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

[Michael Ryan]

(...)

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

I did some quasi-build using EDSY Experimental mode and with similar modules, but better performance (speed etc.) should jump like 85 Ly.

 

[aRJay]

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

As even with carrier support we tend to spend a lot of time in the cockpit of an explorer, how pleasant a place that is should be an important factor bringing home the point that what the best ship for use as an explorer is actually subjective. Just the same as for any other role.

The last time I explored in an Anaconda the BDS/IDS/ADS were still in the game, I disliked the experience so much that I have never considered going back to it no matter how much further it can jump with far more stuff than what I use.

 

[Michael Ryan]

BDS/IDS/ADS, What do you mean?

 

[metatheurgist]

Is comparing anything to an unfixed bugged ship valid?

Basic Discovery Scanner, Intermediate DS, Advanced DS.

 

[Michael Ryan]

Thanks
I think we just are like friends sitting by a table with cups of tea an talking, because we are waiting for Mandalay

 

[aRJay]

BDS/IDS/ADS, What do you mean?

They were the three grades of Discovery Scanner modules back before exploration was changed, they were removed by an update and the present built in version was added at the same time we got the FSS and the DSS scanner was changed from an extra level of detail to a mapping module.

They were distinguished by range.

 

[kofeyh]

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.

Yeah, this what I mean by 'technically correct'. As soon as mass is added to the Mandalay, it falls behind Anaconda.

Shaving a few tons off Mandalay, would mean the crossover point would narrow at a more pragmatically sensible point. If it topped out closer to 100 LY (which is not, imho, ridiculous, that's around 9.1 LY or so above Anaconda maximum, which at most is 10%) then the crossover point narrows to something more sensible (yet still cross over) and would I think offer a compelling reason for either ship to be used.

I don't think there is either time (or probably interest) on Frontier's part to change it now. But theoretically topping out at 100 LY to me would mean that with a sprint fit, it'll outrun Anaconda, with an engineered lightweight set of optional internals, it'd be similar or slightly better, and Anaconda would retain having more flexibility and still great range.

To me, considering LY range to be a potential 'over-powered' metric is somewhat invalidated by Carriers existing, as they can out-jump everything (and are not reliant on stars to refuel). That sets the upper limit. But I do recognise that's entirely just my opinion.

 

[kofeyh]

Is comparing anything to an unfixed bugged ship valid?

Basic Discovery Scanner, Intermediate DS, Advanced DS.

Yes and no. Yes if the 'bugged' part isn't going to be addressed. Since Anaconda's range won't be addressed, it becomes no different to an intended outcome. Thoughts and feelings aside, Anaconda has the FSD size and hull mass that it does. Illogical or not, is sort of irrelevant.

It exists, it will not change, ergo it's a valid comparison (even if that may or may not be convenient).

 

[Nowski]

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.

Because the Vulture has a hull mass of 230T, once you put EDSY in experimental mode (enable via Help) you can play with possible pseudo Mandalay builds, bearing in mind the Mandy has more internal slots than allowed by the vulture's setup.

For example, a 91.53 LY 'build', the biggest range I could get - in an impractical non-boosting ship that would surely be a misery to fly - which agrees with your calculation.

 

[Michael Ryan]

Hmm... now I think that equation isn't fully correct, but I am too lazy to check it another way than just waiting for Mandalay relase

 

[Rat Catcher]

EDO Materials helper has the Mandalay specs in for theorycrafting builds.
It doesn't look altogether exceptional figures.
Doesn't stop it being a very pretty ship though.

 

[Michael Ryan]

EDO Materials helper has the Mandalay specs in for theorycrafting builds.
It doesn't look altogether exceptional figures.
Doesn't stop it being a very pretty ship though.

Yes, but I tried to do hypotetical build by modification with Cobra Mk IV (additional 20T), and that returned different final stats. It looks like hull mass =/= final mass, like 20T in modules has less impact on the jump than 20T in basic hull mass, what is interesting, because the equation threats it's like the same variable.

And yes, the ship is beautiful, powerful, and can land almost llike small ship, and all that theoretically talking is for me just a nice time spent when I am waiting for my new exploration ship

 

[Pask]

FDev

For example, a 91.53 LY 'build', the biggest range I could get - in an impractical non-boosting ship that would surely be a misery to fly - which agrees with your calculation.

maybe FDev wants to avoid extreme imbalances with new ships, to avoid community whining about "pay to win"... anyway someone will whine for the "missed" 100ly jump range.
maybe FDev will put hidden modifiers, to make it shine.... but imho it already shine, best medium ship jump range, awesome speed and handling, just i do not like cockpit view for exobio.

let's consider that "partner" streaming showcase are on test servers and numbers can change in live ones.

my 2 cents, it is fine that new ship do not replace all previous ones, will be boring to see all player fly four ship models

Mandi will replace my Phantom as new daily drive and long range explorer, but for "short range" exobio session i will stay on my little DBX, first loves die hard.

 

[Cmdr. Numa]

Conda needs it's hull fixed, period. The T9 sits at 850, the Corvette at 900, a good number for the Conda is probably 800. That would give it a paperplane jump range around 54ly. Still pretty good for a lumbering beast, but not silly imba. FDEV have ways to get stuck Condas on the fringes out of trouble, and there's always the possibility to save a ship stuck with no way to jump anywhere with a fleet carrier. Give INGAME advance warning via the messaging system to give players a chance to move out of low density space.

 

[Michael Ryan]

(...)We all know FDev are completely incapable of designing a game, but it does seem to me like they’ve accidentally stumbled across a balanced build - obviously it couldn’t be intentional.

I take it as a irony

Conda needs it's hull fixed, period. The T9 sits at 850, the Corvette at 900, a good number for the Conda is probably 800.

TBH, it doesn;t bother me. The same way we can say that Cutter has too much shields, becuase there is similar situation...


I think, even if Anaconda really is made by mistake, that is still nice balanc in inbalance with ships. I like assimetric in game, compromises and avoiding meta-builds. Elite gives me that in the perfect manner.

 

[Cmdr. Numa]

TBH, it doesn;t bother me. The same way we can say that Cutter has too much shields, becuase there is similar situation...

That problem comes from a different cause. A few years back, heavy duty shield booster engineering was set to get diminishing returns for stacking multiple, just like resistances do. It was a good change, but a few loud voices vehemently protested, and FDEV caved, scrapped the idea and never spoke of it again. At that time I seriously wished they would have showed some spine and seen it through. Best of all: I see none of those voices on the forums any more today, they probably don't play any more. But that ship has sailed and has become yet one more of the long list of things that make the game mediocre instead of great.

 

[Rat Catcher]

the long list of things that make the game mediocre

It is curious that there are folk on this here forum still playing this 'mediocre' game though, isn't it?
10 years is a massive amount of time to be playing, and complaining still, a less than 'stellar' product.

 

[Michael Ryan]

That problem comes from a different cause. A few years back, heavy duty shield booster engineering was set to get diminishing returns for stacking multiple, just like resistances do. It was a good change, but a few loud voices vehemently protested, and FDEV caved, scrapped the idea and never spoke of it again. At that time I seriously wished they would have showed some spine and seen it through. Best of all: I see none of those voices on the forums any more today, they probably don't play any more. But that ship has sailed and has become yet one more of the long list of things that make the game mediocre instead of great.

I don't see any connection here. Shields depends on mass and Shield module, but there is a additional multiplier. Cutter has a lot more raw shield than any other ship with the same mass and shield module. That's why in my opinion, this is similar case than anaconda.

But as I said, that doesn't bother me. Power of Elite is the Galaxy. We have in team astrophysics since few weeks, and she is impressed again and again.

 

[Cmdr. Numa]

It is curious that there are folk on this here forum still playing this 'mediocre' game though, isn't it?
10 years is a massive amount of time to be playing, and complaining still, a less than 'stellar' product.

Critical feedback is needed. In this time and age to many echo chamber feedback loops exist, where nothing is tolerated except praise. What companies make of feedback is another story. ED is still a one of a kind game. There is no full galaxy anywhere else.

 

[Cmdr. Numa]

Really doesn’t sound like the ED forums…

Thankfully true, but there sure are some who wish it was like that.