Title ^. All the current SLF capable ships make sense, except for the type 7. It's a large ship that's a great stepping stone to larger ships, and would benefit greatly from having an SLF.
Should the Type-7 be retro-fitted with SLF capabilities?
- Thread starter CMDR StackOfCups
- Start date
Don Alvarez votes Yes.
Make the T-7 great again!
Make the T-7 great again!
I support this.
I love the T7, but no. All these petitions to add fighters to random ships are... let's be polite and say "misguided".
There is one MAJOR requirement for a ship to be able to use fighters: it needs to have a fighter bay door. T7 has none. No fighters for T7.
If FD wanted to add one to the T7, they would need to edit the model for the ship to add a fighter bay door. If they are going to do that, they might as well slap on some extra fins or engines and make it a new ship variant, like the T6-to-Keelback.
Asking for an existing ship to gain fighters is entirely the wrong way about it. You should be asking for a fighter-variant of an existing ship instead.
There is one MAJOR requirement for a ship to be able to use fighters: it needs to have a fighter bay door. T7 has none. No fighters for T7.
If FD wanted to add one to the T7, they would need to edit the model for the ship to add a fighter bay door. If they are going to do that, they might as well slap on some extra fins or engines and make it a new ship variant, like the T6-to-Keelback.
Asking for an existing ship to gain fighters is entirely the wrong way about it. You should be asking for a fighter-variant of an existing ship instead.
I struggled with this decision, mostly I think because I just don't care about this NPC ship.
On balance, it's size & dimensions, as well as it's 'strengths' (for want of a better word) warrant it. The t-6 has a variant (keelback) that can, the T-9 can, so Having the t-7 SLF capable makes some sense.
How about this: Give it SLF or Medium pad capablility, but not both, which would you choose?
btw why does no-one ever question the T-6 requiring a medium pad? Looks like a small ship to me.
On balance, it's size & dimensions, as well as it's 'strengths' (for want of a better word) warrant it. The t-6 has a variant (keelback) that can, the T-9 can, so Having the t-7 SLF capable makes some sense.
How about this: Give it SLF or Medium pad capablility, but not both, which would you choose?
btw why does no-one ever question the T-6 requiring a medium pad? Looks like a small ship to me.
Because the pad a ship uses isn't arbitrary, it's based on the size of the in-game model. The T6 doesn't physically fit into a small docking bay.
Like the T-7 you mean?
Honestly I've never checked the dimensions, it just doesn't seem that big a ship.
Sure there is. They are going to pop out the top like a toaster. KaChunk! Leggo my Taipan.
T7 Toaster. I like the sound of that.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Its the height.Like the T-7 you mean?
Honestly I've never checked the dimensions, it just doesn't seem that big a ship.
Last edited:
Like the T-7 you mean?
Honestly I've never checked the dimensions, it just doesn't seem that big a ship.
What Don Alvarez said. The T7 is just a bit too tall for a medium pad.
Too tall by 1.5 meters which was calculated by someone other then me.
As for the poll you can keep the fighters but make the T7 medium pad capable please.
I'd buy one in a second.
As for the poll you can keep the fighters but make the T7 medium pad capable please.
I'd buy one in a second.
NO, if they make a variant like the keelback then yes... I'd love a bigger keelback... something beetween her and the t-9
Also lets remember that those ships WILL (and might already have) interiors designed to their projects... so making a new version with the fighter means that they should redo all the ship interior to do it.. so its more interesting for us and for the devs to make a variant...
Also lets remember that those ships WILL (and might already have) interiors designed to their projects... so making a new version with the fighter means that they should redo all the ship interior to do it.. so its more interesting for us and for the devs to make a variant...
Last edited:
Thank you both, yes I realise that. It seems the T-6 (a considerably more popular ship) has a similar issue, albeit not quite so restrictive. Why does Lakon churn out so many flawed designs?
One would expect an optimal freighter to be boxy (as they are), but for those dimensions to maximise the potential for each pad size. A T-6 would be a box bang on the max size for a small pad (allowing for the keelback's movable engine pods), the T-7 just fit a medium (allowing for the wings), and the T-9 have a good go at filling a large pad (which it sort of does).
If I were the Lakon Ship Designer I'd have done this, developing on the Asp's core concepts a of cheap to produce, basic military transport (space jeep).
Any thoughts (lore or otherwise) on why this didn't happen? I agree with several above that a T-7 variant makes more sense than altering the existing model.
Because it doesn't matter. There are no landable locations anywhere in the game which do not have medium pads. Therefore for most purposes a small pad is the same thing as a medium pad. The only distinction that matters is Large vs Medium.
Fully agree!
Certainly that is the case, but will it always be so? The Cobra mkIV has an issue where, if only small pads were available somewhere, it would have a role to fill (more slots/cargo capacity than any other small pad ship).
Perhaps if small pad only ports become a thing in the future, there would be a place for a T-5?
It seems like these space trucks were designed for an earlier model of docking bay, but IIRC the T-7 is one of the newest designs in the galaxy (lorewise).