Python/Class 6 thruster issue? (Devs please have a look)

[Mike Evans]

The thrusters are working as intended. The difference in optimised masses and the mass of the ship itself when fitting various thrusters can result in non intuitive results. At the end of the day if you're more under the optimal mass then the C will provide more of a benefit than the D one. Likewise if you're over the optimal mass the C won't punish you as much as the D one will. Also the C has a higher integrity rating so that it can take more punishment before failing.

 

[Arkku]

At the end of the day if you're more under the optimal mass then the C will provide more of a benefit than the D one. Likewise if you're over the optimal mass the C won't punish you as much as the D one will.

If I understand this correctly, you are saying that C should be better than D both when the ship is under and when it is over the optimal mass, so how come the OP gets worse results for C than for D?

 

[Roadblock]

The thrusters are working as intended. The difference in optimised masses and the mass of the ship itself when fitting various thrusters can result in non intuitive results. At the end of the day if you're more under the optimal mass then the C will provide more of a benefit than the D one. Likewise if you're over the optimal mass the C won't punish you as much as the D one will. Also the C has a higher integrity rating so that it can take more punishment before failing.

If I understand this correctly, you are saying that C should be better than D both when the ship is under and when it is over the optimal mass, so how come the OP gets worse results for C than for D?

I tend to agree with this. If we assume the data on the shipbuilder is right (I can't run the game itself at the moment), then we have in my case:

D6: 521.6T / 1080T Optimal mass = 48.3% of optimal or 558.4T under optimal
C6: 569.6T / 1200T Optimal mass = 47.46% of optimal or 630.4T under optimal

Mike, this still seems off to me. Perhaps it's worth double checking there isn't a typo in the internal numbers someplace?

 

[Mike Evans]

I tend to agree with this. If we assume the data on the shipbuilder is right (I can't run the game itself at the moment), then we have in my case:

D6: 521.6T / 1080T Optimal mass = 48.3% of optimal or 558.4T under optimal
C6: 569.6T / 1200T Optimal mass = 47.46% of optimal or 630.4T under optimal

Mike, this still seems off to me. Perhaps it's worth double checking there isn't a typo in the internal numbers someplace?

Wow it's bloody good thing I checked the files rather than spreadsheets. Turns out a lot if not all C class thrusters have the wrong modifier values so you wouldn't be getting the benefit you expect. In the example you gave both should see the best modifier the thrusters can provide because they're both under the min mass the thrusters support so the C should be better because it would give you 10% increase to the performance. But it looks like it's giving 3% where the D is giving 6%!

I shall get this fixed asap but can't say when it will make it into the public build.

 

[Shintai]

Wow it's bloody good thing I checked the files rather than spreadsheets. Turns out a lot if not all C class thrusters have the wrong modifier values so you wouldn't be getting the benefit you expect. In the example you gave both should see the best modifier the thrusters can provide because they're both under the min mass the thrusters support so the C should be better because it would give you 10% increase to the performance. But it looks like it's giving 3% where the D is giving 6%!

I shall get this fixed asap but can't say when it will make it into the public build.

Super!

 

[Roken]

Wow it's bloody good thing I checked the files rather than spreadsheets. Turns out a lot if not all C class thrusters have the wrong modifier values so you wouldn't be getting the benefit you expect. In the example you gave both should see the best modifier the thrusters can provide because they're both under the min mass the thrusters support so the C should be better because it would give you 10% increase to the performance. But it looks like it's giving 3% where the D is giving 6%!

I shall get this fixed asap but can't say when it will make it into the public build.

+rep to Roadblock, nice to see

 

[Roadblock]

Wow it's bloody good thing I checked the files rather than spreadsheets. Turns out a lot if not all C class thrusters have the wrong modifier values so you wouldn't be getting the benefit you expect. In the example you gave both should see the best modifier the thrusters can provide because they're both under the min mass the thrusters support so the C should be better because it would give you 10% increase to the performance. But it looks like it's giving 3% where the D is giving 6%!

I shall get this fixed asap but can't say when it will make it into the public build.

Ah, you just made my day! Thank you very much!

On a side note, I've been a software developer for a long time, so I know how easily these sorts of small mistakes can make it into a product. In this case, something just 'felt' not quite right, so I wanted to double check it with some numbers and the numbers also looked a bit off to me. I really appreciate you taking time to investigate!

 

[Poseidal]

Wow it's bloody good thing I checked the files rather than spreadsheets. Turns out a lot if not all C class thrusters have the wrong modifier values so you wouldn't be getting the benefit you expect. In the example you gave both should see the best modifier the thrusters can provide because they're both under the min mass the thrusters support so the C should be better because it would give you 10% increase to the performance. But it looks like it's giving 3% where the D is giving 6%!

I shall get this fixed asap but can't say when it will make it into the public build.

Nice one!

 

[Mike Evans]

Ah, you just made my day! Thank you very much!

On a side note, I've been a software developer for a long time, so I know how easily these sorts of small mistakes can make it into a product. In this case, something just 'felt' not quite right, so I wanted to double check it with some numbers and the numbers also looked a bit off to me. I really appreciate you taking time to investigate!

All fixed and checked in. Must have been a case of me failing to update the numbers after a hasty copy paste job from the E class modules :S

 

[Roadblock]

All fixed and checked in. Must have been a case of me failing to update the numbers after a hasty copy paste job from the E class modules :S

Outstanding! Any idea if this change will get pushed before the maneuverability changes to the Python? Also, do you have any idea how substantial those changes might be? As I'm sure you guys have noticed, there's been a lot of people upset by the announcement. Personally, I've been waiting to see for myself until I judge, but I do hope that the changes don't make it too difficult to run fixed weapons. I do rather love 'dogfighting' in my Python .

 

[SnugglySocks]

All fixed and checked in. Must have been a case of me failing to update the numbers after a hasty copy paste job from the E class modules :S

Now you are going to have to issue a recall of all those faulty shield units and hand out new ones. The logistics of shipping them over even half of populated space is going to be a nightmare........ what you need is a large number of couriers to take the units where they need to go... ok, I'll do it for a few billion cr (think of my fuel costs)

 

[TheEponymousBob]

All fixed and checked in. Must have been a case of me failing to update the numbers after a hasty copy paste job from the E class modules :S

And all around the internet, thousands of programmers sigh and nod sagely...

 

[Brujah]

That's some seriously nice investigation work, Roadblock! Enjoy some rep!

Good work accepting that you might've actually made a mistake and getting it sorted, Mike.

 

[Mike Evans]

Outstanding! Any idea if this change will get pushed before the maneuverability changes to the Python? Also, do you have any idea how substantial those changes might be? As I'm sure you guys have noticed, there's been a lot of people upset by the announcement. Personally, I've been waiting to see for myself until I judge, but I do hope that the changes don't make it too difficult to run fixed weapons. I do rather love 'dogfighting' in my Python .

They'll be in the same update probably. The changes to the python is something like -17% to speeds, turn rates and accelerations, -33% to base shield strength roughly. This puts the flight model in a better place for a large fighting based ship and also leaves room for the other fighting ships to come so they can be more manoeuvrable than it. The python still has one of the best hard point placements when it can get its guns to bare on a target and it won't become a sitting duck either.

 

[Roadblock]

They'll be in the same update probably. The changes to the python is something like -17% to speeds, turn rates and accelerations, -33% to base shield strength roughly. This puts the flight model in a better place for a large fighting based ship and also leaves room for the other fighting ships to come so they can be more manoeuvrable than it. The python still has one of the best hard point placements when it can get its guns to bare on a target.

Thanks for letting us know! Hopefully this will stop some of the 'sky is falling' posts I keep seeing.

 

[Jorlin]

They'll be in the same update probably. The changes to the python is something like -17% to speeds, turn rates and accelerations, -33% to base shield strength roughly. This puts the flight model in a better place for a large fighting based ship and also leaves room for the other fighting ships to come so they can be more manoeuvrable than it. The python still has one of the best hard point placements when it can get its guns to bare on a target and it won't become a sitting duck either.

Ouch!

Well, i'll learn to adapt i think.
33%...wow...

 

[CmdrKull]

Ouch!

Well, i'll learn to adapt i think.
33%...wow...

I..... think I might hold off on buying the Python, and instead see what else is coming. I expected the big ship maneuverability changes. I specifically did not expect a 1/3 shield strength reduction. Ouch Indeed.

 

[LeoKesler]

I..... think I might hold off on buying the Python, and instead see what else is coming. I expected the big ship maneuverability changes. I specifically did not expect a 1/3 shield strength reduction. Ouch Indeed.

So, any python pilot still want a nerf in shield cells modules ?

 

[Conestoga]

I..... think I might hold off on buying the Python, and instead see what else is coming. I expected the big ship maneuverability changes. I specifically did not expect a 1/3 shield strength reduction. Ouch Indeed.

I wouldn't hold off. The ship is awesome. I (humbly) believe that Mike's revised numbers are just about right. The ship is so maneuverable it's almost fidgety to fly, and a little less isn't going to hurt much. Even with 1/3 less shields, it's still the most powerfully shielded ship in the game outside of the Anaconda. A class 6 shield equipped Python is about equivalent to a class 8 shielded Type 9 AFTER revision!

As he also said, the real power of the ship is the hard point placement. All class 3 weapons put out serious hurt. Three fixed in a cluster is almost wrong.

TBH, I expected them to strip a class 6 module on top of shield and maneuver nerfs...

 

[CATPAIN KIRK]

They'll be in the same update probably. The changes to the python is something like -17% to speeds, turn rates and accelerations, -33% to base shield strength roughly. This puts the flight model in a better place for a large fighting based ship and also leaves room for the other fighting ships to come so they can be more manoeuvrable than it. The python still has one of the best hard point placements when it can get its guns to bare on a target and it won't become a sitting duck either.

Whoa - luckily ship price isn't determined by supply and demand - otherwise the price would have plummeted by the time I get around to sell mine - guess it'll take a dumbfire Viper only one series of bursts to take it down.

Oh well - I'll find something else to fly...