Smaller A vs D

[Orvidius]

Yes, that's right. You'll always be able to have a minimum of 5m/sec acceleration upward as long as you're using the rear or bottom thrusters to do it. The thrusters take time to ramp up to this cheaty-level of thrust though, so it's very hard to stop a fall in a high gravity environment. Once you're past about 3G of gravity, it's all pretty much the same, since all thrusters will be underpowered and rely completely on the flight assist cheating.

What's amusing is that when you engineer the thrusters, the permitted mass can drop to a level that the thrusters aren't allowed on the ship anymore. It won't force you to remove them, and you can still fly. However if you remove them, you won't be able to put them back on, and it may also prevent you from switching out other modules, since your ship will be overweight. The UI isn't very clear about this, and it gets very confusing.

 

[Liberalguy]

Let's look at two sample builds:

The first stripped AspX has engineered 5D thrusters, that weight 7,2 tons, consume 5,14 power and speed the Asp up to 367 m/s. The max jump range is 61,55 Lys.
https://s.orbis.zone/13yw

The second AspX is absolutely the same except for it has engineered 4A thrusters. It's engine weights 9 tons, consumes 5,51 power and speeds the ship up to only 356 m/s. The Asp is also slightly less maneuverable. And due to increased weight it has jump range of only 61,21 Lys.
https://s.orbis.zone/13yx

To sum up with thusters: explorers tend to use larger D instead of smaller A because those engines are simply better in all possible ways

Those are really good points. I would be tempted to try 3a fully engineered to compare with the 5D, but I suspect your point would remain. I’m not on my Xbox to check myself, but for thrusters are there any advantages to the A vs D, such as thermal management that might make the .3ly worse range worth it as a tradeoff?

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

Those are really good points. I would be tempted to try 3a fully engineered to compare with the 5D, but I suspect your point would remain. I’m not on my Xbox to check myself, but for thrusters are there any advantages to the A vs D, such as thermal management that might make the .3ly worse range worth it as a tradeoff?

Max mass will be ~172 with dirty/drive distributors on 3A thrusters, but the Asp hull mass is 280, so they won't work.

As have higher integrity but that's not really going to help in this case.

 

[Captain Willard]

Every ship will be different, every type of build will be different.
There is no list of set builds because everyone uses many types of builds. Then have their own play style.
Making a ship as your own is one of the better things FD has done.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

Max mass will be ~172 with dirty/drive distributors on 3A thrusters, but the Asp hull mass is 280, so they won't work.

As have higher integrity but that's not really going to help in this case.

True, the lightest thrusters fittable in the AspX is 4D.

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

True, the lightest thrusters fittable in the AspX is 4D.

The big thing people overlook is the stars don't magically re-align because you squeezed out another .x light year, so it's not like you can typically take advantage of gains that small.

 

[Shnyrik]

I would be tempted to try 3a fully engineered to compare with the 5D, but I suspect your point would remain

Personally I like to have maxed thrusters and my personal favorite for short exploration flights is iEagle with engineered 3XP drives. It is really fun to fly. Though for typical exploration craft like conda, Asp or DBX the difference in speed and maneuverability is usually not that much and using the lightest possible thrusters is usually worth it.

for thrusters are there any advantages to the A vs D, such as thermal management that might make the .3ly worse range worth it as a tradeoff?

As for thermal management, from my experience the main heat goes from power plant, if your power plant is cold, you'll have to use magnifying glass to notice heat difference between A and D thrusters

And besides, you usually gain heat from engine when boosting in real space, and you usually need to be cold in supercruise when scooping. So it matters not at all that much how hot are your thrusters.

 

[iain666]

The big thing people overlook is the stars don't magically re-align because you squeezed out another .x light year, so it's not like you can typically take advantage of gains that small.

I've been turned round in plenty of places where an extra 0.3 or 0.4ly would have let me get further out.

Plots in regions with any kind of density aren't going to see much difference with the marginal increases but it can sometimes matter.

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

I've been turned round in plenty of places where an extra 0.3 or 0.4ly would have let me get further out.

Plots in regions with any kind of density aren't going to see much difference with the marginal increases but it can sometimes matter.

it's not like you can typically take advantage of gains that small

And out of the thousands (tens of thousands?) of jumps you've made, what percentage of times would it have made a difference, would you guess?



I suspect less than 1%.

 

[iain666]

And out of the thousands (tens of thousands?) of jumps you've made, what percentage of times would it have made a difference, would you guess?

It's a small percentage, undoubtedly, of all the jumps I've made. Every time it's happened it's been disappointing though, and that's why - within the parameters of what I want from the ship - I'll always maximise the jump range. It won't make a difference most of the time but when it does make a difference it will feel huge.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

The big thing people overlook is the stars don't magically re-align because you squeezed out another .x light year, so it's not like you can typically take advantage of gains that small.

It depends, either way, even if you don't get to use such small differences, the fuel consumption will be lower in each jump so it can indirectly speed you up.

Also, since I spend 99% of my time in SC while exploring, everything that doesn't affect performance in SC can go to hell and that includes the thrusters

 

[Shinji Ikari]

And out of the thousands (tens of thousands?) of jumps you've made, what percentage of times would it have made a difference, would you guess?



I suspect less than 1%.

True but I lose nothing to avoid those >1% jumps.

 

[Liberalguy]

Good points about the minimum thruster size being 4. I’ve learned for myself I tend to like the fastest thrusters, even though I know it makes almost no difference exploring because you’re in SC almost the whole time. I guess I just like to think about the what-ifs that could occur. But I am now tempted to experiment with a smaller thruster to see how much range I’d actually get out of it.

 

[Sunyavadin]

Yeah, if I wanna go fast when not in supercruise, that's what I bring a fighter hangar for.

 

[Liberalguy]

Yeah, if I wanna go fast when not in supercruise, that's what I bring a fighter hangar for.

That’s a good idea.

 

[Lucius-Darcia]

Why do so many people use large D class modules instead of simply using smaller A modules when trying to reduce mass? I’ve been reading about ship builds as I plan my first trek out to Colonia, and I see a lot of, for example, 6D power plant instead of 4A. Same on other modules. I find I can usually get better results of whatever the module type is and less mass if I go down 2 sizes. In other words aren’t A better than D always (except sensors that you can’t reduce size of course)? I’ve been reading forums about heat, clean vs dirty, etc, but haven’t seen any explanations about this question specifically. (Sorry if this is total noob question)

That's not always the case. For a trading cutter for example 8D thrusters are better than 7A or 6A. Unladen the difference in performance is not much but once laden with 720t the 6A thrusters fail to opperate at all and the 7A thrusters have worse performance than the 8D with still higher mass. It's due to optimal and maximal hull mass which gets affected by mods again.

On my exploration Anaconda the 4D power distributor engine focused and stripped down has lesserr mass than the 3A power distributor. It's the lowest mass PD with which you still can boost.
The 5D thrusters are the lowest mass possible thrusters on the Annie too. No need for A-grade here.

Also D-modules are cheaper than A-modules which affects the rebuy also! There are a few modules where i ALWAYS choose A-rating due to performance which is mostly only the powerplant.

 

[Cryopod]

...Unless you're desperate for jump range it often makes for a more well-rounded ship if you accept a little extra mass, especially when engineering stuff.

Wot 'e sed.

Once I'd figured out Coriolis (you can spend weeks there just fiddling with builds and engineering choices) and started seeing what the different modules add or subtract in jump range you start to realise what you thought was a massive saving by using the D can give you a massive 0.01 ly range bonus while turning your ship into a paper deathtrap*.

Want to dash round the galaxy or jump to the most distant system possible, build a D rated ship; want to explore, don't worry too much and go A as much as you like as long as it gives you an end range you're comfortable with. My comfort zone is 40 ly; higher only makes me wistful when I'm dashing back to civilisation adding more credits to my account by scanning the systems on the way.

*GNOSIS showed that paper is not the way to explore and was a great feature implemented poorly; there will have to be other aliens out there and some must have a desire to watch impudent visitors burn.

 

[Shir]

Yes Coriolis is a great place to compare builds. One thing about power plant choice though. It is the only thing not repairable these days, with repair limpets and all. If it reaches 0% and you reboot it, it works on 40% capacity. So some long term explorers might use a slightly bigger power plant that can cover basic modules with that.

 

[marx]

+1 to Cryopod. It's always worth it to weigh how much jump range you gain or lose by various modules, if you're not minmaxing. Which is only needed if you're planning to go to the extreme edges anyway. I know that many people are only comfortable with 60-80 ly jump ranges: personally, I'm only comfortable if I know that my ship can survive more than a scrape of a planet, or if any hostiles should glance at it.

If you're planning on going out in Chapter Four and bringing back some samples to inhabited systems, you'll not only need a research limpet controller and cargo rack, but also might want to consider better defenses. We certainly know that human NPCs will attack you if you're carrying cargo, so this isn't just speculation about aliens which might or might not be there. You don't have to lose dozen lightyears of your jump range to be more survivable than cardboard.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

That's not always the case. For a trading cutter for example 8D thrusters are better than 7A or 6A. Unladen the difference in performance is not much but once laden with 720t the 6A thrusters fail to opperate at all and the 7A thrusters have worse performance than the 8D with still higher mass. It's due to optimal and maximal hull mass which gets affected by mods again.

On my exploration Anaconda the 4D power distributor engine focused and stripped down has lesserr mass than the 3A power distributor. It's the lowest mass PD with which you still can boost.
The 5D thrusters are the lowest mass possible thrusters on the Annie too. No need for A-grade here.

Also D-modules are cheaper than A-modules which affects the rebuy also! There are a few modules where i ALWAYS choose A-rating due to performance which is mostly only the powerplant.

You can actually fit 4D thrusters if you make it light enough and mod the thrusters accordingly.