Unlocking the Type 7 to full potential

[Vasious]

Now the Type-7 is a very capable ship, especially with the increase in Hull and internals she received in the last around.

But it is still a very small "Large Pad ship" where about three of them can fit across the Large Pad, where one would expect the Type Series of Lakon ships would be build with the design Philosophy "The Cheapest way to get the most cargo to any given Pad size"
So the Type 6 would be the panamax of Small Pads and retains the longest jump range of the Type Series
the Type 7 would be the panamax of Medium Pads carries a good amount to medium pads with excellent endurance (total range)
the Type 9 would be the panamax of Large Pads and carries the most of the Type series as well as carrying the SLF

And with their limited weapons and other specs be the most cost effective to move the cargo, and become an effective miner once allowed and able to dock at outposts.

Focusing on the Type 7 in this thread; we know it is narrow enough and short enough to fit the medium pad hanger, it is her height that is the issue.
Now the different is about 1 meter , and the solution is not to chop down the hull or model, but go after the landing gear.

We already have a present in the other direction for the small ships, that do not have the clearance for the SRV
From the Sidewinder to the Adder (and probably other small pad ships I didn't check) when the SRV is deployed the Landing gear extend to allow it under the ship, and when the SRV is not deployed the gear is in a shorter compact mode.

Now what if we did the reverse for the Type 7
When it was on a pad, the gear was shorter than normal, affording that 1 meter needed for the ship to enter the medium hanger, and then when the SRV needs to be deployed, then the gear could return to full length.

If we look at the winglets of the Type 7 they, suggesting that might once have been intended to fold up, to give the ship more clearance.

Would be cool if this functionality was added, as, as we can see on the Adder, it looks quite neat.

[video=youtube_share;_ORx5D23bTg]https://youtu.be/_ORx5D23bTg[/video]

Finally one might note that the Type 7 on her ventral side has an additional unused Class 1 hard point.

If this was activated then that could give the ship 3 hard point mine launchers can be fitted to, and the front two often result in the mines scoring an own goal.

This would also open up more outfitting flexibility, with other self defence options and Mining at the same time without compromises.

A to finish, an ode to that magnificent ship

An Ode to the Lakon type 7


Saud Kruger, DeLacy and all the rest,

in my heat I know Lakon is the best​

​

A workhorse, a thoroughbred, of finest pedigree,

to trade, to, mine, to explore, well fitted, you'll all agree​

​

At thy Helm, sights of every colour shall I meet,

To climb the very heavens, you are capable of the feat​

​

With a Smile, I know, you'll carry me anywhere,

If only outposts did not cause such despair​

​

Oh Might, oh Glorious Devs, hear my plea,

May a medium pad landing type 7, may we one day see!​

 

[damon8r351]

Think you mean "ventral", vice "dorsal". Dorsal refers to topside, and that extra hardpoint panel is on the underside.

In any case, this feature is incorporated into my Alliance headcanon: ADF Type-7's now have the ability to kneel their landing gear struts to accommodate medium pads.

Also in unrelated news, I support this suggestion in some fashion.

 

[Vasious]

Think you mean "ventral", vice "dorsal". Dorsal refers to topside, and that extra hardpoint panel is on the underside.

In any case, this feature is incorporated into my Alliance headcanon: ADF Type-7's now have the ability to kneel their landing gear struts to accommodate medium pads.

Also in unrelated news, I support this suggestion in some fashion.

Oops yes, fixed to Ventral

 

[Exeider]

I'm all about making the Type 7 better, I think it's a really cool spaceship, so more stuff for it the better.

 

[Dad Rock]

+1 to OP. I liked the Type-7 a lot but it's let down by being limited to only large landing pads.

 

[ChiefRedCloud]

Good and well documented argument ....

Chief

 

[Ranek Eisenkralle]

Although I myself have long since ceased to use the Type 7 for hauling stuff I do support this proposal since it would allow for decently scaled trade with outposts on a ship cheaper than a Python

 

[Nitross]

I always found it strange that a medium ship like the Python could carry nearly as much as a large dedicated transport like the Type-7, making it an arguably better transport since it can access outposts.

The fact that the Type-7 only needs some height clearance to fit in a medium hangar seems like an oversight to me.

I support this idea; and props on making a nice detailed post.


Only thing I'm worried about though, is that it seems so much like it was supposed to use a medium pad that it may have been a decision by FDev to make it "large" by a hair for the sake of some perceived balance issues. If that's the case, I hope that the game has evolved to a point where the reasons for such a choice are no longer valid.


Also, I wonder if the same logic can be applied to the Type-6? It's barely bigger than the DBX, yet is medium instead of small. I think it's because it's too high as well from some of the measurements I've seen. Also, it would make it so there's a dedicated transport in every pad-size category; how's that for balance?

 

[DocLooshkin]

Hello, Vasious.

What an excellent post! I personally loathe and despise the Type 7 with sticks, rabies and evil, so I'd appreciate anything capable of making me hate it a bit less.

I know it has it's fans, but I deeply, bitterly resent having wasted my precious time and effort on what is basically a broken, substandard large ship. As a heavily-overloaded medium ship-design, however, the Type 7 would immediately make vastly more sense as a playing experience. Unlike an entry-level large ship (where all reasonable expectation is for a high-accessibility experience coupled with low-capability for the class), one is supposed to struggle with those.

Restoring the ship's crippled functionality to what looks suspiciously like it's originally-intended level of ability - especially with a very desirable variable geometry element - would be a huge and very welcome improvement. I might even learn to like it - and that would be a very happy day.

 

[NascentChemist]

OP duly repped! At this point, fitting the T-7 on a medium pad would be a massive improvement.

Only thing I would add is a boost to the ship's inherent thermal efficiency. Even with an A-rated powerplant, the T-7 can barely hold a hi-jump charge in space.

 

[sandkid]

I always found it strange that a medium ship like the Python could carry nearly as much as a large dedicated transport like the Type-7, making it an arguably better transport since it can access outposts.

The fact that the Type-7 only needs some height clearance to fit in a medium hangar seems like an oversight to me.

I support this idea; and props on making a nice detailed post.


Only thing I'm worried about though, is that it seems so much like it was supposed to use a medium pad that it may have been a decision by FDev to make it "large" by a hair for the sake of some perceived balance issues. If that's the case, I hope that the game has evolved to a point where the reasons for such a choice are no longer valid.


Also, I wonder if the same logic can be applied to the Type-6? It's barely bigger than the DBX, yet is medium instead of small. I think it's because it's too high as well from some of the measurements I've seen. Also, it would make it so there's a dedicated transport in every pad-size category; how's that for balance?

You're scratching at why the balance is the way it is right now.

It could be argued that the Type-6 should be a small ship and the Type-7 a medium - leaving the Type-9 as the sole (intended) large merchant ship. Of course you have the multi-roles that also fall into all these calculations.

*troll bait* It could be argued that the Python should be a large vessel considering all its capabilities relative to other medium ships or the lesser large ships like the Type-7. *end troll bait*

My own two cents: the Type-6 is a medium ship because plenty of small ships exist for cargo hauling, and there are MANY medium ships that are capable of cargo hauling...but the Type-6 is among the cheapest and most effective long-range options. Hence, it remain a medium.

The Type-7 *seems* like it ought to be medium because of how it compares to the other large ships (or the medium Python)...but from a price-point perspective to fit-out as a cargo hauler (and the robust weapon fittings for defense) it is a great entry point to large ship transport. Put another way, the work required in a Type-6 to afford a Type-7 is minimal - but it isn't compared to getting a Type-9. Thus, the Type-7 exists for this purpose. It's an in-between vessel...just like the Diamondback Scout, Viper MkIV, or Asp Explorer. It's good - but it has a better variant.

 

[MBaldelli]

The Type-7 *seems* like it ought to be medium because of how it compares to the other large ships (or the medium Python)...but from a price-point perspective to fit-out as a cargo hauler (and the robust weapon fittings for defense) it is a great entry point to large ship transport. Put another way, the work required in a Type-6 to afford a Type-7 is minimal - but it isn't compared to getting a Type-9. Thus, the Type-7 exists for this purpose. It's an in-between vessel...just like the Diamondback Scout, Viper MkIV, or Asp Explorer. It's good - but it has a better variant.

Seems is the problem. These folk haven't figured out that there are dimensions being taken into consideration when it comes to which ships use which landing pad. The Type 7 is too tall for a medium pad based on the picture I used for the Imperial Cutter being medium thread.

I haven't been able to find any collected information as to the dimensions of the landing pads other than this link but the problem with it is that it's missing height for the bay. But there is clearly a cut-off for height and the Type 7 is the cut off at 25 meters.

Here's the original picture for consideration.

 

[sandkid]

Seems is the problem. These folk haven't figured out that there are dimensions being taken into consideration when it comes to which ships use which landing pad. The Type 7 is too tall for a medium pad based on the picture I used for the Imperial Cutter being medium thread.

I haven't been able to find any collected information as to the dimensions of the landing pads other than this link but the problem with it is that it's missing height for the bay. But there is clearly a cut-off for height and the Type 7 is the cut off at 25 meters.

Here's the original picture for consideration.[/url]

That other thread also brings up the very valid point of keeping outposts a location that commodities can't be flooded into or mass-removed, especially for rare-trading. The Type-7 is not at all a small ship when it comes to cargo capacity. So while the point for the ship just LOOKS small (and it does) on a large pad, the fittings for the ship are not.

Ironically, it's the exact opposite problem of the clipper thread - the Type-7 has the fittings of a large ship but the art assets of a medium.

 

[MBaldelli]

That other thread also brings up the very valid point of keeping outposts a location that commodities can't be flooded into or mass-removed, especially for rare-trading. The Type-7 is not at all a small ship when it comes to cargo capacity. So while the point for the ship just LOOKS small (and it does) on a large pad, the fittings for the ship are not.

Ironically, it's the exact opposite problem of the clipper thread - the Type-7 has the fittings of a large ship but the art assets of a medium.

There seems to be a recent posting on rare commodities in a CG being controlled per player which might be exacerbating the problem about the demands for a Medium Type 7 and a Medium Clipper (I refuse to call it the iClipper). Because of this -- it's expected of all commodities -- rare and all others -- that might be giving people the drive to push these ships to Medium Pads.

Frankly all these special concessions is causing FDev more problems than solutions. And I'm not entirely sure how to address the problem with them other than to stand back and watch them learn the lessons for themselves.

 

[Vasious]

There seems to be a recent posting on rare commodities in a CG being controlled per player which might be exacerbating the problem about the demands for a Medium Type 7 and a Medium Clipper (I refuse to call it the iClipper). Because of this -- it's expected of all commodities -- rare and all others -- that might be giving people the drive to push these ships to Medium Pads.

Frankly all these special concessions is causing FDev more problems than solutions. And I'm not entirely sure how to address the problem with them other than to stand back and watch them learn the lessons for themselves.

As rare goods are allocated by player, ships cargo capacity is not a factor that would affect overall supply.

For regular goods, the Python can already shift a considerable amount in comparison to the Type 7 and is Outpost capable, so I am not sure of the ability of a Type 7 to land at outposts would destabilize supply and demand with regular commodities

 

[MBaldelli]

As rare goods are allocated by player, ships cargo capacity is not a factor that would affect overall supply.

For regular goods, the Python can already shift a considerable amount in comparison to the Type 7 and is Outpost capable, so I am not sure of the ability of a Type 7 to land at outposts would destabilize supply and demand with regular commodities

I think it's trying to figure out what the height requirements are between a Medium Pad vs. a Large Pad. Ship heights in this game seem incredibly inconsistent but the cut-off is apparently in the vicinity of 24 meters as anything shorter goes to Medium Pads.

 

[Vasious]

I think it's trying to figure out what the height requirements are between a Medium Pad vs. a Large Pad. Ship heights in this game seem incredibly inconsistent but the cut-off is apparently in the vicinity of 24 meters as anything shorter goes to Medium Pads.

I believe someone worked it out to be a meter to tall at its highest point, same for the Type 6 and Keel-back fitting the small.
I cannot fnid the post where someone provided the x,y,z of each hanger bay size

They use the same landing gear as well if kneeling was a thing

 

[CMDR GTR2014]

They just need to make a T-7 Mk II correcting the mistakes on the last ship. lower and wider. reduce the price of the Mk I by half . and place the new T-7 on it's old price range problem solved!

 

[Gunnet]

I've used the real world '[various places]max' comparison myself. The most realistic design for any dedicated ED cargo ship would be a box a fraction smaller in each dimension than the maximum allowable size for a small/medium/large pad.

 

[MBaldelli]

I believe someone worked it out to be a meter to tall at its highest point, same for the Type 6 and Keel-back fitting the small.
I cannot fnid the post where someone provided the x,y,z of each hanger bay size

They use the same landing gear as well if kneeling was a thing

I mean the bays. I can work out the height on the ship when given the dimensions and looking at it from the side. I can't get a feeling of the bay size as it's as deceptive from the cockpit as looking at the mail slot (and I frequently have to explain others that the mail slot isn't as small as they think it is).