So, about those "functional differences" for new ships... (spoilers, maybe?)

aRJay

aRJay
Could functional differences mean that the new ships are like SRVs or SLFs and come fully preconfigured saving all that engineering grind that some people complain about.
 

Kaocraft

Kaocraft
aRJay said:
Could functional differences mean that the new ships are like SRVs or SLFs and come fully preconfigured saving all that engineering grind that some people complain about.
Click to expand...
That's an interesting idea. "Plug and Play" ships already preconfigured. But I have a hard time accepting that this would be an exciting cool functional difference even by FDev standards.

Also y'know the equivalent functionality would be provided just by expanding the options at shipyards to include pre-outfitted and even pre-engineered ships made in specific configurations using the existing fleet. Something similar to the way Odyssey suits and weapons are now, albeit hopefully a little less random.

It would be kinda great if the ships that landed at stations and planets sometimes had the NPCs get out and do things at those sites, and if you could interact with them and even buy their ships. Ok I'm getting off track now.
 

Episparh

Episparh
Hm, functional different... That is not new role, which would be pointless for python that can do anything.
That spherical thing in the middle on the rear view, right of the 07 wing. Could it be a module that allows different way of travel? A Thargoid way of traveling perhaps even jumping through this portals that Titans have?
 

CMDR Davanix

CMDR Davanix
Juts look at the image, is it just me or the trust/boost points on the MKII not look like our usual Blue spinning wheels we have already, almost like a white circular (Magnetic? ION) electrode type thing

1707087291991.png
1707087332214.png
 

[VR] Goooost

[VR] Goooost
Jmanis said:
  • Gas giants (unlikely?)

Other thoughts?
Click to expand...
I really thought we'd have gas mining and resource extraction points in gas giants. This could be interesting if you implemented dangerous atmospheric pressures and lightning as you went deeper into the clouds. Perhaps small ships like fighters could get deeper than larger ships without being crushed. That means that you might escape pirates by risking hull damage, until they send fighters after you.
I was originally hoping for tritium to be mined from these gas giants efficiently to power not only carriers, but also ships equipped with a new military fsd. This fsd would have the darker, scarier jump sequence of capital ships, and it would let you jump within system or jump to other stellar bodies of other star systems the same way fleet carriers can. It would also have a longer jump range. But the disadvantage is that you cannot refuel on stars anymore, and the gas giants with tritium are the less common ones.
This would be a good thing to release to get players back, who are maybe bored of the long supercruise times and small jump ranges, and riskless route plotting because almost every star is a fuel star. Fueling on gas giants creates a much more interesting way to explore- but only if the advantage is in heavily increased jump ranges and the ability to skip long supercruise times.
 
Last edited:

Navigare Necesse Est

Navigare Necesse Est
Morbad said:
There are submarines with positive buoyancy that use wings to 'fly' under water instead of taking on ballast to submerge. Just like airplanes and race cars they can generate forces that exceed their motive power through the use of aerodynamics, or hydrodynamics in this case. Some examples (at near opposite ends of the spectrum) would be things like the various DeepFlight or Seabreacher craft.



The least dense ships in ED are still heavier than sea-level Earth air, but that wouldn't be the case for a huge number of other worlds.



Fuel is irrelevant as it's consumption is constant as long as thruster are enabled. We can also assume that every ship will be given whatever thruster power is required.

However, the game still applies heat loads relative to the actual acceleration forces being applied by thrusters. You can melt ships with weak thrusters by inverting them over high-g worlds and if you perform maneuvers that exceed normal velocity softcaps, just using FA to slow down can cause enormous temperature spikes. If buoyancy and/or drag are implemented and thruster power has to counter those the same way, thermal load would be the limiting factor in what ships could go where on worlds with dense atmospheres.

Source: https://youtu.be/mvI2-xBheGw?t=80


Those excess thermal loads generally don't apply to FA Off, but an FA Off ship wouldn't be able to decend very far, nor remain very controlable, once the atmosphere was suficiently dense...just as an FA off vessel has serious problems near high-g worlds now.

If Frontier wanted to make aerodynamics relevant, they could either simulate them (fat chance), or they could give ships some sort of thermal load modifier for atmospheric flight, which could be based on how superficially streamlined/aircraft-like they appeared to be.
Click to expand...
Subs have positive buyoancy when surfaced. Flooding ballast gives a sub neutral ballast. Ofc that isn't enough to submerge quickly, so they get a dive cell that gets flooded to have negative buoyancy. Once submerged they are blown and neutral buoyancy is restored. The sub then uses the dive planes to adjust depth and manouver but they don't generate "lift" they serve to adjust the "angle of attack" of the whole sub. Diving and surfacing is done by propelling the sub forwards either with its bow pointing to the surface (up) or to the bottom of the sea (down).
 

Darrack

Darrack
Rainbro said:
I wonder if the Python Mk 2's "functional difference" will just be that it has a fighter bay. It was truly terrible that there was one thing that the Python couldn't do, so this will fix that.
Click to expand...
Im rather hoping its functional difference is that its utter rubbish because as things stand im buying one, heading out into the black and never flying another ship ever again!

O7
 

Morbad

Morbad
Navigare Necesse Est said:
Subs have positive buyoancy when surfaced. Flooding ballast gives a sub neutral ballast. Ofc that isn't enough to submerge quickly, so they get a dive cell that gets flooded to have negative buoyancy. Once submerged they are blown and neutral buoyancy is restored. The sub then uses the dive planes to adjust depth and manouver but they don't generate "lift" they serve to adjust the "angle of attack" of the whole sub. Diving and surfacing is done by propelling the sub forwards either with its bow pointing to the surface (up) or to the bottom of the sea (down).
Click to expand...

The subs I was primarily referring to always have positive buoyancy and are designed to automatically and passively return to surface in the event of a loss of power or crew incapacitation. They stay submerged with inverted hydrofoil wings that create low-drag down force even with an angle of attack of zero.
 

Navigare Necesse Est

Navigare Necesse Est
Morbad said:
The subs I was primarily referring to always have positive buoyancy and are designed to automatically and passively return to surface in the event of a loss of power or crew incapacitation. They stay submerged with inverted hydrofoil wings that create low-drag down force even with an angle of attack of zero.
Click to expand...
Is that some industrial diving appliance?
 

Navigare Necesse Est

Navigare Necesse Est
Navigare Necesse Est said:
Yeah. And wasn't there some sort of suction stuff, too, they had once created with the chassis bottom? It would sometimes fail and the car could then lift off and literally fly and explode in a fireball. That was definitely the more entertaining version of F1 back then.
Click to expand...
The ground effect. Seems like this design is back - they banned such cars in the 80ies roughly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom