Modifying surplus ships.
- Thread starter spank
- Start date
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
Sure, but it's not a general property of LBB2 hulls, just a few of the most heavily discounted standard hulls.
In general LBB5 hulls are cheaper than LBB2 hulls.
It's really only the Scout and Free Trader (and variants), the only LBB2 ships possible with the two smallest standard hulls, that can benefit from that.
At 400+ Dt LBB5 ships can offset the standard hull discount with larger payload and/or bigger standard design discount, with the same LBB2 drives.
400 ton hulls are still a better deal in LBB2, they are discounted at 60% in LBB 2. And for most games you are going to want a smaller ship the passenger and cargo capacity are not going to be there to support a larger ship.So, LBB2 hulls.
The big flaw for LBB 2 hulls is the wasted space due to the fixed size engineering section.
Using the 1.1 x cost for minor modifications from TCS (p.34) to convert 20 dTons of fuel to cargo … the cost for the HULL is MCr 0.1 x 20 dT x 1.1 = MCr 2.2 of your missing MCr 2.982 (pretty close).
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
Take a basic LBB2 streamlined J-1 400 tonner (standard hull, standard design):
Code:
M1-4611111-000000-00000-0 MCr 63,2 400 Dton
bearing Crew=4
batteries TL=12
Cargo=261 Fuel=50 EP=4 Agility=1
Estimated Economy of Ship Standard No subsidy
Ship price Down Payment Mortgage Avg Filled
MCr 63,18 kCr 12 636 kCr 263 80%
Expenses per jump Revenue
Bank Cr 126 360 High Cr 0
Fuel Cr 25 000 Middle Cr 0
Life Support Cr 8 000 Low Cr 0
Salaries Cr 8 160 Cargo Cr 208 000
Maintenance Cr 2 527
Berthing Cr 400
Summa kCr 170 kCr 208
Income potential per jump kCr 38
Yearly yield on down payment 7,4%Compare with the same ship in LBB5 (custom hull, standard design):
Code:
M1-4611111-000000-00000-0 MCr 66,0 400 Dton
bearing Crew=4
batteries TL=12
Cargo=280 Fuel=50 EP=4 Agility=1
Estimated Economy of Ship Standard No subsidy
Ship price Down Payment Mortgage Avg Filled
MCr 65,98 kCr 13 195 kCr 275 80%
Expenses per jump Revenue
Bank Cr 131 952 High Cr 0
Fuel Cr 5 000 Middle Cr 0
Life Support Cr 8 000 Low Cr 0
Salaries Cr 8 160 Cargo Cr 224 000
Maintenance Cr 2 639
Berthing Cr 400
Summa kCr 156 kCr 224
Income potential per jump kCr 68
Yearly yield on down payment 12,9%Sure, it is MCr 3 more expensive due to the hull, but it also has 20 Dt more payload, so it is cheaper per Dt payload and cheaper to operate per Dt payload, hence more profitable...
With J-2 the they have the same payload, but the LBB5 ship is cheaper, due to the higher standard design discount.
Last edited:
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
A stripped LBB2 400 ton cargo haul, similar to what you seem to have built is going to come in at about 60 MCr,
An LBB5 equivalent is going to be close to 80MCR,
If you use Book 2 drives in a Book 5 hull you can end up with a ship cheaper than a Book 2 ship.
But that's largely down to the greater LBB5 discount compounding on the total ship cost, not the Hull cost.
In the end the extra discount for LBB5 designs and the ability to use LBB2 drives in LBB5 Hulls do make it possible to make a complete ship cheaper, but only just.
An LBB5 equivalent is going to be close to 80MCR,
If you use Book 2 drives in a Book 5 hull you can end up with a ship cheaper than a Book 2 ship.
But that's largely down to the greater LBB5 discount compounding on the total ship cost, not the Hull cost.
In the end the extra discount for LBB5 designs and the ability to use LBB2 drives in LBB5 Hulls do make it possible to make a complete ship cheaper, but only just.
Attachments
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
I made it streamlined to make it usable.
Code:
M1-4611111-000000-00000-0 MCr 63,2 400 Dton
bearing Crew=4
batteries TL=12
Cargo=261 Fuel=50 EP=4 Agility=1
Spoiler:
Unless you use the same LBB2 drives, with a more expensive streamlined hull...
Code:
M1-4611111-000000-00000-0 MCr 65,9 400 Dton
bearing Crew=4
batteries TL=12
Cargo=280 Fuel=50 EP=4 Agility=1
Spoiler:
Quite, that is the offsetting factor.
A flattened sphere is -20% cost, and base cost is 40MCr, so 32 MCR, not 20 MCr. You should be using a Closed Structure, which offers the best discount of the LBB5 Hulls, -40% or 24 MCr, unless you are willing to forego streamlining. Even then it's only partially streamlined, so that precludes landing on a planet. The only way you are going to get the hull cost down to 20MCr is to use a dispersed structure, which is completely un streamlined.
If you want to be able to land on a planet, which the LBB2 hull can, you are going to be restricted to Cone or Wedge which cost 44 or 48 MCR respectively.
The only way a LBB5 400 ton hull will be cheaper than a LBB2 hull is by sacrificing some capabilities.
If you want to be able to land on a planet, which the LBB2 hull can, you are going to be restricted to Cone or Wedge which cost 44 or 48 MCR respectively.
The only way a LBB5 400 ton hull will be cheaper than a LBB2 hull is by sacrificing some capabilities.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
Flattened sphere is fully streamlined. Close Structure is partially streamlined.
I want fully streamlined, so I don't have to faff about with small craft, which would be even more expensive.
LBB5'80, p23:
The LBB2 standard hulls are not streamlined at all by default, it has to be added at MCr 1/100Dt.
I don't care if the hull component is cheaper, I care if the ship is cheaper or more usable.
But in the end, the LBB5 ship is more expensive, and the extra cargo space doesn't necessarily offset that. On the same route, with the same cargo both ships will net the same revenue and the LBB2 design's lower cost will win out.
Artificially restricting the LBB2 design to 208 tons of cargo while the LBB5 design gets to carry 228 Tons is not an apples to apples comparison. Both ships will take as much of the available cargo as possible, only time the LBB5's greater cargo capacity will matter is when there is more than 261 tons of cargo available. In that case the LBB2 ship will go full, and the LBB5 will carry 261-280 tons of cargo. Then, and only then will the LBB5 design net more revenue. But again, with it's greater cost it will need to be fuller than 261 tons, it will need to carry something like 272+ tons to make the same profit as the LBB2 design at 261 tons.
Artificially restricting the LBB2 design to 208 tons of cargo while the LBB5 design gets to carry 228 Tons is not an apples to apples comparison. Both ships will take as much of the available cargo as possible, only time the LBB5's greater cargo capacity will matter is when there is more than 261 tons of cargo available. In that case the LBB2 ship will go full, and the LBB5 will carry 261-280 tons of cargo. Then, and only then will the LBB5 design net more revenue. But again, with it's greater cost it will need to be fuller than 261 tons, it will need to carry something like 272+ tons to make the same profit as the LBB2 design at 261 tons.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
LBB5 has another trick that my spreadsheet included by default: Fuel purifier.
The LBB5 ship is kCr ~5.5 more expensive mortgage per jump, but it saves kCr 20 per jump on unrefined fuel without risk of misjump.
So, the LBB5 ship has more payload space and is cheaper to operate... See the spoilers four posts up.
With LBB5, you can just make the ship a little bit smaller and cheaper if you don't need that much payload space. With LBB2 you are locked in to the fixed size of the standard hull.
Similar threads
