Hello Toad 😁 I didnt know if you knew, but you never want to use a D rated Power Plant. Use A rated one size smaller, as is lighter, produces more power, and runs cooler. 😎 o7
Fully engineered SCO drive is always better than regular FSD and mostly better than V1 FSDs. You don't need to use overcharge feature all the time, however, it grants you the ability to fastly accelerate to save time.
@@ElMundoDeHadesOK as I said do not use it always. To accelerate from the star or the planet surface or to cover humble 1000s of Ls. The fuel consumption in these cases is almost invisible. SCO is a real time saver.
@@AnotherOne-Retro-Paladin Spot on, I've tested a Class A engineered SCO drive v a V1 FSD and there is a minor difference. There's no reason not to equip an SCO drive over a normal or V1 FSD.
As an exploration ship the python mk 2 is a fail. Completely outclassed by the Phantom and even the DBX. Simply to few optional internals to be anything other than a combat ship. My viewpoint is that even as a combat ship it is constricted by the class 6 power plant and distributer and no military slots for hull / module reinforcement. Not for me.
As far as exploration goes these days, with the support of a fleet carrier it's absolutely viable to use any ship you want for exploration. You can pick the ship you enjoy flying and tailor that to do what you want to do with it. They obviously have strengths and weaknesses, but you don't need to min/max to have fun. I use a Cobra for exploration and exobiology. I find the size of the ship and the three landing gear make it a little easier to land in difficult locations... but more importantly it's a ship I enjoy flying.
@@cmdrhatch Not everyone has one of those. I always wondered if I should buy one since the day carriers launched, but I ended up never needing one. But the reason for that is I have tons of discord servers on my watch list where they post carrier schedules, and just get a ride around the galaxy. But good idea tho.
Hm. Max Scoop always means a sprinter. Fast going from system to system. And while you can explore in such a ship a dedicated exploration ship do not need the ability to run around that way. I my eyes the way you built it it is meant to compete with ships like DBX, Conda and stuff. And for this job it is horrible.
I am not not impressed. I was expecting a fighter hangar, that would make the difference in combat role, the same as in the crate. And less 6 internals, :(. To me the ship looks like ill designed. On the surface more guns but seriously lacking in internal storage and a smaller grade 6 power distributor. for me it had to have instead of 4 a 5 internal with the possibility of a fighter hangar. Also the ship has a heavier hull mass despite having less possibilities for internals storage. I see it as a plasma build and those plasma are going to hurt. In competent hands it would be an effective ship but it is for another ship. It is not python anymore. They had to have a python with capacity for fighter carrier.
@@JG27Korny It's an alternative to the FDL. And it was redesigned to handle the SCO FDS's, which most likely why it has the internals it does. The Mk1 didn't have room for a fighter hanger, so no reason to expect the Mk2 to have one.
@@FireytoadIt's important to remember that the internal space mechanics in Elite: Dangerous aren't a true simulation. For instance, the Keelback can accommodate a fighter hangar, but the Python cannot, despite the Python being a larger ship. The difference likely boils down to just a few lines of code: # Keelback ship_name = "Keelback" fighter_hangar = True # Python ship_name = "Python" fighter_hangar = False In a fully accurate simulation, this discrepancy wouldn't exist, as the internal space calculations would reflect the actual dimensions and layout of each ship."
Analytics!
Hello Toad 😁
I didnt know if you knew, but you never want to use a D rated Power Plant. Use A rated one size smaller, as is lighter, produces more power, and runs cooler. 😎
o7
Aye, I did know that ;) I was kinda in a rush doing it; ;)
Pretty ship but lacks a decent fuel tank, I got rid of the SCO drive I’m in no hurry to get to places
Fully engineered SCO drive is always better than regular FSD and mostly better than V1 FSDs.
You don't need to use overcharge feature all the time, however, it grants you the ability to fastly accelerate to save time.
@@AnotherOne-Retro-Paladin with the not so little caveat ..OF 200 TIMES THE FUEL CONSUMPTION
@@ElMundoDeHadesOK as I said do not use it always. To accelerate from the star or the planet surface or to cover humble 1000s of Ls. The fuel consumption in these cases is almost invisible.
SCO is a real time saver.
@@ElMundoDeHadesOK Like I said in the video, you'd need to keep an eye on your fuel/heat. It's about using it in a controlled manner :)
@@AnotherOne-Retro-Paladin Spot on, I've tested a Class A engineered SCO drive v a V1 FSD and there is a minor difference. There's no reason not to equip an SCO drive over a normal or V1 FSD.
As an exploration ship the python mk 2 is a fail. Completely outclassed by the Phantom and even the DBX. Simply to few optional internals to be anything other than a combat ship. My viewpoint is that even as a combat ship it is constricted by the class 6 power plant and distributer and no military slots for hull / module reinforcement. Not for me.
As far as exploration goes these days, with the support of a fleet carrier it's absolutely viable to use any ship you want for exploration. You can pick the ship you enjoy flying and tailor that to do what you want to do with it. They obviously have strengths and weaknesses, but you don't need to min/max to have fun. I use a Cobra for exploration and exobiology. I find the size of the ship and the three landing gear make it a little easier to land in difficult locations... but more importantly it's a ship I enjoy flying.
@@cmdrhatch Not everyone has one of those. I always wondered if I should buy one since the day carriers launched, but I ended up never needing one. But the reason for that is I have tons of discord servers on my watch list where they post carrier schedules, and just get a ride around the galaxy. But good idea tho.
Hm. Max Scoop always means a sprinter. Fast going from system to system. And while you can explore in such a ship a dedicated exploration ship do not need the ability to run around that way. I my eyes the way you built it it is meant to compete with ships like DBX, Conda and stuff. And for this job it is horrible.
It was never mean to compete with the DBX, Asp X etc. It's an option for players who might be using a FC as a mobile base.
I am not not impressed. I was expecting a fighter hangar, that would make the difference in combat role, the same as in the crate. And less 6 internals, :(. To me the ship looks like ill designed. On the surface more guns but seriously lacking in internal storage and a smaller grade 6 power distributor. for me it had to have instead of 4 a 5 internal with the possibility of a fighter hangar. Also the ship has a heavier hull mass despite having less possibilities for internals storage.
I see it as a plasma build and those plasma are going to hurt. In competent hands it would be an effective ship but it is for another ship. It is not python anymore. They had to have a python with capacity for fighter carrier.
@@JG27Korny It's an alternative to the FDL. And it was redesigned to handle the SCO FDS's, which most likely why it has the internals it does. The Mk1 didn't have room for a fighter hanger, so no reason to expect the Mk2 to have one.
@@FireytoadIt's important to remember that the internal space mechanics in Elite: Dangerous aren't a true simulation. For instance, the Keelback can accommodate a fighter hangar, but the Python cannot, despite the Python being a larger ship. The difference likely boils down to just a few lines of code:
# Keelback
ship_name = "Keelback"
fighter_hangar = True
# Python
ship_name = "Python"
fighter_hangar = False
In a fully accurate simulation, this discrepancy wouldn't exist, as the internal space calculations would reflect the actual dimensions and layout of each ship."
@@Fireytoad
Keelback:
{
...
"fighter_hangar": true,
...
}
Python:
{
...
"fighter_hangar": false,
...
}
Boop