. Either Frontier mean what they said, or they don't. Technically it does, by having the smallest fuel tank and no optional internals, but I think that's very "technically correct" rather than being reasonable.
(...)

That's interesting, because later they said something like: "it can be comparable to explorerconda".

So, what exactly that mean, becase... if you build jump-a-conda, with using "exploit thing", it still can jump better than maximized Mandalay. But it doesn't mean that if you do both ships prepared for exlporation the result will be the same.

For an example. My actual explorer-conda build is like that:

EDSY

EDSY is a ship outfitting tool for Elite Dangerous

edsy.org

It is variable sometimes, but you see what I mean and what I want.
It is like 80 Ly current jumprange with 32 Tons of fuel

IIRC from streams, Mandalay with similar build (mean shields, SRV bay etc.) has more than 80.

I really can't wait to test it by mysefl

 

[tolm]

That’s exactly the point. It would be a (relatively) easy QoL improvement for those who wish to use it.

Doesn’t your ship explode if you run out of fuel?

Maybe instead … so that fuel is still available to run the ship in general … have SCO limited to using fuel in the main tank. And then provide an option to transfer fuel from a secondary tank to the main tank when opening the Modules tab for the secondary?

 

[Cmdr. Numa]

Doesn’t your ship explode if you run out of fuel?

Not directly. It will shut down, and you will float dead in space on whatever emergency oxygen your life support has. Once that runs out, the ship blows up.

 

[aRJay]

Not directly. It will shut down, and you will float dead in space on whatever emergency oxygen your life support has. Once that runs out, the ship blows up.

I always thought the explosion was caused by your escape pod blasting its way out looking for the nearest Rescue Ranger.

 

[Bob McBobblehead]

I was kind of hoping for 100ly jump range with a class 4 SRV bay and some shields.

 

[JonathanBurnage]

Folks use Anaconda because it can provide comfy ship spec and still post exceptional range. It only works because of the range potential due to hull mass and FSD. I'd have liked Mandalay to have had slightly more jump range, so it too can have a comfy spec and still post great range. Isn't that the point? Give people as much choice to outfit and use as they like.

That might be as a swanky decked out cruiser, or a stripped down deranged sprinter. To each their own.

If Frontier introduce a brand new exploration ship, but people still use Anaconda more broadly, because it has more potential, then imho that brand new ship hasn't met the design brief. What is the point of something new being eclipsed by what already exists.

At least it's only a bit over a week away now, assuming Frontier's new date holds. Soon.

I sympathise with this position. Perhaps we were hoping for something that would finally dethrone the Anaconda as the go-to, carry-everything exploration ship, and what we got was a really really good Asp Explorer. That probably sounds unfair and I don’t wish to detract from the Mandalay, which has many excellent qualities and looks like great fun. But it does leave the anomaly unresolved.

I am currently doing some theory crafting into how this might be achieved in a balanced way (ie without creating a ship that is even more OP). I’m cautiously optimistic so maybe I’ll post that up and see what the collective wisdom of the internet thinks (brave I know).

 

[Michael Ryan]

But to be fair... only maximum papership jumprange will be probably "unresolved" if we talk about exploration (exobiology included).

 

[JonathanBurnage]

But to be fair... only maximum papership jumprange will be probably "unresolved" if we talk about exploration (exobiology included).

I would say that’s the only bit that has been resolved. The Mandalay pips the Anaconda in one-jump wonder configuration - the problem is that as soon as you add mass (even a fully fuelled tank) the Anaconda goes further again.

 

[Rat Catcher]

I would say that’s the only bit that has been resolved. The Mandalay pips the Anaconda in one-jump wonder configuration - the problem is that as soon as you add mass (even a fully fuelled tank) the Anaconda goes further again.

We shall be able to play with configurations soon enough.
I guess it will all pivot around whatever one expects from their ship.

 

[Michael Ryan]

I would say that’s the only bit that has been resolved. The Mandalay pips the Anaconda in one-jump wonder configuration - the problem is that as soon as you add mass (even a fully fuelled tank) the Anaconda goes further again.

From partner streams it looks like situation is totally opposite. Anaconda reach its jump-range when you lightweight everything what you can (8th class senors are the key here).
Usually to check general prossibilities with normal builds you just needs to check basic jumprange. For Mandalay it is 36 Ly with SCO 5c. Anaconda with FSD SCO 6c has 20. That's why I think that if we will do comparable builds Mandalay can has better jump range. But still will be better in SCO, faster above the planet surface, more agile and easy to land.

We will see soon.

 

[JonathanBurnage]

We shall be able to play with configurations soon enough.
I guess it will all pivot around whatever one expects from their ship.

From partner streams it looks like situation is totally opposite. Anaconda reach its jump-range when you lightweight everything what you can (8th class senors are the key here).
Usually to check general prossibilities with normal builds you just needs to check basic jumprange. For Mandalay it is 36 Ly with SCO 5c. Anaconda with FSD SCO 6c has 20. That's why I think that if we will do comparable builds Mandalay can has better jump range. But still will be better in SCO, faster above the planet surface, more agile and easy to land.

We will see soon.

No need to wait - the hyperspace fuel equation enables us to see how the ships' jump ranges change as a function of mass.

In the graph above, both ships are assumed to have an A-rated, fully engineered SCO FSD. At x=0, both ships are in one-jump wonder configuration - all modules selected and engineered to be as light as possible, a class 5 Guardian FSD booster, no non-essential modules, and fuelling equal to each drive's maximum fuel per jump (ie enough for one maximum range jump). Reserve fuel assumed negligible. As we proceed along the x-axis, we can see how their jump range decreases as we add mass.

The Mandalay takes the crown at 91.53LY vs 90.96LY. But we can see that the crossover point occurs at just 5 tons extra. After that, the Anaconda has greater range. If we allow legacy modules into the equation it is even closer. With my 6A v1 FSD and Engineers 1.0 lightweight sensors, I can push my Anaconda to 91.50LY. The Mandalay still just shades it, but the ranking switches with just 1 ton more mass. I'll try and post the maths in more detail, but basically this is due to the Anaconda being heavier - any increase in mass is a smaller proportion of the total compared to the Mandalay, so its jump range falls away more slowly. The combination of a 400T base hull and a class 6 FSD is hard to beat.

 

[Michael Ryan]

No need to wait - the hyperspace fuel equation enables us to see how the ships' jump ranges change as a function of mass.
View attachment 405427
In the graph above, both ships are assumed to have an A-rated, fully engineered SCO FSD. At x=0, both ships are in one-jump wonder configuration - all modules selected and engineered to be as light as possible, a class 5 Guardian FSD booster, no non-essential modules, and fuelling equal to each drive's maximum fuel per jump (ie enough for one maximum range jump). Reserve fuel assumed negligible. As we proceed along the x-axis, we can see how their jump range decreases as we add mass.

The Mandalay takes the crown at 91.53LY vs 90.96LY. But we can see that the crossover point occurs at just 5 tons extra. After that, the Anaconda has greater range. If we allow legacy modules into the equation it is even closer. With my 6A v1 FSD and Engineers 1.0 lightweight sensors, I can push my Anaconda to 91.50LY. The Mandalay still just shades it, but the ranking switches with just 1 ton more mass. I'll try and post the maths in more detail, but basically this is due to the Anaconda being heavier - any increase in mass is a smaller proportion of the total compared to the Mandalay, so its jump range falls away more slowly. The combination of a 400T base hull and a class 6 FSD is hard to beat.

1. I don't know wher you found info about maximum jumprange of Mandalay for that graph.
2. You compare weight, but... still the exact the same modules for Anaconda and Mandalay give them totally different specs at the end. That's why I said "comparable builds", not by meaning - the same weight of modules.
3. Why FSD v1, and not SCO?

 

[JonathanBurnage]

1. I don't know wher you found info about maximum jumprange of Mandalay for that graph.
2. You compare weight, but... still the exact the same modules for Anaconda and Mandalay give them totally different specs at the end. That's why I said "comparable builds", not by meaning - the same weight of modules.
3. Why FSD v1, and not SCO?

The range of all ships is governed by the hyperspace fuel equation:

We know the size of the Mandalay's internals, the base hull mass (230T) and the characteristics of the FSD, so we can calculate its maximum possible jump range - and its jump range at all masses.

I do not dispute that they are totally different ships - my point is that, notwithstanding Frontier's statement that "when configured for maximum jump range, the Mandalay will out-jump the Anaconda", it does not actually do so in any meaningful sense (ie for any useful build).

For class 6 drives, the 6A v1 FSD has marginally greater jump range than the 6A SCO (both fully engineered). The difference is small, and in almost all circumstances not worth the supercruise speed benefit of SCO.

 

[Rat Catcher]

Why FSD v1, and not SCO?

It gives a fraction of a LY more range - the outlier of V1 drives.

 

[Michael Ryan]

The range of all ships is governed by the hyperspace fuel equation:
View attachment 405431
We know the size of the Mandalay's internals, the base hull mass (230T) and the characteristics of the FSD, so we can calculate its maximum possible jump range - and its jump range at all masses.

Ah, this one... right.

I do not dispute that they are totally different ships - my point is that, notwithstanding Frontier's statement that "when configured for maximum jump range, the Mandalay will out-jump the Anaconda", it does not actually do so in any meaningful sense (ie for any useful build).

That's interesting, but they said two slightly different things about jumps

For class 6 drives, the 6A v1 FSD has marginally greater jump range than the 6A SCO (both fully engineered). The difference is small, and in almost all circumstances not worth the supercruise speed benefit of SCO.

That's weird. EDSY can't see that.