Measured SCO Fuel/Hour and Speed Rates

[Osiliran]

Hello, long time lurker here, first time poster. I gathered performance data into a google sheets doc on the new SCO drive in all ships. I posted to reddit here and forgot that the ED forums were a thing. Posting here too in case there are forums-only CMDRs and there's interest in this. Google sheet is here. Note: the sheet is now obsolete due to a recent patch. See edit below. Sheet is now up to date as at patch 18.06 - 7/6/24.

Aim: The aim behind the testing was to see what capacity the drive truly had for long distance travel. What is the “best” ship for this?

Method: Prepping the ships involved buying new ships, removing weapons, equipping heat sinks, fitting the new SCO drive and maxing fuel capacity in optional slots. Core modules were left as is as their fuel/hour use was tiny in comparison to the SCO use (<0.04%~). Ships were then taken out to reach max speeds. In the sheet, the stats are split into two groups, one at 100% throttle and another at 0% throttle.

Stats
Speed (C): Originally pre-patch 18.06, the speeds recorded were approximately 50C from the observed max speed reached during testing. After re-testing in patch 18.06 for the new SCO FSDs, I recorded the very max speed observed. The variance across ships/FSDs at top speed was due to control interference.

Fuel per hour (tons): Pre-patch 18.06, recordings for fuel per hour were rounded to the nearest whole number. Re-testing in 18.06, resting super cruise fuel per hour was subtracted from the observed SCO fuel rate to determine the exact fuel per hour measure attributed by the SCO. This appears to be driven in part by the size of the core fuel tank size going by the data and has been consistent across patches.

(Fuel per hour)/speed: This is to check fuel efficiency. The lower the number, the better. The small ships perform quite well here due to smaller core fuel tanks and the higher speeds on lower class SCO FSDs.

(Fuel per hour)/speed/total fuel capacity: We take the fuel efficiency stat above and see how this rates against a ship’s capacity to carry fuel (core fuel tank + max optional fuel tanks). The higher the number, the better.

Top 5 Results (pre-patch 18.06, old FSD C):

Ship	Total fuel capacity (tons)	SCO max fuel/hour (tons)	SCO max speed (C) (within ~50C)	(Fuel/hour)/max speed	(Fuel/hour)/max speed/total fuel capacity
Federal Corvette	650	3,697	3,150	1.17	553.83
Imperial Clipper	266	2,034	3,450	0.59	451.18
Anaconda	502	3,697	3,150	1.17	427.73
Type-9 Heavy	854	7,393	3,150	2.35	363.87
Fer-de-Lance	80	925	3,850	0.24	332.97

Top result was the Corvette. Even though its speed was on the slower end, its capacity for fuel meant it could go the furthest when filled to max. The FDL was the best medium ship, mainly because its fuel tank size drove a smaller fuel consumption.

Hutton Orbital: Hutton was used as a test run for the Corvette to see how far in reality it could get on a maxed-out fuel tank. I got about 1.75M L/S before pulling the boost and made the rest of the trip in normal super cruise. This landed me a time of 1hr 5mins but of course I couldn’t land here, no large pads. Not an optimised run and lots of room for improvement but wasn’t the focus of the testing.

Thoughts and other observations:

• Heat was manageable with double sinking and refilling while boosting but was less manageable by ships with fewer utility slots.
• Heat generation from class 3C to 4C was a large 151% increase compared to the previous tier’s 20%. Probably because ships with access to 4C have a larger variety of heat profiles.
• Once, a test gave me two different results for fuel/hour and speed for the FDL. Turns out there was a lower speed and fuel/hour rate when throttled down to 0%. It is much more fuel efficient. I’ll aim to record these stats too.
• I can’t access the Cobra Mk IV. I’ll presume it behaves the same as the Mk III but if someone could verify, that’d be great.
• Changes in module loadout didn’t appear to affect any stats recorded, i.e. equipping a smaller core fuel tank didn’t change the fuel/hour.
• More work is needed in determining how fuel rates and true top speeds are calculated.

Edit – 21/4/24: In reference to the FPS-Heat generation issue, I've tested 5 different ships at various FPS intervals, 30, 45, 60. No impact to speed and F/H recorded rates. 22/5/24: The FPS-heat issue never appeared to affect any measure but was fixed in patch 18.04.

Edit 2 - 27/4/24: I’ve added recorded stats for the 0% throttle speed state. Fuel efficiency increased across the board. Sidewinder still has the best fuel efficiency bar none.

Edit 3 – 22/5/24: There is a method of locking a speed and fuel/hour state any where between the max rates and 0% throttle rates. This is done by setting 100% throttle, then setting 0% throttle to start the deceleration, and then setting 50% throttle to “lock” in a speed and fuel/hour rate of the desired value. The opposite method also produces this (eg. starting at 0% instead). I’ve cleaned up the OP to be more data driven. I’ve also marked the google sheet obsolete as the rates have now changed as at patch 18.04.

Edit 4 - 07/06/24: The FSD SCO fuel and speed rates have been updated in the google sheet across all combinations of ships and FSD ratings as of patch 18.06. The google sheet is no longer marked as obsolete. Added approximate formula for determining fuel per hour rates: fuel per hour = 120 * (FSD class constant * FSD rating constant * ship constant * 2^(core fuel tank size) * throttle constant). The constant values can be found further in the thread and in the google sheet's values tab on the far right. Updated the Working Distance tab to have a drop down menu to select ship, FSD rating and throttle % to calculate approximate travel distance on a maxed tank; for the drop down menu to work, you'll need to save your own copy. Added speed observations.

Edit 5 - 08/08/24: Added fuel and speed values across all ratings for the new Type-8. Type-8 has been added to the data validation and users can now plug the Type-8 into the working distance tab.

Edit 6 - 22/10/24: Added a tab to summarise the Mandalay early access information and made room for its data in the SCO data sheet. Planning to add a 'verified by' column so users know who was responsible for testing and/or verifying the data. This is for the sake of data-accountability. After studying the Mandalay, I would say there are three ship-specific factors in total for SCO use, one for heat generation, one for speed, and one for fuel per hour.

Edit 7 - 01/11/24: Added SCO performance data for the Mandalay. Patch notes indicated that SCO sound effects for ship missing theirs has been corrected. I'll return to this soon to see they've all been included.

Edit 8 - 15/12/24: Added SCO performance data for the Cobra Mk V. General tidy up of tabs. Removed or grouped away columns offering information that was not driving any data points. Modified the working distance tab to show total estimated time and distance under a core fuel tank and added a cell for the user to add their own desired amount of fuel to test times and distances. Removed the column where ships were being rated based on their total distance in light hours and replaced this with total distance under that specific FSD rating with a core fuel tank.

Edit 9 - 15/04/25: Added SCO performance data for the Corsair. Action points on hold until time permits.

Edit 10 - 24/07/25: Added SCO performance data for the Panther Clipper Mk II. Other actions points are still on hold for now.

 

[Flimley]

Very nice

Flimley

 

[HappyMoonMonkey]

That fuel usage is determined by the default fuel tank is a revelation. Good science!

 

[Alec Turner]

Amazing stuff! And thanks for re-posting on the forums.
I'll give this fantastic bit of work a shoutout on Lave Radio tomorrow night if that's OK?

 

[Three Stars]

During my testing, I noticed some odd behavior where a test gave me two different results for F/H and speed for the FDL. I found out, like regular supercruise, you can throttle back on your max SCO speed which impacts your total F/H. There's only two speed and F/H states you can throttle into, the first between 0%-50%, and the second (max) between 51%-100%. For example, the Corvette when throttled back hits a slower speed of 2605C and a F/H of 2650/H. When compared to the "max" state, F/H increases by 42%, but speed only increases by 19%. The lower stat state is more fuel efficient and projects a distance until empty for the Corvette to 2.3M L/S! Albeit, with an extra 5 mins on top. I believe that distance is a third of the way to Hutton. I didn't employ this during the travel test I performed, but will retest with this in mind next time. Its important to note that I have only tested 5 ships in the "throttle test" and while the F/H change is consistent, speed is not between sizes! More testing needed here.

That might explain some discrepancies I noticed during my testing. I was starting from the frameshift version of a dead stop most of the time, but there were times when the heat would seem extra toasty. With retrospect, those might have been the times when I was doing a return journey and was already frameshifting along at full throttle.

Great work!

 

[Osiliran]

Amazing stuff! And thanks for re-posting on the forums.
I'll give this fantastic bit of work a shoutout on Lave Radio tomorrow night if that's OK?

Hi Alec, thanks very much and yes, no problem from me mentioning it on Lave Radio.

And thanks for the comments everyone! Three Stars, yes I found the heat was hard to pin at times and couldn't reliably tell if there was much of a difference in heat between stat states. Tricky stuff.

 

[Woakes]

I love the fact the small ships that are underused, like the sidewinder and Hauler, have the best fuel consumption rate (the very least) and also the highest speeds.
My trusty adder is still kicking mediocre backside as a fast but not quite so nimble ship.

 

[Three Stars]

You betcha. My Hauler is now my mission stacking shuttlecraft. I was able to overcharge between 3 different outposts, grabbing missions from each of them within the 10 minute mission server reset timer. It made the process go a lot faster.

For any combat ship that’s being primarily relocated by a carrier, slapping an SCO on there saves power for other modules, plus lets you get to the combat area of your choice faster.

 

[Decksmeck]

Hi all,
Long time lurker here, first time poster. I gathered performance data into a google sheets doc on the new SCO drive in all ships. I posted to reddit here and forgot that the ED forums were a thing. Posting here too in case there are forums-only CMDRs and there's interest in this. The reddit post is below. I've been told there are FPS-heat generation issues and I'm currently testing if that extends to any of the data I've collected. Cheers.

I love the new drive! So much so, I spent time today testing how it behaved with all ships. I've collected data into a google sheets doc for those who are interested in diving deeper with a link below and an explanation of my method.

Google sheet is here.

The aim behind the testing was to see what capacity the drive truly had for long distance travel. After spending so much time with the drive, its very apparent, now more than ever, that short distance boosting is the optimal use case. But, what about cases where long distance travel was necessary and the drive was put under continuous use? I wanted to find out what ship would be "best" for this scenario.

Recording the data involved buying new ships, removing weapons, fitting the new SCO drive and sufficient fuel to reach max speed and fuel consumption. Interestingly, changes in core and optional modules and ship mass didn't appear to affect any of the fuel or speed rates, so core modules were left as they were by default. Normal fuel per hour use is tiny compared to some of these SCO fuel consumption numbers (<0.04%~) so module changes I feel would be insignificant to the measurements. Once I determined a suitable ship, I would try a Hutton Orbital run. I've never been there, despite playing for years, but its certainly a good distance to try this experiment on.

Stats

Speed

Speed was consistent across all FSD classes. I believe the drive is capable of slightly higher speeds on paper but keeping the ships steady long enough for this to happen is too difficult in practice due to the control inference. The speed appeared to hover around +-50C on the recorded numbers when maxed out and were rounded for ease of use.

Fuel per hour

My best theory is that the size of the default fuel tank determines, at least in some part, the SCO F/H. Swapping the fuel tank core module out with a smaller one didn't affect the SCO F/H, so I suspect if it is tied to this, it's just to the capacity each ship has for that core module slot. This was mostly consistent while testing, save for some outliers with a size 2, 3, and 4 FT, although the results are very close together within those sizes.

F/H/Speed Ratio

This is to check fuel efficiency. The lower the number, the better. Unsurprisingly, the small ships perform quite well here due to smaller default (core) FTs and the higher speed stats on lower class SCO FSDs.

FHS/Fuel Capacity

Let's take the fuel efficiency stat and see how ships rate against their capacity to carry fuel (core module fuel tank plus any available space optional fuel tanks). The higher the number, the better.

Results

Top result is the F-Corvette, followed by the I-Clipper, Anaconda, and the Type-9. I initially thought the Type-9 would have made it into the top 2 at least due to its fuel capacity alone, but it has a larger FT (size 6) and so, its F/H consumption is double that of the large ships before it. The I-Clipper performs well as its got a small FT for a large ship with a decent optional fuel capacity. The Corvette and Anaconda hold the same SCO stats but the Ana is outclassed by the Corvette's higher fuel capacity. There were some surprises, like the FDL doing well for a medium ship and the Beluga having the highest F/H in the game at 14K/H (only ship with size 7 FT)!

Hutton Orbital

So, the Corvette was my choice here (no docking for me!). No ship in the game will hold enough fuel to carry you to Hutton Orbital on SCO alone, so it would need to be used at key moments. I thought if I could get at least 1.5M L/S away from the system's main body, that might let my ship fall into "normal" max supercruise speed, after which I could cruise on max or near max speed until I got to Hutton. The Corvette has plenty of utility slots, so I would cycle through double-sinks to manage heat below 100% and synthesize more during SCO. I calculated I'd reach a distance of 1.9M L/S before my tank ran out (working on spreadsheet) so I'd pull the boost at around 1.7M L/S from the main body.

In practice, sure enough, I wrestled with the joystick for roughly 8-10 mins and pulled the boost at 1.75M L/S, landing at a natural supercruise speed of 1650C~. I hit a max speed of 1844C before the secondary body near Hutton dragged my speed down. The speed drag from entering the next gravity well was something I didn't consider and I didn't have enough fuel (<5%) to push through it. This was a major time waste and SCO would have punctured through that gravity well easily. My total trip from the system's main body to the Hutton Orbital outpost was 1hr 5mins. Now, I don't know what's considered a record these days (I think racers prefer an outpost touchdown to count), but lots of room for improvement here by being more strategic and splitting the SCO periods.

Thoughts and other observations

Heat was quite manageable by double-sink cycling but sinks were getting slightly thin toward the end of the SCO. Premium sinks filling the full sink capacity (modified/engineered) would fix this, rather than just the basic synthesis filling the standard amount. During testing, some ships needed a triple sink to keep below 100% heat (looking at you, Type-7) and other, smaller ships managed fine with a single sink.

I noticed on the SCO FSD stats that the heat generation from class 3C to 4C was a whopping 151% increase compared to 20% from the tier before. I can only assume its this way as class 4 FSD starts to open up to a larger variety of ships.

Travelling to a distance of 1.5M L/S from the system's main body to reach max natural supercruise speed isn't a tested number, but just anecdotal. If anyone has a tested distance or an explanation on more of this, let me know!

During my testing, I noticed some odd behavior where a test gave me two different results for F/H and speed for the FDL. I found out, like regular supercruise, you can throttle back on your max SCO speed which impacts your total F/H. There's only two speed and F/H states you can throttle into, the first between 0%-50%, and the second (max) between 51%-100%. For example, the Corvette when throttled back hits a slower speed of 2605C and a F/H of 2650/H. When compared to the "max" state, F/H increases by 42%, but speed only increases by 19%. The lower stat state is more fuel efficient and projects a distance until empty for the Corvette to 2.3M L/S! Albeit, with an extra 5 mins on top. I believe that distance is a third of the way to Hutton. I didn't employ this during the travel test I performed, but will retest with this in mind next time. Its important to note that I have only tested 5 ships in the "throttle test" and while the F/H change is consistent, speed is not between sizes! More testing needed here.

I can't test the Cobra Mk IV as I don't have access, but I'll presume based on its FSD and FT sizes it performs the same as the Cobra Mk III. If someone could test it, that would be great!

Requests

There's a lot of other processes here which touch on the experiment above, like heat mechanics, ship fuel usage calculations, unique ship features and behaviors, and so on, processes I'm ultimately not 100% familiar with. If you have some knowledge of these and you see something wrong, please sing out and I'll aim to either retest or correct. A ship's fuel tank (core module) determining the F/H usage is odd and alone wouldn't explain the handful of ships in the same FT size having different stats, so further investigation is required.

If anyone had time to sense-check my workings here (calculations, logic, approach, verification etc), that would be greatly appreciated. Cheers.

Edit: In reference to the FPS-Heat generation issue, I've tested 5 different ships at various FPS intervals, 30, 45, 60. No impact to speed and F/H recorded rates.

Does replacing the core FT with a smaller one make any difference? Can you put a 2 ton FT on a Beluga and reduce its consumption?

 

[CaptainPugwash]

Does replacing the core FT with a smaller one make any difference? Can you put a 2 ton FT on a Beluga and reduce its consumption?

Tried that, it won’t let you undersize.

 

[varonica]

Tried that, it won’t let you undersize.

Not according to my Phantom, it's got a size 4 fuel tank!

 

[Danieros]

I love that they found a way to make the small ships shine, even if it isn't often you'll reach max SCO speed.

 

[Osiliran]

Does replacing the core FT with a smaller one make any difference? Can you put a 2 ton FT on a Beluga and reduce its consumption?

It doesn't appear to affect the rate of consumption sadly.

Tried that, it won’t let you undersize.

That's interesting with the Beluga, I went to Coriolis and had a look. The ship builder has marked core FTs under size 4 as red which I assume means they cannot be fitted. I wonder if the fact its size 7 FSD needs more fuel than a size 3 is capable of holding to jump. On paper the I-Cutter appears to be the same. Probably a high fuel consumption for the size 7 FSDs that smaller tanks can't satisfy. I'm wondering then if there's plenty of optional FTs on the Beluga, will it let you undersize the FT to a size 1? There'd be enough fuel in reality on the ship... I'll test later unless someone else wants to have a go.

I'm planning on retesting all ships again to add in their second throttle state during SCO at 0% onto the google sheet. Might be hidden gems offering a much better fuel efficiency at the lower speed state.

 

[Flimley]

Would be nice for the SCO to be a small fixed module rather than a grade C FSD. (Such as the guardian FSD booster).

And so could be used to boost SC alongside any existing FSD of your choosing. Making all ships usable at anytime.


Flimley

 

[CaptainPugwash]

Would be nice for the SCO to be a small fixed module rather than a grade C FSD. (Such as the guardian FSD booster).

And so could be used to boost SC alongside any existing FSD of your choosing. Making all ships usable at anytime.


Flimley

Makes more sense to me too.
The current SCO FSDs seem to me to have possibly more boost than necessary but too many downsides as well.

 

[CaptainPugwash]

Not according to my Phantom, it's got a size 4 fuel tank!

Oops, sorry guys, I didn’t read the post properly, and thought they were talking about under sizing FSDs, rather than fuel tanks! So yeah you can of course fit a smaller fuel tank .

 

[Osiliran]

Would be nice for the SCO to be a small fixed module rather than a grade C FSD. (Such as the guardian FSD booster).

And so could be used to boost SC alongside any existing FSD of your choosing. Making all ships usable at anytime.


Flimley

Would love to see this. At the same time, I feel we have a lot of optional module "bloat" and having some QoL modules built into the core parts they affect would free up space, especially when considering the limited capacity in smaller ships.
Hopefully as the titan story continues we'll get the chance to improve upon this and see other options open up like SCO on higher rated FSDs.

 

[varonica]

Would love to see this. At the same time, I feel we have a lot of optional module "bloat" and having some QoL modules built into the core parts they affect would free up space, especially when considering the limited capacity in smaller ships.
Hopefully as the titan story continues we'll get the chance to improve upon this and see other options open up like SCO on higher rated FSDs.

The point of module choice (not module bloat) is they compel players to make choices and differentiate ships which otherwise would be all identical. If you want to use extra shield reinforcements then you opt to go without the advanced docking computer etc, these aren't bloat, they are deliberate decisions by the devs to differentiate ships.

 

[Osiliran]

The point of module choice (not module bloat) is they compel players to make choices and differentiate ships which otherwise would be all identical. If you want to use extra shield reinforcements then you opt to go without the advanced docking computer etc, these aren't bloat, they are deliberate decisions by the devs to differentiate ships.

Maybe bloat was a poor way to describe my thoughts on it. I'm all for player choice and compromising around it but I feel too much player choice is made in the optional module space. I'd like to see more choice on the components themselves, for example, having supercruise and docking assist directly on the FSD, but at the cost of power or LY range. This won't make sense for all modules but the choice for some I feel should be made there rather than as an optional module.

From the dev's perspective, maybe its better for most player choice to happen in the optional module space (I recall years ago they expanded this with extra slot 1s). Although, this is a first in a long time from memory that I have seen a compromise (choosing between modified FSDs or SCO) on the core modules themselves.

 

[varonica]

Maybe bloat was a poor way to describe my thoughts on it. I'm all for player choice and compromising around it but I feel too much player choice is made in the optional module space. I'd like to see more choice on the components themselves, for example, having supercruise and docking assist directly on the FSD, but at the cost of power or LY range.

They gave us free slots for those in small ships so no loss of jump range, if they combine them all into a single one I would expect them to take away the free slots they gave us to put them in, and you would end up with less available slots to individualise your ship, not more, and lesser jump range!