I have been tinkering with my Type 8 in order to see what kind of mining ship I can make out of it, and I'm coming to the conclusion that it's actually worse for mining than the Python.
Even though the Type 8 has significantly more cargo capacity (406 vs. 294 tonnes), it has one quite bad drawback in that regard, which might not sound at first like it is, but it actually is: The Type 8 has only 9 optional module slots while the Python has 10.
Why does that matter? Well, consider that this is the composition of my current mining Python:
Class 6: 6E cargo rack
Class 6: 6E cargo rack
Class 6: 6E cargo rack
Class 5: 5A fuel scoop
Class 5: 5H Guardian FSD booster
Class 4: 4A refinery
Class 3: 3C mining multi-limpet controller
Class 3: 3A shields
Class 2: 2G planetary vehicle hangar
Class 1: 1I detailed surface scanner
That leaves 192 tonnes of cargo, and leaves room for some nice extras, like an SRV hangar and a FSD booster.
So how could the Type 8 possibly be worse than this? Well, consider that this is the best comparable build I can come up with:
Class 7: 7E cargo rack
Class 6: 6E cargo rack
Class 6: 6A fuel scoop
Class 6: 6D shield generator
Class 5: 5H Guardian FSD booster
Class 5: 5A collector limpet controller
Class 4: 4A refinery
Class 2: 1D prospector limpet controller
Class 1: 1I detailed surface scanner
Note that I sacrificed the SRV hangar for having separate prospector and collector limpet controllers (the alternative being putting a 3C multi-limpet controller in the class 5 slot. Wouldn't make much of a difference with respect to the point of this post.)
And the total cargo space is... what do you know, 192 tonnes. Exactly the same as with the Python. The only way to have more cargo space would be to sacrifice some other module for a cargo rack, such as the FSD booster, or using a multi-limpet controller and replacing either the shields or fuel scoop with something much smaller.
The problem is, as mentioned in the beginning, that while the ship has a lot more space for cargo, it only has 9 module slots instead of the Python's 10, and here it makes a crucial difference. If the Type 8 just also had 10 module slots...
"Ok, you have made the Type 8 pretty much equal to the Python in terms of mining features, perhaps just sacrificing the SRV hangar. What makes it so much worse?"
The fact that the Python has much better hardpoints than the Type 8. Depending on what kind of mining you want to do, a single class 2 hardpoint might not be enough.
I would be willing to sacrifice the hardpoints for the extra cargo space... except that the Type 8, ironically, doesn't have extra cargo space, compared to the Python (at least not without a significant module sacrifice).
Even though the Type 8 has significantly more cargo capacity (406 vs. 294 tonnes), it has one quite bad drawback in that regard, which might not sound at first like it is, but it actually is: The Type 8 has only 9 optional module slots while the Python has 10.
Why does that matter? Well, consider that this is the composition of my current mining Python:
Class 6: 6E cargo rack
Class 6: 6E cargo rack
Class 6: 6E cargo rack
Class 5: 5A fuel scoop
Class 5: 5H Guardian FSD booster
Class 4: 4A refinery
Class 3: 3C mining multi-limpet controller
Class 3: 3A shields
Class 2: 2G planetary vehicle hangar
Class 1: 1I detailed surface scanner
That leaves 192 tonnes of cargo, and leaves room for some nice extras, like an SRV hangar and a FSD booster.
So how could the Type 8 possibly be worse than this? Well, consider that this is the best comparable build I can come up with:
Class 7: 7E cargo rack
Class 6: 6E cargo rack
Class 6: 6A fuel scoop
Class 6: 6D shield generator
Class 5: 5H Guardian FSD booster
Class 5: 5A collector limpet controller
Class 4: 4A refinery
Class 2: 1D prospector limpet controller
Class 1: 1I detailed surface scanner
Note that I sacrificed the SRV hangar for having separate prospector and collector limpet controllers (the alternative being putting a 3C multi-limpet controller in the class 5 slot. Wouldn't make much of a difference with respect to the point of this post.)
And the total cargo space is... what do you know, 192 tonnes. Exactly the same as with the Python. The only way to have more cargo space would be to sacrifice some other module for a cargo rack, such as the FSD booster, or using a multi-limpet controller and replacing either the shields or fuel scoop with something much smaller.
The problem is, as mentioned in the beginning, that while the ship has a lot more space for cargo, it only has 9 module slots instead of the Python's 10, and here it makes a crucial difference. If the Type 8 just also had 10 module slots...
"Ok, you have made the Type 8 pretty much equal to the Python in terms of mining features, perhaps just sacrificing the SRV hangar. What makes it so much worse?"
The fact that the Python has much better hardpoints than the Type 8. Depending on what kind of mining you want to do, a single class 2 hardpoint might not be enough.
I would be willing to sacrifice the hardpoints for the extra cargo space... except that the Type 8, ironically, doesn't have extra cargo space, compared to the Python (at least not without a significant module sacrifice).
Last edited:
