Supercruise handling of ships

Why 50% and not 75% where it would be in between the blue indicator?

What was your methodology for triggering 50% throttle?
I chose to go with 50% because that's where the ship rotates the fastest in supercruise. Just to confirm, I ran some test on an Anaconda just now, and got the following for pitch at 0%/25%/50%/75%/100% throttle: 48/32/26/30/40

I bound a key to 50% throttle, then pressed that. I waited for a few seconds so that the FSD could have time to pick up the new throttle, so to speak, and then I did the tests. Same went for 100% throttle. I didn't time how long I've had the ship fly in a straight line though.

Yes I'm wondering whether it includes 'spin up' time or not. Some results here that differ a little:
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...er-and-my-second-major-exploration-trip/page2
Hm, two interesting things there. First, I didn't notice that my earlier results for a Courier were off from what I got now. I suppose that a difference of two seconds in pitch is plausible (I was probably sloppier back then), but eight seconds in the yaw? Similar differences with others', too. Then there's that goemon said that 50% was right in the middle of the blue zone in supercruise - and this was a year ago. Perhaps there were some stealth changes sometime?
 
Last edited:
I seem to be out of rep but wanted to say thanks for the data. I’ve just got back to the bubble with the intention of trying out the T-10, but it looks like I’m unlikely to get on with it. The Clipper data is particularly intriguing though...
 
I am reading the post and I still cannot get, if you are guys doing this for pure scientific reason or actual maneuvering capability in supercruise is important in some circumstances?

For me, as an explorer, supercruise maneuverability mostly matters during scooping. You pop out of witchspace in front of a star, curve around it to scoop and then continue on pointed at the next system. I always do this the same way: rolling to place the next system *up*, and then pitching around the star and up to align with the next system. I've been flying an Asp for the past 500,000 light years or so, and have had a problem moving into a larger ship because they always feel much more sluggish in supercruise.

I do agree that we should gather data on cool running, too. The Type 10 is sluggish but cool, the Asp X is agile and cool, etc. Lightspeed makes a good point that the heat ability of a ship almost makes more difference, to explorers.
 
I do agree that we should gather data on cool running, too. The Type 10 is sluggish but cool, the Asp X is agile and cool, etc. Lightspeed makes a good point that the heat ability of a ship almost makes more difference, to explorers.

I have an Eagle which literally catches fire when I try to scoop-while-jumping with it. Great agility, wouldn't want to go far... I place a higher value on agility over cool running, but there are limits.

We could definitely use some harder data on these hidden statistics - I imagine heat has been researched somewhere? If not we can try to come up with a plan...
 
Oh, and about the importance of supercruise handling: in my opinion, it's more important when exploring systems. Of course, it's important while scooping too, but actually visiting planets in a system can be quite frustrating in slower ships, especially if you mess up a bit and overshoot.
Personally, I like to separate exploring from traveling, although many people include the latter in the former. When you're just looking to go from A to B, and are honking, scooping and jumping (especially in a rush), then you're traveling. When you stop somewhere to scan some bodies, then you're exploring the system. At that point, heat-related stuff becomes largely irrelevant, and supercruise handling becomes more important. So sure, heat capabilities are handy, but they only really come into play if you're in a hurry to jump, or on the very rare cases of landing on extremely hot places.

As it looks like, the Type-10 has an average jump range, great internals, slow forward speed, excellent cockpit visibility (the best, I think?), great heat capabilities, and the worst supercruise handling. In my opinion, weighing these makes it average at exploration.

Also, @ Satsuma and MattG: yeah, getting used to an agile ships can make it more difficult to hop back into another. The Asp is probably in the best spot for this (good SC handling, excellent jump range, decent scoop size), but I always tend to find myself going back to my Clipper. (From the Courier, Cutter and DBX.) If you fly it for long, most everything else will seem clunkier in comparison. The Asp likely wouldn't, but personally, I can't stand its cockpit for long.
 
There really should be an option to improve supercruise handling. Since thrusters have a direct affect on flight model performance outside of SC, the FSD should in turn also directly affect handling in SC.

The Type-10's roll performance is VERY sluggish. It really needs a bit of tuning- sure it shouldn't handle like a FDL, but it needs a tad bit more speed in roll.
 
excellent cockpit visibility (the best, I think?)

I think that cockpit visibility is very much a "point of view" aspect. I find the Lakon cockpits more distracting because the cockpit framework is always taking up some of the view, but in terms of being able to see in a wide field around the ship they're very good.
 
There really should be an option to improve supercruise handling. Since thrusters have a direct affect on flight model performance outside of SC, the FSD should in turn also directly affect handling in SC.
Yeah, I've thought about that too, but the question is, how to actually implement that? If FD were to introduce new blueprints, then people would either be upset about having to reroll their existing stuff if the new blueprint's simply better, or if it's not better but different (say, having a possible max. optimised mass increase of +40% instead of +50%, but getting better SC handling), very few people would actually use that.
If they were to introduce a new item called enhanced FSDs, similar to enhanced thrusters, then it would be the same thing. Probably even worse, since they'd likely cost more, and high-end FSDs are already pricey.

However, I noticed something just yesterday that gave me an idea now. When their hearts are destroyed, Thargoid ships drop some engineering materials (that are currently useless), and among them is one called "Bio-Mechanical Conduits", which's description includes "Further analysis is required, but these items may be able to be used to enhance human technology." If that implies (note that it might not!) that we'll be able to further mod our equipment with Thargoid tech, then I'd rather we could improve our FSDs in different ways than just further increasing their jump ranges. Perhaps add the ability to hold two FSD boost charges, or to improve SC handling. Otherwise, if range could be improved this way as well, then plenty of people would likely complain that they are "forced" to attack Thargoids to get the best jump range. (Note: with current available equipment, it's quite easy to pop off a heart or even two in solo, which will produce 2-4 material drops. The only thing that you have to completely destroy a Thargoid ship for is the Thargoid Heart commodity.)

Anyway, the above is more fit for the suggestion forums instead.
You're right though that the Type-10's (and the Type-9's) roll performance is too low. In that regard, it's nearly twice as slow as the next-slowest ships, and in my opinion, there's nothing justifying that. If it were up to me, I'd set their rolls at the Anaconda's level, or maybe a tad lower. But not twice.
 
Last edited:
I put together a Cutter yesterday, and did a few rich passenger runs with her (I sold my first one as I think I was expecting too much...).

More sluggish that my 'vette, that's for sure. But, if you fly it like a 747 (roll and pitch up) instead of a spaceship, it's not too bad. Sweet looking ship and cockpit though, and I much prefer the view out the window in this ship compared to the 'conda.

But for anything beyond short 5-6k Ly exploring jaunts, I'm with marx in thinking the Clipper would be a good compromise between my ugly AspX and my Cutter. :)
 
I'll be honest here - I'm having trouble reconciling the importance of Supercruise agility when common practice for Explorers is to cherry-pick what they scan in a system.

If you are cherry-picking as a matter of habit, then how much does it actually matter? It can be annoying, sure, but just for scanning planets, I can't get on board.

Now, if you are talking about landing at specific planetary coordinates (not a POI) in a ship with poor Supercruise agility, that I can get on board with.

All things considered, a well-Engineered Clipper is hard to beat as an Exploration ship. I just wanted to second that notion, because it's a really solid choice for 99% of the galaxy.

Also - thanks to everyone that provided testing data. Despite what I said above, it is worthwhile information.

Riôt
 
@ Jackie Silver: yeah, by cockpit visibility I mean how much of the surrounding space is visible from the cockpit. The framework of Lakon ships do distract from the view, but they obscure very little of it. Personally, I'd say that visibility is the most important in combat or planetary exploration by eyeball. On the other hand, when it comes to screenshots, I prefer ships where the view isn't obstructed by too much stuff. Time to bring up the Clipper as an example again: while visibility is good, you don't see as much as you do from the Asp, but there is nothing going across the canopy, so no obstructions.

@ wrmiller: I'd recommend adding yaw in there as well, not just pitching and rolling. Not for the Boeing 747, though :D

@ MrFailfactory: let me be a bit blunt as well: I fail to see why it should be important to anyone how other people explore. The importance of various factors, the weighting of them, is a matter of personal preference, and what kind of exploration you do. Like you said, it is worthwhile to have information on how the different ships handle in supercruise, if that's important for them.

Also, you made an assumption that might be false, namely that "common practice for Explorers is to cherry-pick what they scan in a system". Are you sure about that? These forums are not representative of the entire player population (nor is any social media), nor is EDSM, although the latter does help much more to make observations based on some evidence. I haven't run any analysis on how many bodies per system might have been scanned, but I have ran some on how many systems per sector have been visited. Not surprisingly, the ones closest to inhabited space (the old and the new bubbles) have been the most explored. Based on my observations (but remember, anecdotes are not evidence!), the closer you are, the more likely that Commanders haven't cherry-picked systems. Which is perfectly understandable: if you had 50,000 ly-s left to go on your expedition, you'd be less inclined to spend time on scanning bodies in a system than if your total would be 4,000 ly or so. But if the majority of exploration happens close to the bubble (based on the data available to us, this is very likely), and if people are more inclined not to cherry-pick stuff there (there is data on this, but it still needs to be analysed before such a conclusion could be made), then cherry-picking wouldn't be common practice across all explorers.
Of course, it would still likely be among the explorers who travel over long distances, but that's not the entire (explorer) player base.

But let's not forget that the Asp and the Diamondback both cover the needs of most kinds of exploration very well, and are easily accessible to boot. Not very expensive, and no military rank requirements. There are ships that are better in some specific exploration niches, but overall, those two are the most well-rounded. On the other hand, multi-role ships (like the Clipper) can be refit to be useful for other activities as well, while the options for those two ships are more limited.
 
Last edited:
I've refitted my pirate ahem scavenging Clipper Shy Bairn for exploration, after mulling things over after reading this thread, and I've just passed Heart and Soul. I'd forgotten just how much fun the Clipper is to fly, and there's never any need to worry about scooping.

In terms of cherry-picking systems and planets to scan, I usually do that - my usual practice at the moment is to scan anything significant in systems that are around the Bubble, but to give only a cursory glance to the system map elsewhere (never mind weapons and targeting, I've got the system map and jump and whatnot on my joystick's hat button doodah) and scan only if I spot something cool. Even so, I find that it's much more fun doing that when the ship doesn't turn like a wounded whale... :)
 
Marx - this is you, from your OP:

When I tried the recently released Type-10, personally I was surprised at how bad it handled in supercruise. Otherwise, it would make a decent exploration ship. But then the question became: exactly how bad is it when compared to the other ships? With no data on this, I set out to make my own. At first, I just stuck to explorer ships, but then I decided to go do multi-roles that are decent at exploration, and having done those as well, I then went to finish the rest as well.
Oh, and I'm posting this in the exploration subforum because in my opinion, exploration is where supercruise handling is the most relevant.
Thanks go to
Edelgard von Rhein
,
Jackie Silver
and
Satsuma
for sharing data from some of the missing ships!

Did you not say here that the T-10 would be a good Exploration ship if not for its poor handling in Supercruise?

Did you also not say here that Supercruise handling is the most relevant for Exploration?

My response was to those things in particular, where you made some statements that sounded like facts. Those might very well be facts to you, but I would (and did) argue that they are not facts in general.

I would also say that cherry-picking being the norm for the vast majority of the playerbase (Explorers or otherwise) is quite a safe assumption to make. It takes a long time, after all, to fully scan any systems, let alone all of them, on a voyage of any length.

That said, there are people for whom Exploration is not about travelling quickly, credits, or even getting their name on things - it's about seeing what they can find, even if what they are seeking are the best vistas in the Galaxy. Those people probably don't mind so much how the ship handles in Supercruise, and are more interested in other things that whatever ship provides.

Of all the activities that we can do in the game, Exploration, in my opinion, offers the most flexibility for the concepts of Play Your Way, and Blaze Your Own Trail. I'm not really concerned about how anyone else does their Exploration, but I am always game to learn something, so I try to keep an open mind.

Riôt
 
Last edited:
Did you also not say here that Supercruise handling is the most relevant for Exploration?
It looks like you misunderstood what I wrote above. It was "exploration is where supercruise handling is the most relevant", and not "supercruise handling is the most relevant for exploration". The latter would mean that supercruise handling would trump jump range, internals and so on, which of course I wouldn't say. (I did, after all, say repeatedly that how people weigh the various factors depends on their own preferences.) The former, what I wrote, means that out of all the activities - trading, combat, mining, and so on - supercruise handling is the most relevant in exploration, and not in trading or others.
I might have been wrong on that though, in that I didn't consider interdictions, like piracy, undermining in PP, or assassinations.

Also, for the record, I've edited the first post now, because I worded the Type-10 part poorly there. When I wrote "When I tried the recently released Type-10, personally I was surprised at how bad it handled in supercruise. Otherwise, it would make a decent exploration ship. But then the question became: exactly how bad is its supercruise handling when compared to those of the other ships?", I should have written "exactly how bad is its supercruise handling when compared to those of the other ships?", as that was what I meant to say - but looking back on it, the original version was ambiguous. Also included that it would make a decent exploration ship in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Great data, thanks for the effort and sharing.

I've found the Beluga's handling both in normal space and in supercruise just too good for what it is, made me forget how big it is. Sometimes less is more. :)
 
It looks like you misunderstood what I wrote above. It was "exploration is where supercruise handling is the most relevant", and not "supercruise handling is the most relevant for exploration". The latter would mean that supercruise handling would trump jump range, internals and so on, which of course I wouldn't say. (I did, after all, say repeatedly that how people weigh the various factors depends on their own preferences.) The former, what I wrote, means that out of all the activities - trading, combat, mining, and so on - supercruise handling is the most relevant in exploration, and not in trading or others.
I might have been wrong on that though, in that I didn't consider interdictions, like piracy, undermining in PP, or assassinations.

Also, for the record, I've edited the first post now, because I worded the Type-10 part poorly there. When I wrote "When I tried the recently released Type-10, personally I was surprised at how bad it handled in supercruise. Otherwise, it would make a decent exploration ship. But then the question became: exactly how bad is its supercruise handling when compared to those of the other ships?", I should have written "exactly how bad is its supercruise handling when compared to those of the other ships?", as that was what I meant to say - but looking back on it, the original version was ambiguous. Also included that it would make a decent exploration ship in my opinion.

Supercruise handling is definitely important if you want to explore the bodies in a system, which is what it is all about. I'm hoping that this will change when exploration gets some love this year. I love the idea of a large slow galactic cruiser that carries small nimble system exploration craft. In the meantime though we need to find a balance that we are individually happy with. I'm experimenting with an Anaconda for a big ship change from my AspX but I am struggling with the supercruise handling and the cockpit view. I chose the anaconda over the T9 for the supercruise handling but I may reverse that.

This data is incredibly helpful, thank you.
 
Last edited:
After buying a Federal Assault Ship I am pleasantly surprised how similar to an Asp it flies in supercruise (as the OP suggested it would be) and after putting in a grade 5 upgraded FSD got 25ly fully laden jump and with some modifications for exploring would suspect I could get around a decent 30ly jump range from it.

And it does take a large fuel scoop but the ship did get hot quickly using it with an A6 rated power unit.If I had an exploring D rated power unit this could cause some rather uncomfortable problems while exploring.
 
Top Bottom