Ships Why does the Type 7 require a Large Landing pad?
- Thread starter Serenity03
- Start date
The key "con" that balances the Type 7 is that it can't fight. While it's not wretched slow, it is slow enough that it can't outrun anything that might try to pirate it. You have to encounter a sidewinder or eagle to find an opponent that doesn't outgun it. As if that's not enough, it's a pretty heat sensitive ship---you WILL have heat issues if you try to run the higher performance stuff that might get you the edge, such as an overcharged power plant plus dirty drives.
That seems like quite enough balancing without limiting it from outpost landings. Near completely being shut off from a portion of gameplay(combat) is the primary drawback of this ship, or at least it ought to be, in my opinion.
If it could land on medium pads it would be the transport of choice for outposts because it is versatile and capable of carrying loads the likes of which are currently only accessible with a hundred million credit expenditure. As is, it's much more limited in any kind of freighter role simply because it doesn't bring anything to the table compared to the other large choices.
That seems like quite enough balancing without limiting it from outpost landings. Near completely being shut off from a portion of gameplay(combat) is the primary drawback of this ship, or at least it ought to be, in my opinion.
If it could land on medium pads it would be the transport of choice for outposts because it is versatile and capable of carrying loads the likes of which are currently only accessible with a hundred million credit expenditure. As is, it's much more limited in any kind of freighter role simply because it doesn't bring anything to the table compared to the other large choices.
It’s a fantastic ship just the way it is.
Sure it can’t fight but it’s essentially a very cheap Python on the inside. Bolt some passenger cabins in and run bulk transport missions and you have A list earning potential that exceeds an Orca and matches a Beluga/Python/Anaconda.
The heat is easily managed by fitting a small A rated power plant. It’s also pretty good to look at in my opinion and handles rather nice for its size.
I’ve spent a good amount of time in one and haven’t ever seen an outpost mission I wanted to take but couldn’t.
Sure it can’t fight but it’s essentially a very cheap Python on the inside. Bolt some passenger cabins in and run bulk transport missions and you have A list earning potential that exceeds an Orca and matches a Beluga/Python/Anaconda.
The heat is easily managed by fitting a small A rated power plant. It’s also pretty good to look at in my opinion and handles rather nice for its size.
I’ve spent a good amount of time in one and haven’t ever seen an outpost mission I wanted to take but couldn’t.
Sorry to ask a daft question but this seems the obvious place to ask it, and I can't find the answer anywhere else. If I'm flying a T-7, will the missions/passengers boards only offer me missions to places where I can actually land? Or is there a danger that I accept a mission that needs me to land at an Outpost, but can't actually land there as my T-7 won't fit?
Thanks in advance!
Thanks in advance!
It's probably for the same reason I can no longer get into my medium tee shirts
If we want to invoke real-world "sense," what vehicle manufacturer in the world would sell a car to civilians that's too wide for most parking spots (the original v1 Hummer), or make tractor-trailers taller than the common heights for bridges (yet we see footage from around the world of trucks and tractor-trailers getting their height abruptly and involuntarily shaved by a few feet when they hit bridges)?
People like to invoke "real-world common sense" and forget that common sense is often missing in the real world...
If the pad in the target location is too small, the mission will be under ‘requirements not met’. It will say - ship too large
Cheap but heavy balance
Good examples let's have a look at how the real world handles them.
The Hummer is a spin off of a military targeted vehicle, and the H1 has the exterior dimensions that match it exactly. It was never intended to operate in civilian environments, with the possible exception of fitting under bridges on a semi truck bed or rail car(which it does). To make it a game example, perhaps a Federal Dropship would require a special landing pad that is larger because it is too wide to fit(Ironically, it doesn't, but if it did it would mirror the hummer), and a civilian version was made that did not have the military slots but was externally identical. It would be reasonable that it too would be too large to fit in the smaller, civilian sized parking spaces. It's also worth noting that the manufacturers of it attempted to rectify the problem by offering a smaller hummer like product which failed for other reasons but did fit in the civilian world much more conveniently--the H2 was designed specifically with the civilian market in mind. It seems fair to deduce that the T7 was designed with the civilian market in mind, given its lack of larger hardpoints, heavy hull protections, and military module slots.
The outpost example is actually much better, but it's really worth considering. Outposts are very often refining or extracting sites. A proper transport that can't fit into one of these sites literally cannot ship goods from some of the most common mining and extracting sites. This would be the real world equivalent of dump trucks fitting into mining quarries(which does happen), but a semi truck being designed that is specifically intended for shipping purposes but does not, despite competing semi trucks that are not specifically designed for shipping(the python and now the krait) fitting into them just fine.
If we had three different sized landing areas, with the third specifically targeting small craft or even capable of only moderately sized medium craft(t6 and smaller), this would fit the low bridge example very well. The reason for this is that these sites do exist, and their inlet/outlet is always severely limited by the ability to supply them only with small box trucks and the like.
The places in the real world that semi trucks regularly wack bridges are areas that where not ever particularly intended for shipping the in the first place, and virtually do no exist in areas that might regularly need to export mineral goods(I doubt we'd forget that logic in the next 1200 years). It'd be more in line with a T7 not fitting between a station and the habitation rings(yes, I know that it does) than the equivalent of it not fitting onto a shipping specific pad on a mining outpost.
Real world common sense actually works extremely well here. If it where like the hummer example, it'd be realistic to expect a T8 shortly thereafter to rectify the problem because the product isn't up to snuff. If outposts couldn't properly ship their goods in moderate bulk(we're not even talking massive bulk freighters plying "safe" shipping lanes here, like the slow and heavy T9 does), either outposts would find a better alternative or the ships designed to handle such things(such as the relatively fast and long jumping T7) would be able to use their strengths in an area that make sense for the craft.
The logic holds up within the game world as well. The Krait and Python have similar ranges and cargo capacities, and can service outposts. Lakon simply would not lack the vision to create its answer to the very same range and cargo capacity issues in such a way as to not be able to compete, and certainly would not do so by designing their craft to easily fit the medium pad(it's significantly narrower than its size competitors and could easily be longer and still fit a medium pad), but then proceed to make it 1.5 meters too tall to actually use them.
It does bring up another line of logic, though, that I think has alot of merits. Many outposts have a mail slot somewhere on them but don't use it. Surely this could come into play for larger ships, as they would want the ability to ship their goods, right? Conversely, goods can be shipped/received without entering the hangar area, and a T7 can comfortably fit on the medium pad itself, it just doesn't fit in the hangar. Lots of places that comfortably fit a semi-sized truck couldn't actually put it in the building, but rather back it up to the loading dock and the semi trucks don't actually enter the warehouse(most do this, in fact). Surely a T7 would be appropriate for this functionality as well, right?
The T7 kind of matches all of the criteria to work in this way. It's larger and more expensive than personal transportation like the Cobra/Adder in much the same way a professional semi truck is compared to a passenger car. Its payload much more closely mirrors the difference between a semi trailor compared to a "straight truck", comparing the T6 to the T7. And it's much smaller, faster, and versatile than the true bulk freighters like the T9 that more closely mirror a railroad car or barge that would be limited to its shipping route.
If ships of this capacity simply did not exist in the game, it would be much easier to envision it as simply too large for such duty, but the Python is actually wider and longer, and judging by the way a Krait fits on a pad, it's at least wider as well. All it would take for a T7 to fit on a medium pad as a landing gear modification that causes it to "squat" a couple meters to fit under the beams(read: it wouldn't take a re-model or anything like that). We have the hydraulic capability to do this today, it'd be a no-brainer a millenia from now.
I live near the New York State Thruway, the single largest highway in New York State, and most definitively is intended for transportation of large shipments via tractor trailer. And the legal height limits for vehicles on that road is 13' 6" (4.11m) due to the overpasses that run along its several hundreds of miles. In the decades I've lived here, the number of trucks that hit the bridges on that road is ridiculous. Seeing three in a week was only mildly unusual. And it happens every year, despite it being a known law, making headlines and people hearing about it, because people take vehicles they KNOW are taller than that maximum height, but think oh, it'll be fine...
That's a great example---and a well known one at that.
The reason it's great is because it is NOT intended for large truck traffic. None of the exceptionally low clearance areas in New York are(the LOWER level of the George Washington bridge nor the Lincoln Tunnel, nor the Holland Tunnel). However, that notwithstanding, it's perfect to mention 13'6" as the maximum allowed height because......
That's the average height of a tractor trailer setup(for real!). It perfectly displays a known low clearance situation and how manufacturers have intentionally created their products to function with it. Real world semi trucks literally conform, to the inch, to the expected norm of low clearances they may expect to see.
Those trucks that hit it? They're not of standard size for some reason or other, be it oversized loads, or aftermarket suspension/aerodynamic packages, etc. The factory doesn't simply mass produce a truck that doesn't fit that criteria.
How does that add up in game? Lakon made what is essentially a tractor trailer rig that's 1.5 meters too tall to land on a medium pad, while its competitors, whether it be Core Dynamics or Faulcon Delacy, specifically hit that number(the ship size estimate poster really helps tell this story).
Incidentally, these areas are not actually intended for truck traffic, though I realize you'll probably see them on there anyway quite regularly. There are resources available to warn your average semi truck driver about them because they are unexpected--here is the one for that area:https://www.panynj.gov/truckers-resources/.
Here's the source that disputes your example:
http://www.heavyhaul.net/trucking-legal-height-limits-map/
Legal height for most of the Eastern US is 13' 6". Most of the Western half is 14' even. There's states in the middle with 14' 6", and Alaska it's 15'. In other words...there's tractor trailers that are meant to only operate in certain areas in the US. The only one that works everywhere is the 13' 6" height. And the ones hitting the bridges aren't doing so with an oversized load. They're hitting it with the top of the box, even after lowering the suspension by letting out some of the air.
And the New York State Thruway from my example is absolutely intended for truck traffic, and one of the biggest routes for trucks in the state, running from NYC up to Albany before swinging west to Buffalo, covering hundreds of miles. Saying that's not intended for truck traffic is like saying a driveway isn't meant for parking cars.
And:
https://mckinneytrailers.com/semi-trailer-specifications
Relevant excerpt:
"Height: 13'6" or 14' High Cube"
And:
https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/publications/size_regs_final_rpt/index.htm#cmv
Relevant excerpt:
"There is no Federal vehicle height requirement for CMVs. Thus, States may set their own height restrictions. Most height limits range from 13 feet, 6 inches (4.11 meters) to 14 feet (4.27 meters), with exceptions granted for lower clearance on particular roads."
Last edited:
I deleted the rest of the quote, but there's the part, in your own reply, as this is the important one, the actual Federal stance on the matter. I did not in any way suggest that trucks that are taller do not exist. I stated that companies average them at 13'6" and this is a standard, and that there is a specific reason for such standard This continues to be the case.
The 14'0" trailers are, incidentally, purchased without the intention of having to go to older areas, or other areas of low clearance--specifically, they are generally considered "west coast trucks". While a state may allow a taller trailer, you'll struggle to find one---and when you do, its almost invariably because some big fleet dispatcher didn't know the difference and sent it's to a doom(you'll see it with the top peeled back on a bridge). In fact, the reason that the particular spot in New York occasionally sees a truck actually hit it is because 13'6" has been a standard for so long that drivers often don't even look at what trailer they're given and, as if that's not enough, that 14' tall trailer probably has many thousands of miles of 13'6" max clearance bridges under its belt so when it finally encounters one that actually means it, folks get surprised both at the dock and in the drivers seat.
So how do we equate that back to the T7? Basically, if the T7 where a 14'0 trailer in a 13'6" trailer type galaxy, it'd visit hundreds of outposts without incident, traveling thousands of light years in a circle around the edge of the bubble, despite clearance warnings claiming that was not possible. Then one day, it'd end up at an old colony outpost in Sol or Alpha Centauri or Perhaps the Lave area, and instead of using the Coriolis station that claims to be for truck traffic and by ignoring the "no trucks" sign on ole' Hutton, then discover that it'd found the one of the extremely rare clearances that it actually didn't fit like they'd said it wouldn't.
For us, this is a period of evolution. As lower clearances on the eastern seaboard are replaced with newer infrastructure, they will invariably find that slightly taller height and eventually conform to allow it to work(the inside dimension math on a 14' trailer vs. 13'6", with a basic working knowledge of shipping containers and pallets will self explain why). In game, however, this period of evolution does not appear to be the case anymore. The containerization is stabilized at the tonne container, and outposts do not offer a large pad in centuries of manufacture. If that period of evolution was not ongoing for us, western seaboard trucks would not be moving to a 14' form factor while leaving the older 13'6" form factor as a necessity for older infrastructure in the east---in other words, Lakon would not have made a ship that didn't fit where its competitors do without some sign that it would be usable in to compete in the first place, a sign that doesn't exist in the Elite world but does in the real one.
Boy this thread. To answer the original question, I strongly believe they intended it to be a medium ship because I bet FDev modeled the ship just large enough to fit the medium landing pad. Then they forgot they had landing gear. Instead of taking the time and effort to slightly remodel the ship, they said "eh screw it, to the large it goes!" I think this is about 90% of the reason why the game balance is Elite is so messed up.
And now it's this ship with no place in the game because of this. If it could land on mediums, it would actually contend with the Python. But because it can't, it's literally just a waste of time and effort for anybody who invests into it.
And now it's this ship with no place in the game because of this. If it could land on mediums, it would actually contend with the Python. But because it can't, it's literally just a waste of time and effort for anybody who invests into it.
This actually seems like a reasonable explanation as to why FDev made the Type 7 a large ship. I'm going to take a wild guess and say that the same thing happened to the Type 6 and small pads.
This raises even more questions about what the Lakon designers were thinking. The Type 6 can trace its lineage back to the 3100s in the form of the Lakon Transporter. If Lakon made the mistake of forgetting about the height of the landing gear when designing the Type 6, they probably wouldn't make the same mistake again when they were designing the Type 7 in 3290. It's almost as if the newest iteration of the Type 6 was designed at the same time as the Type 7....
Ultimately this is the real answer, and while we can justify to our hearts content why it should be addressed, this right here is the real reason that it should be. It's a simple screw up that's easily fixed, and even has piles of logic behind why it'd be a good idea. Not the first thread and unfortunately it probably won't be the last to look at this particular thing.
They should get more common as time goes by, though---at one time, the T7 had a whole lot less going for it than it does now. It used to range issues on top of heat issues on top of everything else(seriously, if you put something other than cargo slots in the size sixes at release full grade boosters it could dang near overheat just by hitting the boost). The way it sits now, it's actually a pretty good ship---it's a Python that can't fight.....or land on medium pads. Fixing that second one would really make it a complete package, leaving it as is kind of removes the niche potential of this thing---a niche that actually needs more ships, and with this one just hanging out, waiting for it to happen, it seems like a better choice than trying to design new ships into it.
Let’s do it FDev!
I don't agree with that, we all like different things. I fly a T-7 as my main ship. I find plenty of missions on offer, and I like that I can get a wide range of outfitting everywhere I fly, and lucrative passenger missions. It's like only being offered missions which require a large pad filter out the more limited stations for me. And that suits how I play the game.
I agree, I currently have the T-7 as my top ship as well - simply because that's all I can afford.
People that argue with the superior Python miss the little fact that you can outfit a T-7 for ~30mio cr, while a stock Phyton comes already at 56mio - even a transport build Python already comes at >90mio, with 25% less cargo space and less jump range; a proper multi-purpose Python is >200mio.....
But I still agree with the general vibe of the thread, that the large landing pad is a considerable letdown/oversight, significantly hampering the potential of an otherwise fine ship.
Last edited: