You can call it what you wish, but unless and until FDev addresses the matter, it's an opinion.
You know, if this was what you wanted to say in the first place, then you shouldn't have asked me why I said it's a bug. The "this matter is wholly subjective" argument only works if you start with it right away, not if you bring it out later. In any case, I've said why I consider it a bug, and so far, the argument of those who don't appears to boil down to "Frontier have left it in, so it's not". Like I said, different definitions.
Also. FSD jumps occur at the start of the countdown. It is at this point that the fuel for the jump is used, along with any boosting effect. But you're still at the star. The additional boost occurs within that countdown, while you are still within the influence of the neutron star. You can similarly fuel scoop during an FSD sequence, if you are so inclined. My point is, the behavior is internally consistent. It's not an exploit, but rather the logical result of an established game mechanic. You're at the star, you've used your boost, and you have exactly five seconds to scoop another one before you are outside of the system, assuming you've positioned yourself correctly. So I disagree that this is a programming error. They did it properly, and just didn't think of every possible way it could be done.
However, this behaviour also causes other problems, not just double-boosting. It is entirely possible that you start a jump, consume enough fuel that you wouldn't be able to start another jump, then lose connection to the server(s) before you finish the jump and arrive at your destination, and when you reconnect, be stranded at your original location
through no fault of your own. That last part is important. For times when people get stranded because they misjumped their syntheses, that's fine.
So the problems with the current behaviour of jump effects (fuel, supercharging and boost get consumed at the start, not the end) are that you can get stranded without error on your part, and you can break the "one star, one-time boost" design decision.
Mind you, a likely reason for these have gone unfixed so far could be that it might not be an easy fix to change how the game handles FSD jumps. It certainly wouldn't have been a priority fix, what with multicrew (the headlining feature of 2.3) having been seriously broken at the start. Fixing the typo in NS/WD boost ranges must have been an easy fix, and there was a rather glaring design error there: when the devs said they originally intended players not to use this as a means of travel, just as a fun gimmick. (Back then, when they said this I did a facepalm. It should have been obvious during planning that players would look to use any increase in jump range as a means of shortening travel.)
But through an accident, players got to try (during the beta!) how things would work with much larger than intended boosts, and the majority liked it. In the end, the developers decided to change their minds.
Speaking of precedents, it wouldn't be the first time they've left in such bugs for months, only to fix them several patches later. Oh, and double-boosting was AFAIK discovered around four months after supercharging's original beta ended, so it's not like it was a trivial thing to figure out. A person who hasn't heard about double-boosting from someone else would either have to figure it out accidentally, or have to be looking for a way to break the sequence.
If you wish to use the original boost typo as a parallel, then the devs would now say "we originally wanted it to be a one-time boost, but now we are fine with it being two boosts". I'm not saying they couldn't or shouldn't say this. My point is that they
should clear this up. Until they do, it's uncertain whether double-boosting will stay in the future or not, hence why I raised my concern about this aspect of the record.
But that part has been settled, and I believe I've more than sufficiently explained the reasons behind why I said that double-boosting is a bug, which you originally asked of me. I might have written too much about this already (if so, apologies), so I won't reply to this anymore, since going on at length about what double-boosting is should probably not be in this thread.
So, moving on...
I'm glad we are discussing this because this is why the above/below records are more complex than the distances in X/Z - and imo why they should also be more coveted than they currently are.
Yeah, that's due to the geometry and shape of the galaxy. It's easier to find more defined "end points" in the other two coordinates because of this, and I'm fairly certain those have already been found. However, since the galaxy is flat enough on the top and bottom on a comparatively huge area, it should still be possible to find another record still farther out, if one spends a lot of effort searching the galaxy map and travelling to possible locations. Mind you, it's not something I'd wish to do again, but it's nice to see that there's still interest (and results!) in this, and it's not a "done" niche.
I wonder if there are differences in how the galactic edge is generated at the rim than at the ceiling / bottom though. Namely, the number of neutron stars. Of course, it might simply be due to the fact that the possible search area for coordinate Y extremes is much larger than that for coordinate X/Z extremes.
From the activity here today I would say that they are quite coveted
Yeah, it was a fun to see posts that the previous records for the lowest and highest Y coordinates visited were broken on the same day. It's better that there were multiple people looking to do so.
![mtt9999 [Parabolus]](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/124/124206.jpg?1553527149){kind=avatar}
