Starfield Tips | SAL-6830 vs DT230 Engines
Vložit
- čas přidán 18. 11. 2023
- Starfield gameplay with DeLindsay. In hopes to finally put to rest the debate between which heavy Class C Engines are superior for heavier loads, I made this video to showcase the difference between the 2 Engines. The SAL-6830's provide 480 additional Mass that you can use for Cargo volume or anything else you chose. That 480 takes into account the difference in Engine weight.
DT230: 2817 Mass maximum before dropping below 100 Mobility.
SAL-6830: 4275 Mass maximum before dropping below 100 Mobility.
inara.cz/starfield/ship-modul...
Get Starfield on Steam: store.steampowered.com/app/17...
Bethesda Game Studios: bethesdagamestudios.com/
_______________
Patreon: / delindsaygaming
Help me grow (PayPal Donate): www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted...
Instagram: / delindsaygaming
_______________
#starfield #bethesda #microsoft - Hry
If there's a video you'd like me to make please comment below. Feel free to thumb up if you liked it, thumb down if you didn't, Sub if my Content is of interest to you and check the description if you want to donate to help my channel grow, thanks for stopping by!
I’d love to see one on companion related ship perks and the most effective crew to have and one on the best min/max setup for ship building and weapons
@@patrickdavis4442 Those are tough to showcase other than the clearly obvious like gaining 1 green bubble of power in Engines for having Sam Coe as example. I'm not even certain anyone has definitively determined the EXACT effect from Crew for 1, 2, 3, 4 Stars. My best guess has always been 5% per Star but I have nothing to back that up.
That paint job on the "pirate ship" looks awesome! I don't know if it's just the angle but the red almost looks metallic.
Thank you, I'm still tweaking it before doing a video on what I changed.
Thank you for putting this comparison together. I’ve gotten many comments on the Basilisk by viewers saying the ship would be better off with class A engines. They’re just plain wrong. 6830’s are king for class C. Period.
If you NEED to carry big weight around, the 6830's are indeed the King.
@@delindsay cheers man, keep up the good work!
I went with the SAL-6830s on my main ship not for the cargo, but because I could run 6 of them and boost up my crew capacity - that extra 0.5 capacity from the two extra engines, when coupled with my other stuff, added one more crew member for me.
Indeed, the extra Crew from (2-3) additional Engines does help.
It may not be appropriate, but it makes sense to me as acceleration vs torque when you look at, say, automobiles. The DT230s are your sports car engine. Great in acceleration and getting up to your top speed, but you wouldn't want to connect a fifth wheel to your Lambo. On the other side, larger truck engines may not have the same acceleration or even top speed, but you can hook up your 31 ft trailer and pull it up a 9% grade hill. Slowly, but it will pull it.
That's pretty accurate I'd say.
@@delindsayYep. Then there's us lunatics who put Merlins in touring cars. 😁
@@mikestanmore2614 Hehe.
@@mikestanmore2614 Or take the Rolls-Royce M250 out of a Sikorsky and mount it on a motorbike
@@TenNoZeorymer72 I've applied that mentality to Starfield ship design. 🙂
Thank you bunches, finally I have a proof to refer to when people tell me I'm wrong and DT230 is the best overall engine because most of them can't count.
You're welcome and I get it, the DT230's have massive thrust and the SAL-6830's weigh a crap ton but some I think just don't actually do the math behind it.
I will often use 2 of the DT230 and one of the SAL-6830. That gives nearly the maneuver thrust of the 3 DT230s while only using 10 bars of power. If I upgrade from that, I usually go to 5 of the 6830. The 2 bars saved on the engines are what I have free to put in the grav drive after maxing out shields and 2 weapon systems. It really depends on what you want your power allocation to look like and what skills and crew you have.
I just wish the Class C Slayton engines kept the design look of the Class A and B engines. I'd rather have a 1x3 or 1x4 engine instead of a 2x2. It would allow for sleeker Class C design and make certain RP builds look closer (I did a VT-49 Decimator once and wasn't happy with how the fantail looked).
That's a smart idea!
Well, on paper the Slayton engine wins, period. The "Non-issue" here is design. Building a ship that looks descent with any of the C-Class monstrosities, including reactor and grav-drive, is a challenge in itself, especially using "only" the 6 Slayton C-Class engines. Minmaxing the ship's stats is not even that useful, later on in the game anyway. Past level 60, certain quests or perks? It becomes irrelevant imo. Now, i always end up mixing different engines(A, B and C-Class) on my ships, so they don't look boring to me.
"Pro-Tip": Go for the look and feel, not the stats. Sadly you wont have more fun with the shipbuilder once you are past the constrains of piloting 4 and starship design 4. Since there are still parts to unlock 'till level 60. Certain parts become useful at certain levels only to become irrelevant 5 levels later. Hmmm?...don't be sad, it's about the journey not the destination, right? Right.
The most fun i had with the shipbuilder was, adding parts to the Frontier with, not enough credits, no starship design perk and no idea what's useful. It was hilarious but it felt like i had accomplished something.😂
The Space Buick still looks like the tastiest burger when it comes to Stroud-Eklund, well done.
Lol on the tastiest burger comment. And you aren't wrong, always looking at Stats instead of appearance can make for dull Ship designs.
I agree with you on mobility. It's irrelevant for cargo haulers, but you want something more mobile to get around in.
They've taken some weird routes to game balance in a lot of the ship design (well, the whole game at times, to be honest). The weight of cargo pods vs their capacity for one!
It's a bit off topic for this video, but I'd have liked to see cargo habs provide accessible storage (say 500 or 1,000 units per 1×1 area), just like cockpit cargo, and cargo pods provide bulk storage (usable only for cargo hauling contracts or resources).
It seems perfectly logical to have 'Storage' Habs give Cargo capacity.
@@delindsay Especially when cockpits do!
@@mikestanmore2614 Right? Make it make sense BGS!
I always tried to convince myself that the reason why pods aren't balanced between mass and capacity is that each pod is self-sufficient (iow its own gravity field, environmental controls, inertia cancelling). However, a 3x3 cargo hab SHOULD have a couple 1000 mass storage boxes in it and not just be aesthetic fluff. Or, at least, a multiplier to total cargo capacity (1x1 = 10%, 2x2 = 40%, 3x2 or 2x3 = 60% and 3x3 = 90%). But who are we to demand logic, physics and common sense into a video game, right?
@@TenNoZeorymer72 I think there's a certain value in SOME realism, even in a video game about Space that we as Humans barely have an understanding for.
Making the 2x2 and larger Cargo bays give the Ship Cargo volume is perfectly reasonable.
I went back and forth on these 2 for a while before I finally worked the difference in mass. Sal felt like a lot of weight for what you were getting but extra mass they can move translates to extra cargo and that's always good so finally decided on SAL. Then realised they only attach one way and my ship is 3 wide by 3 high. Tried a few setups and moving the docker around but couldn't get it quite right. So now my ship has wings and DTs. Deimos wings because if I had the Novas I wanted I have to lose some windows 😆
Yeah, it's kind of annoying that certain Engines attach from the front only, others from the side only, etc.
The SAL's are better on paper, but, as you stated, the DT's are far more cost effective, as they offer a far better performance-to-price ratio, and also take up significantly less space on your ship, which can be a real problem in some builds (more below)... For the SAL's to be better, they absolutely have to be on a 2-to-1 ratio, otherwise, they are an inferior engine, limiting building options...
Another factor not covered here is the length of the SAL's compared to the DT's, as they're somewhat longer, meaning that the DT's fit into a smaller space length-wise as well, and I have, on numerous occasions, run into problems with the SAL's pushing my ship length over the length limit because they are just that little bit too long to fit into some builds, requiring significant remodelling to incorporate the SAL's, yet the DT's would otherwise fit without issues...
Indeed, that's why I repeated numerous times that the SAL's are really only "worth it" if you have the money to spend and Ship design to fit them. I wanted to be as impartial about the 2 Engines as I could be and I personally use both for different situations. That said, if you need high Mobility AND large Cargo volume, the SAL's are in fact the winner.
@@delindsay there's always mixing and matching too, as I'm running 2 of each on my current ship, namely as it was the best fit for a triangular ship build, with the DT's on the outer edge, and the SAL's in the center... It was a good balance of performance, without the ship becoming too bulky...
@@ImRuined666 There you go. And save yourself a crap load of Credits too.
I actually use the A class SA's even on my C-class's. 6 of them still allows a decent amount of mass and keeps your speed at 150 before perks. I think my current build with them has almost 4k cargo capacity and 80 mobility. Not 100, but close and the extra speed is nice.
Un how is 80 clos to 100 its almost as close to 50
@@cpeaze3079 If you think that you're obviously daft. Check the yaw and pitch difference between 50 and 80.
To be fair, 80 Mobility really isn't bad at all, especially with 4K cargo and Class A Engines.
80 is a pretty good spot for mobility. For me, I've barely a noticed the difference unless you're using maneuvering thrusters for a while.
Agree that the SALs are better. But mobility is sooo overrated... I just have particle auto turrets pointing at the back and sides and can obliterate anything even with 0 mobility. Running 57k cargo.
I can as well. Hell I've gotten to the point of only running 2 banks of Particles (if Class C Oblit Turrets for sure) because the damage output is insane. That said, there are people still arguing that the DT230's will "carry" more than the SAL-6830's, hence the video.
Nothing looks like the 6830s. The rest makes you look like another dude at the bustop.
Also even though both are 100 mobility does the lower mass increase maneuverability or make a difference
That's more difficult to answer but I do suspect that a lower total Mass allows for faster acceleration to max speed. I can't prove that, and it could be placebo but it sure "seems" like that's true.
Why maximum speed 130?
It's a built in class limitation. Class A (being small and lightweight in theory) has a max speed of 150 km/s, Class B maxes at 140 km/s and Class C (the heaviest) is 130. Could theoretically also say that it is a safety measure. Heavier you are, lower your max speed else you cause far more damage if you should hit something (although velocity has a far higher impact to kinetic energy). 130 speed is just under 336,000 mph (just under Mach 44). This is about 80% of what the current Parker Solar Probe is making.
What @TenNoZeorymer72 said.
You can use A class engines on C-class ships. I use 6 of the A class SA's and get full 150 speed and still have 4k storage. I prefer more speed at the trade-off of slightly less cargo, plus as a previous commentor said, they just look better.
@@1Bearsfan Correct. It comes down to what is the size of your reactor. If you have a Class A reactor, you can only use Class A components. Class B reactor means Class A or Class B. You can go lower but not higher.
@@TenNoZeorymer72 Exactly. A lot of class C things are traps. Don't assume something's better just because it's class C. Many of the best are lower class. For example, the ship I was talking about earlier uses class C particle turrets, but class A Vanguard particle beams that are great because you can run 6 and I have a couple class a EM weapons on there for ship stealing.
All I know is if I start putting those big engines in my ship my mobility and speed starts dropping. I run 6 B type engines. I forget what they're called but the ones that have top bottom and middle with one big hole and one little one, snicker snicker.
Sorry I'm old but my sense of humor is twelve 😂😂😂
B Engines have a higher speed than C Engines, regardless of total Ship Mass. That's the obvious reason why you'd see an increase in speed.
@@delindsay I been screwing around and I can't really see the benefit of C engines. I guess I'm just missing it but regardless of what mass my ship is, the C engines just seem to be a worse choice. They don't seem to add enough thrust to counter their weight.
@@wolfhors3_660 To be fair, 10 speed isn't really all that much. I guess it all comes down to how YOU enjoy playing. If Class B Engines work for you and you're happy with them & the design of the Ships you create then great!
@@delindsay I guess my question is what reason would you have to use them.
I can't see any benefit to weighing my ship down, slowing it down, lowering it's mobility to use a C engine when I can do the same thing much better with B engines. Is it just an aesthetic or am I missing something?
@@wolfhors3_660 Cargo volume. You simply can't get a high amount of Cargo hold without using either of these 2 specific Engines, with the SAL-6830's being the king of weight. 4275 mass while still having 100 Mobility nets you around 7200 Cargo without Talents/Sam Coe. That turns into over 10K Cargo fully Talented & Sam Coe as a Crew member.