The Imperial Cutter.....

Once I'd given up on The Cutter as a war vessel, and use her for trade, she's pretty much become my favourite ship. One boost to the slot. Lumbering, but if flown minimally an awesome boat.
 
When in Rome. (The flight simmer and air combat history geek in me still feels its wrong though)

Of course when we get atmospheric flight sometime down the line, boom and zoom may well become a legitimate thing, of course it will need a new name by then lol

Well we don't need an atmosphere for that, just gravity. Fly any approach to a planatery port +1G, the ship has an incredible amount of potential energy. Should make for some interesting combat when 2.1 arrives.
 
Last edited:
The Corvette is awesome for PvE when kitted out with huge PA's on the top, lasers/beams everywhere else. The lasers & beams cut through the smaller ships like butter, the PA's are great at beating down the hulls of the bigger ships. The mistake I made (and I suspect others have too) is to expect to hit the smaller ships with those huge plasma's. Forget it! It's too tricky, and besides, that's what the lasers are for. The bigger ships are easy to hit with the PA's (with practice) and they go down real fast after a few volleys. I also tried the Cutter, but found it more like a huge oil tanker trying to dogfight, not ideal imo :)
 
Edit, I see Znort knows what B&Z is, although I disagree about the only one chance, it completely depends on your targets e state, and how disciplined you are in your flying.

not my case, i'm a lousy pilot so it's one shot, with luck :D
 
The Corvette is awesome for PvE when kitted out with huge PA's on the top, lasers/beams everywhere else. The lasers & beams cut through the smaller ships like butter, the PA's are great at beating down the hulls of the bigger ships. The mistake I made (and I suspect others have too) is to expect to hit the smaller ships with those huge plasma's. Forget it! It's too tricky, and besides, that's what the lasers are for. The bigger ships are easy to hit with the PA's (with practice) and they go down real fast after a few volleys. I also tried the Cutter, but found it more like a huge oil tanker trying to dogfight, not ideal imo :)

With practice and exceptional aim it is possible to hit smaller ships with the PA's but you really have to choose your moments. It's satisfying when you manage it. Basically you have to shoot when their boost has just ended and they can't course-correct easily. Still, better in most cases to use the lasers/multis.

The Anaconda actually does have more potential DPS than the Corvette but that's mostly down to the fact that the Conda has more weapons at hand. 1x C4 3x C3 2x C2 2x C1 have more DPS potential than 2x C4 1x C3 2x C1 2x C2. Suddenly swapping PA's for lasers isn't going to fix that latent imbalance and in fact doesn't play into the Corvette's strengths. The Anaconda is an always will be a better laser barge than the Corvette. The Corvette, like the FDL, is a better heavy-hitting alpha striker due to the hardpoint placement which is ideal for these types of weapons.
 
I'm not a huge fan of the Corvette. It's ok, just not great. Lack of personality, perhaps.
Maybe when the new huge weapons arrive.
Wish I had the rank for the Cutter.
 
Last edited:
You cannot boom and zoom in ED, you are confusing it with using superior speed to extend before reversing and re engaging.

Boom and zoom means translating potential energy due to an altitude advantage into speed by diving on a target and firing before turning that speed energy back into altitude by zoom climbing to get above the target, and has been used in air combat since WW1

Its a completely misused term in this game.

Edit, I see Znort knows what B&Z is, although I disagree about the only one chance, it completely depends on your targets e state, and how disciplined you are in your flying. I've played combat flight sims for years and you can dominate a target for several attacks if you have the right circumstances, even if they do everything right (climb at best climb speed whilst the higher plane is positioning itself, dropping the nose to pick up airspeed to increase manoeuvrability as the higher plane sets up the dive, and a hard 90 degree turn under the nose of the diving plane to evade a shot, before going back to best climb speed whilst the other plane is zooming back up).

A visual representation. A good pilot can keep this up all day with impunity against opponents, especially early Yaks and Spits. This doesn't translate well into ED, though atmospheric combat might change that if they go for realism.

[video=youtube;1i6LNLSsP80]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1i6LNLSsP80[/video]
 
A visual representation. A good pilot can keep this up all day with impunity against opponents, especially early Yaks and Spits. This doesn't translate well into ED, though atmospheric combat might change that if they go for realism.

I asked fruitbat but didn't receive a reply, would you mind explaining why having an atmosphere is essential for this kind of combat in ED? Lift is pretty much irrelevant and atmospheric drag will be a minor considering thruster capability. The only major factor I see is gravity and potential energy, something that is already a factor in game on airless worlds.

Cheers
 
I asked fruitbat but didn't receive a reply, would you mind explaining why having an atmosphere is essential for this kind of combat in ED? Lift is pretty much irrelevant and atmospheric drag will be a minor considering thruster capability. The only major factor I see is gravity and potential energy, something that is already a factor in game on airless worlds.

Cheers

Air density is going to have a drag effect on velocity. Just as high gravity has an effect on slowing your ship, air density is going to have the opposite effect, in addition to adding heat. Infinity Battlescape models this. No idea on Star Citizen or NMS.
 
Air density is going to have a drag effect on velocity. Just as high gravity has an effect on slowing your ship, air density is going to have the opposite effect, in addition to adding heat. Infinity Battlescape models this. No idea on Star Citizen or NMS.

See this is what I've been wondering about since horizons launched, gravity seems to have very little effect on acceleration during climbs, even above 9G, I can't see how air density and drag is going to be an issue when our ships can easily accelerate vertically whilst 9 times its weight. During a dive we see our ships exceed thrusters maximum limit.

Even external heat build will be a non issue when in combat under normal flight speeds.

It will be interesting to see how the devs model atmospheres, either the devs will rewrite the whole model (including behaviour on airless planets) Or atmospheric flight will be a minor, our ships have a rediculous amount of thrust available - With the exception of flying through storms that makes our Typhoons look like a calm wind.

Anyway, this whole zoom and boom comment still doesn't make sense, we don't need an atmosphere for that, lift isn't the primary factor for these ships, only gravity comes into play.

Devs originally stated that ships will have a hard time on planets due to gravity, that is clearly not the case.
 
Last edited:
See this is what I've wondering about since horizons launched, gravity seems to have very little effect on acceleration during climbs, even above 9G, I can't see how air density is going to be an issue when our ships can easily accelerate vertically when 9 times its weight. During a dive we see our ships exceed thrusters maximum speed.

Even external heat build will be a non issue when in combat under normal flight speeds.

It will be interesting to see how the devs model atmospheres, either the devs will rewrite the whole model (including behaviour on airless planets) Or atmospheric flight will be a minor - With the exception of of flying through storms that makes our Typhoons look like a calm wind.

I'm curious myself. They went through the trouble with airless worlds. I can only imagine what atmospheric will be like, especially the ones with very dense atmospheres. I've been noticing that more and more while exploring lately. I ran into one the other day that seemed rather unassuming until I realized the atmosphere was so dense and the pressure so high, it'd pop a Corvette like an overripe grape. These types of worlds might prove to be far more dangerous than high G ones (and some of these are high G as well.)
 
See this is what I've been wondering about since horizons launched, gravity seems to have very little effect on acceleration during climbs, even above 9G, I can't see how air density and drag is going to be an issue when our ships can easily accelerate vertically whilst 9 times its weight. During a dive we see our ships exceed thrusters maximum limit.

Even external heat build will be a non issue when in combat under normal flight speeds.

It will be interesting to see how the devs model atmospheres, either the devs will rewrite the whole model (including behaviour on airless planets) Or atmospheric flight will be a minor, our ships have a rediculous amount of thrust available - With the exception of flying through storms that makes our Typhoons look like a calm wind.

Anyway, this whole zoom and boom comment still doesn't make sense, we don't need an atmosphere for that, lift isn't the primary factor for these ships, only gravity comes into play.

Devs originally stated that ships will have a hard time on planets due to gravity, that is clearly not the case.
ED's flight model has some illogical bugs. Like "Glide" when you enter planet gravty well from SC. Stopping from 2500 to ~300 in 3 seconds should kill pilot right away, but he doesn't even bother.
 
The Corvette lacks in firepower, as of the lack of C3 HPs and the unneccessarily added C1 ones.
With new C4 weponary this might change tho but doesn't solve the wasted space of C1 weaponary.
 
One of the arguements i've seen in defending the Cutter pitch rate is that it requires a new way of flying etc...

I personally don't use mine for combat as i prefer the up close and personal style that the anaconda does and i've still found i can be more effective in PvE with the conda than either the corvette / cutter (i have all 3 in various states)

I'd really like to see someone flying the cutter 'perfectly' in a PvE setting to show how they think its a tank .... coriolis links to outfitting equally welcome to back up the vids.

Just want to see what i must be missing or how should behave with someone flying it well
Genuine request here... no snarky implied - want to see it flown to max PvE encounters.
 
One of the arguements i've seen in defending the Cutter pitch rate is that it requires a new way of flying etc...

I personally don't use mine for combat as i prefer the up close and personal style that the anaconda does and i've still found i can be more effective in PvE with the conda than either the corvette / cutter (i have all 3 in various states)

I'd really like to see someone flying the cutter 'perfectly' in a PvE setting to show how they think its a tank .... coriolis links to outfitting equally welcome to back up the vids.

Just want to see what i must be missing or how should behave with someone flying it well
Genuine request here... no snarky implied - want to see it flown to max PvE encounters.

The best Anaconda pilot will be able to kill faster than the best Cutter pilot. Being good at getting hit doesn't make a ship good at fighting, especially when said ship has no choice but to take a beating due to its' poor flight performance.

The totally objective, no way to bull-sh$% out of facts are:

Anaconda pitches better, drifts less, has better hardpoint placement, superior DPS from hardpoints regardless of loadout (PA's, multis, lasers, whatever), a superior PD and more MW of power by dint of needing smaller thrusters, life support, and shields allowing for more power-intensive builds.

The Cutter can kill things, but it kills slower, with more effort, at a higher cost.
 
The best Anaconda pilot will be able to kill faster than the best Cutter pilot. Being good at getting hit doesn't make a ship good at fighting, especially when said ship has no choice but to take a beating due to its' poor flight performance.

The totally objective, no way to bull-sh$% out of facts are:

Anaconda pitches better, drifts less, has better hardpoint placement, superior DPS from hardpoints regardless of loadout (PA's, multis, lasers, whatever), a superior PD and more MW of power by dint of needing smaller thrusters, life support, and shields allowing for more power-intensive builds.

The Cutter can kill things, but it kills slower, with more effort, at a higher cost.

Well that aligns with my thoughts on the ship .... the anaconda right now for me is the best ship in PvE scenarios (haz-res anyway) ... CZ's i find smaller ships like FAS better
I am using my cutter as a strip-mining vessel (12 collectors + 512t cargo)
The corvette will get a look in when 2.1 new huge points come
The anaconda is going to be even better with a new huge weapon

I feel that 2.1 is just going to make the conda even better and the other 2 large ships won't get a look in.

Just wanted to see someone who claims that the cutter is amazing demonstrate this
 
Back
Top Bottom