FSD jump efficiency: A practical study.

[Stealthie]

So, I decided to go for a canter around the galaxy and while I was away I noticed quite a few discussions about stuff related to FSDs and fuel-scooping.

I noticed that people always seem to calculate things based on 100% efficiency.
That is to say, if a ship can jump, say, 45Ly in one go, it always will.

I guess it's fine to use that as a means of comparing two different ships but, in practical terms, it doesn't hold water.
In a galaxy where, for example, the stars were all 40Ly apart, a ship with a 45Ly range would complete a given journey in exactly the same time as a ship with a 41Ly range because both ships would always be restricted to moving 40Ly per jump.
The extra jump range of the 45Ly ship wouldn't matter.

So, I was wondering whether it might be possible to get an idea of how this all works out in the ED universe.

I was flying a Sidewinder with a jump-range of 31Ly.
I logged data over 31,272Ly (not my full trip but that doesn't matter) and logged a total of 1,200 jumps.
And no. I didn't have anything better to do.

So, what did I find out?

Here's the summary...

Total distance traveled: 31,272 Ly
Theoretical jumps required: 1009
Total Jumps: 1,200
Average Jump distance: 26.06 Ly
Minimum Jump distance: 17.7 Ly
Maximum Jump distance: 28.7 Ly

So, let's stop for a second and evaluate those numbers.

On average, my ship was jumping 84% of it's maximum range.
The best it ever managed was 92% of it's range and the worst was 57% of it's range.
Overall, it took an "extra" 191 jumps to complete the distance beyond what it should have theoretically taken.
Which, unsurprisingly, also works out to 84% of optimal.

But wait! There's more!

I also looked at what percentage of my jumps were of a given range, with the following results.

None of my jumps were less than 50% range.
50% - 60%: 10
60% - 70%: 90
70% - 80%: 210
80% - 90%: 620
90% - 100%: 270

So, what does that tell us?

Well, the overwhelming majority of jumps are between 80% and 90% of maximum range.
It's interesting to see that 270 jumps were >90% maximum range but bear in mind that the maximum I ever achieved was 92% which means that ALL of those 270 jumps were between 90% and 92% of maximum range.

And what practical information (if any) can we take away from all this nonsense?

Well, it would seem that "84%" is the magic number.
If you have a ship with a 50Ly jump range and you plan on travelling 500 Ly you can assume that it's only going to be 84% efficient so it's going to take you 12 jumps to travel 500Ly rather than the theoretical 10.

Beyond that, I'd suggest that if you build a ship which is optimised for jump distance, you probably can afford to then load it up with extra stuff so the jump distance is reduced by around 10% without significantly reducing the time your journey is going to take.
So, for example, if you fit your AspX with 5D thrusters and it'll jump 45Ly, you can then replace those with 5A thrusters which might reduce the jump range to 43Ly without significantly increasing your journey time.

Bottom line: A ship that can jump 10% further isn't going to yield ANY advantage 80% of the time, and it's only going to have a 2% advantage 20% of the time.

Of course, that's all based on one pokey set of data from one pokey 30,000Ly wander.
Next time I'm off to Beagle Point to gather more data.


*EDIT*

Oh, one other thing that I found quite interesting was that getting closer to the core made no difference to the efficiency of jumps.
I would have thought that being in an area where the stars are more dense would mean being more likely to be able to jump further.
That turned out not to be the case though.
I guess the thing is, even though the stars are more dense, they're never so close together so as to allow you to jump to the "next" one.

 

[Elyssaen]

So, this is really interesting, and I'm glad to see more of this kind of analysis being done – it's really useful!

I do wonder, though, if the method of your analysis might be a little too one-dimensional. As in, literally so: by looking at a single series of jumps, you're essentially looking at space as if it was 1D. For me this was most evident at the end, when you said "never so close together so as to allow you to jump to the 'next' one". Because it's not really the 'next' one, it's a jump that's slightly further, slightly 'straighter' along your route, and on a different list of routes entirely.

In theory, a longer jump range could allow you to take a much straighter overall route, perhaps avoiding significant detours, and it could manage that much more efficient route even if it only uses that extra jump range 16% of the time.

I might put my money where my mouth is and try out a bit of empirical analysis myself, and something that should be much less work than your pretty damn impressive collation of data. It'd only be valid for star densities similar to the bubble, but here's the idea:

1. Pick X different destinations each close to 1000 ly away from my origin, which is a location in the bubble with a decent outfitters and a shipyard.
2. Have Y different ships, with very different potential jump ranges, available at the origin.
3. Choose Z different outfitting configurations for each of those jumps... most likely just E-A rated FSDs, but I might need to consider A+/A++ configurations with a) lightweight builds and then b) engineering, to look at the really extreme jump ranges.
4. Plot courses for every single ship and config (Y*Z) to every single destination (X), and record the number of jumps.
5. Then, in the other sense of the word 'plot', plot a graph of jump range vs. number of jumps for a 1000 ly trip.

It might agree with what you've got closely, but I can't be sure until I try!

 

[Minoo Minou]

I use economical routes most of the time. What's with the hurry?

 

[Stealthie]

So, this is really interesting, and I'm glad to see more of this kind of analysis being done – it's really useful!

I do wonder, though, if the method of your analysis might be a little too one-dimensional....

FWIW, the main thing I wanted to do was get some "real-world" data for how efficiently a spaceship can complete a journey in ED.

I keep seeing stuff about, for example, whether it's more cost-effective for a trader to scoop fuel or buy it or whether one fuel scoop/ship combination is more efficient than another and the fundamental shortcoming with these calculations (which is not to say they're completely useless. Far from it) is that they always seem to assume each ship is 100% efficient with it's jumping - because there's really no alternative.

Fundamentally, just cos 1 ship can jump, say, 10% further than another one, that doesn't mean it's going to complete a journey 10% more quickly than the other 'cos the stars won't be positioned in such a way that it'll always be able to make use of that 10% extra range.

I'll probably look at the data in more detail but, basically, it seems like if one ship has a jump range of within 16% of another, it's going to perform identically 80% of the time.
And, when the better ship does perform better, it's only going to be performing up to 8% better for the other 20% of the time.

The main reason all this stuff interests me is cos I keep wondering if it's better to ruthlessly min-max an exploration ship or whether there's wiggle room to fit some extras.
It seems like, if you have a stripped-down AspX which can jump, say, 45Ly then it's probably not going to matter if you reduce it's range by a couple of Ly by fitting better thrusters or even a couple of weapons.
As long as you don't reduce it's jump range by more than 16% (I'd probably stick to 10%, just to be on the safe side), it shouldn't make any practical difference... 80% of the time.

 

[Elyssaen]

You're absolutely right that 10% extra jump range doesn't mean 10% less jumps. But you're still talking in one dimension!

Toy example. Journey from A to B, 11 ly apart. We take a ship with a jump range of 10 ly and plot a course. The result is a 50 jump journey, as we have to navigate an enormous 'chasm' from the perspective of our 10 ly jumper. You record the length of the jumps you took: 7.6, 8.3, 7.3, 8.8, etc. You notice you never jump more than 9.2 ly, and conclude that:

Bottom line: A ship that can jump 10% further isn't going to yield ANY advantage 80% of the time, and it's only going to have a 2% advantage 20% of the time

Meanwhile, in our toy example, a ship with a jump range of 11 ly, 10% higher, can complete the journey 50 times faster, in a single jump.

This is a 'toy' because it's artificial, simple and (somewhat) extreme. But these situations absolutely happen. The advantage of a higher jump range is often that it can plot a straighter course, and to do that it only has to get over one chasm, using its higher range only once, to offer a significant advantage.

tl;dr: to get "real-world" data, plot the same A->B journey with different jump ranges, don't look at a single plotted route and see how far you go each step.

 

[DukeIronHand]

Good lord Cmdr you are my hero...
1) You voluntarily flew in a Sidewinder.
2) You made over 1,000 jumps in said Sidewinder.
3) You made a very interesting report. I'll have to read it again to fully absorb the numbers.
Thanks! And of course duly repped.

 

[Stealthie]

You're absolutely right that 10% extra jump range doesn't mean 10% less jumps. But you're still talking in one dimension!

Toy example. Journey from A to B, 11 ly apart. We take a ship with a jump range of 10 ly and plot a course. The result is a 50 jump journey, as we have to navigate an enormous 'chasm' from the perspective of our 10 ly jumper. You record the length of the jumps you took: 7.6, 8.3, 7.3, 8.8, etc. You notice you never jump more than 9.2 ly...

Yeah but you would notice that your 11Ly journey had taken 487Ly (or whatever) as you worked your way around that "chasm".
All I can say is that the parts I logged were intended to be "straight-line" journeys (I deliberately left out the bits where I went to nose at nebulas etc) and if that route took me around any "chasms" then that would (hopefully) reflect an "average" journey and the results would allow somebody to account for that possibility.
You raise a fair point, though.
A ship with a longer jump-range might be able to cross an expanse that a lesser ship would have to go "around". The difference wouldn't always be proportional.
What seems to be apparent, though, is that you'd need a ship with at least a 16% greater jump-range to make a significant difference.

Aside from that, one of the things I wanted to get an idea of was, basically, how close to optimal each individual jump is likely to be.
I mean, if I've got a ship that IS capable of jumping 31Ly (or whatever), how often does it get close to jumping that far or, conversely, how close to that does it get most of the time?
Obviously, that's always going to be dependent on the layout of the stars but all you can do is look at the data from the journeys you make and try to look for trends and averages etc.

 

[Mengy]

The main reason all this stuff interests me is cos I keep wondering if it's better to ruthlessly min-max an exploration ship or whether there's wiggle room to fit some extras.
It seems like, if you have a stripped-down AspX which can jump, say, 45Ly then it's probably not going to matter if you reduce it's range by a couple of Ly by fitting better thrusters or even a couple of weapons.
As long as you don't reduce it's jump range by more than 16% (I'd probably stick to 10%, just to be on the safe side), it shouldn't make any practical difference... 80% of the time.

It all depends what you intend to do with that exploration ship. If your priority is simply traveling speed then yes, as jump range gets higher the variance in overall range becomes less important. This is mostly due to the overall straightness of a 1K plot due to star density: smaller ranges means more zig zagging while higher ranges allows a straighter path to the 1K limit. As number of jumps per plot gets high enough then a few more or less jumps per plot doesn't make a huge difference.

However, if you intend to use that exploration ship to explore very distant systems out on the fringes or at the extreme top / bottom of the galactic plane, then absolute jump range is of the utmost priority, because the difference between a 53ly range and a 53.5ly range could very well the difference between admiring a system from afar or actually being able to explore it.

 

[Zeeman]

So, I decided to go for a canter around the galaxy and while I was away I noticed quite a few discussions about stuff related to FSDs and fuel-scooping.

I noticed that people always seem to calculate things based on 100% efficiency.
That is to say, if a ship can jump, say, 45Ly in one go, it always will.

I guess it's fine to use that as a means of comparing two different ships but, in practical terms, it doesn't hold water.
In a galaxy where, for example, the stars were all 40Ly apart, a ship with a 45Ly range would complete a given journey in exactly the same time as a ship with a 41Ly range because both ships would always be restricted to moving 40Ly per jump.
The extra jump range of the 45Ly ship wouldn't matter.

So, I was wondering whether it might be possible to get an idea of how this all works out in the ED universe.

I was flying a Sidewinder with a jump-range of 31Ly.
I logged data over 31,272Ly (not my full trip but that doesn't matter) and logged a total of 1,200 jumps.
And no. I didn't have anything better to do.

So, what did I find out?

Here's the summary...

Total distance traveled: 31,272 Ly
Theoretical jumps required: 1009
Total Jumps: 1,200
Average Jump distance: 26.06 Ly
Minimum Jump distance: 17.7 Ly
Maximum Jump distance: 28.7 Ly

So, let's stop for a second and evaluate those numbers.

On average, my ship was jumping 84% of it's maximum range.
The best it ever managed was 92% of it's range and the worst was 57% of it's range.
Overall, it took an "extra" 191 jumps to complete the distance beyond what it should have theoretically taken.
Which, unsurprisingly, also works out to 84% of optimal.

But wait! There's more!

I also looked at what percentage of my jumps were of a given range, with the following results.

None of my jumps were less than 50% range.
50% - 60%: 10
60% - 70%: 90
70% - 80%: 210
80% - 90%: 620
90% - 100%: 270

So, what does that tell us?

Well, the overwhelming majority of jumps are between 80% and 90% of maximum range.
It's interesting to see that 270 jumps were >90% maximum range but bear in mind that the maximum I ever achieved was 92% which means that ALL of those 270 jumps were between 90% and 92% of maximum range.

And what practical information (if any) can we take away from all this nonsense?

Well, it would seem that "84%" is the magic number.
If you have a ship with a 50Ly jump range and you plan on travelling 500 Ly you can assume that it's only going to be 84% efficient so it's going to take you 12 jumps to travel 500Ly rather than the theoretical 10.

Beyond that, I'd suggest that if you build a ship which is optimised for jump distance, you probably can afford to then load it up with extra stuff so the jump distance is reduced by around 10% without significantly reducing the time your journey is going to take.
So, for example, if you fit your AspX with 5D thrusters and it'll jump 45Ly, you can then replace those with 5A thrusters which might reduce the jump range to 43Ly without significantly increasing your journey time.

Bottom line: A ship that can jump 10% further isn't going to yield ANY advantage 80% of the time, and it's only going to have a 2% advantage 20% of the time.

Of course, that's all based on one pokey set of data from one pokey 30,000Ly wander.
Next time I'm off to Beagle Point to gather more data.


*EDIT*

Oh, one other thing that I found quite interesting was that getting closer to the core made no difference to the efficiency of jumps.
I would have thought that being in an area where the stars are more dense would mean being more likely to be able to jump further.
That turned out not to be the case though.
I guess the thing is, even though the stars are more dense, they're never so close together so as to allow you to jump to the "next" one.

I often bring this up, but it does generally go un-noticed. Another thing I have found, is there seems to be "magic numbers" for FSD jumps. For example, my first big trip nearly 2 years ago now, my jump range for my Asp was 31.8 LY - a very large number of jumps were at 31.7LY - so many, in point of fact, that I actually thought my jump range was 31.7LY, not 31.8 until I actually saw the range listed on one of my UI panels.

I've also done a few trips to the Formidine rift area, one with a 53LY Anaconda, and another with a 50.2LY Asp. the Anaconda would often get 51-52Ly jumps, the Asp was often at 45-48. The extra 2LY was hardly, if ever actually used. My most recent trip, my Asp was at about 50.8Ly (slightly better FSD RNG roll), and now I was often getting 50.4LY ranges.

Of course, there are various other variables - how close to the galactic plane I was, route etc, but still, it was interesting to note.

As you point out - just because you can do X LY per jump, doe snot mean you actually will, certainly not consistently, except maybe in the core where star density is high enough.

Z...

 

[Comrade Napoleon]

Could this not be tested by maxing a given ship to say 45 LY jumprange , plot course 1000 'LY and count jumps.
Do the same again, with a ship where you inhibit the range to 30 LY jumprange, plot course and count jumps.

I think the spoiler lies in the fact that: + 15 extra ly range, will make some wild jumps possible, whereas a shorter range will necessitate a deviation or another route than optimal.
While you may or may not use the extra 15 LY the could prove a gamechanger in certain circumstances. Going to Sag A it hardly matters when 10K ly in as the density of stars grow, imo. But flying the circumference, of the galaxy would change things radically would the not ? The less density of stars would necessitate a longer jumprange to have an optimal route...
2 cents..

Cheers Cmdr's

 

[Morbad]

Distance between stars has a huge impact on such figures.

At the low end, even mild increases in max jump range can mean huge savings. It took my ~14.4ly jump range FDL upwards of 200 jumps per thousand in the sparse area between arms on my way to Sag A* at some points. Likewise, the armored FSD on my Corvette results in an ~8.5ly jump distance, which has at times meant 6-7 jumps to go 15ly.

Between arms you need a ~20ly jump distance to even get a vaguely straight-line path, yet near the core, with many stars per ly, you will almost always be able to plot a straight-line course that is 95%+ of your maximum distance per jump.

There are also things like scoop times to consider. If you are at the point where you cannot jump as soon as the FSD cool down is complete, you'll probably benefit, in raw distance over time, from capping your max jump range with cargo racks and the cargo slider. This way you can consistently get down to ~40 seconds between jumps.

 

[[VR] Merkir]

Well done on the data collection, Stealthie. Unfortunately you can't really extrapolate these results to a ship with a much larger jump range. You could if the entire galaxy expanded by the same % as the increased max jump range. But the reality is that with the distance between systems constant, the percentile distribution you determined for the sidewinder will be quite different from the percentile distribution of a larger jump ship. Generally, as the max jump range increases, the data points will trend towards the 90%-100% percentiles.

 

[DuckingHostile]

Nice research.

It's pretty simple to use the magic number of 84 % to find out how much the 10 ly. drop in the jump range actually affects the traveling speed.

Asp with 50 ly. jump range jumps an average distance of 42 ly's. With jumps like this it would take 120 jump to cover a 5000 ly distance. Let's say the average jump time is 1 min 30 seconds Inc scooping, honking and sight-seeing. That would make 180 min / 3 hours total.

Let's take an Asp with 10 % reduced jump range of 45 ly's. 84 % of that is 37,8 ly's. Covering a distance of 5000 ly's would take 133 jumps, equal 200 mins, equals 3 hours 20 mins.

So with the drop of 10 % jump range you lose about 20 mins of your life / 5000 ly's.

 

[Elyssaen]

Could this not be tested by maxing a given ship to say 45 LY jumprange , plot course 1000 'LY and count jumps.

That's the methodology I suggested above. I've done it now, and will be posting a thread on it shortly.

 

[MrFailfactory]

I'm glad you didn't make the mistake of posting something like this in the Exploration forum (like I did months ago), because if you post anything counter to *max jump range and scoop speed* in regards to build advice, you are likely to get dog-piled, and ridiculed. I don't care about people trying to hurt my e-feelings, but the reaction(s) that I got were a bit surprising, considering the overall feeling of welcome and helpfulness that forum otherwise radiates.

Hopefully, you have more success with generating good discussion in this forum. I would add that scoop speed can be largely normalized as a non-factor.

Something I think you will find even more interesting, OP (and Elyssaen perhaps as well), is where the point of diminishing returns begins.

Riôt

 

[Elyssaen]

(Note, hope nobody minds that I'm still posting a separate thread on this.)

Something I think you will find even more interesting, OP (and Elyssaen perhaps as well), is where the point of diminishing returns begins.

It begins immediately... or rather, it begins when you start to feel it's not worth it. But it turns out what we're looking at is a straightforward y = 1/x curve.



I've run six different 1000 ly routes for 23 different jump ranges, between 9.76 LY and 55.46 LY. The above is a plot of the number of jumps needed by jump range. The curve immediately begins to shallow out, so the returns are always diminishing, and it's up to you when it's not worth it anymore. Certainly, I'd say after a 50 LY jump range you're really not saving much time at all: 1-2 jumps in 1000 LY, a 10% saving at best.

The curve is really beautifully clear if you look at the inverse: that is, 1/Number of Jumps.



This is a pretty clear indication we're looking at a N = L / j relationship, where N is the number of jumps you need to take, L is the distance to the destination, and j is your jump range. More specifically, the empirical equation is N = L / (1.009213j - 3.042410). I'm not normally a fan of empirical equations, but without Stellar Forge's data on stellar density this is the best way to look at it.

Since this thread is about jump efficiency, here's a chart of that:



though only take it as a rough guide. At 10 LY you'll only spend 60% of your time going in the right direction, up to 80% by 15 LY, 85% by 19 LY, 90% by around 25 LY and reaching a soft limit 95% by 40 LY. Note that this doesn't mean you don't get there any faster beyond a 40 LY jump range... you do, but it's not because of plotting a straighter route anymore.

One last way to talk about it... let's say you're either travelling 250 LY (you're an in-bubble player) or 1000 LY (you're an explorer plotting maximum routes).

In-Bubble Player (250 LY journey)
If your jump range is 10 LY, your journey will take 36 jumps. +1 LY range will drop this to 32 jumps, +5 LY range will drop this to 21 jumps.

If your jump range is 15 LY, you're looking at 21 jumps as above. +1 LY on this will drop you a single jump, to 20 jumps. +5 LY instead would get you down to a 15 jump journey.

20 LY jump range, 15 jump journey. +1 LY will take this to 14 jumps, +5 LY to 12.

Beyond this, 30 LY jump is 10 jumps, 35 is 8 jumps, 40 is 7 jumps, 45 is 6, 50 is also 6, 55 and 60 get it down to 5.

For an in-bubble player, I'd say anything over 40 will disappoint you.

Explorer (1000 LY journey)
Here, it's a bit different. A 40 LY jump range will get you across the 1000 LY stretch in 27 jumps, but you'll probably notice that a 50 LY jump range will cut it to 22. 60, and you're looking at 18... maybe not that big a deal, but probably still noticeable on a long trek.

 

[Lightspeed]

Good lord Cmdr you are my hero...
1) You voluntarily flew in a Sidewinder.
2) You made over 1,000 jumps in said Sidewinder.
3) You made a very interesting report. I'll have to read it again to fully absorb the numbers.
Thanks! And of course duly repped.

Says it all from me too ! And the rep [yesnod]

 

[Nerwan]

I strongly suspect your 84% is a function of star density and jump range so it will vary from ship to ship and depending on where in space you are. I've noticed that around the sol area, with a 56LY Anaconda I very rarely make a jump which is smaller than 53LY when planning with the route planner. If one considers the sphere which can be drawn around the ship based on it's maximum jump range, the number of stars in the sphere increase non-linearly as the linear jump range increases. This is because the star count will increase with the volume of space being covered which is:

4/3 * pi * r ^3 (where r in this case is the max jump range)

As the star count in the sphere increases the available number of viable routes will also increase meaning that the higher your jump range, the higher that efficiency constant of 84% will become because the probability will be that there's always some efficient route that you can take. This is why (as another poster pointed out) it makes such a difference to get a few more LY early on in the game when your jump range is very low. Ships with jump ranges that are low compared to the star density are really inefficient. Ergo, if your jump range is very high you can expect efficiency to be much higher in sparse portions of space. The ultimate extreme of this of course is when there's no viable route at all, at which point you can either make it or you can't.

TL'DR Longer jump range matters more than you think it does because it increases the 84 % number..

EDIT: And of course, this is why when in the core, one virtually always jumps almost 100% of one's max jump range.. The number of stars in the volume of the sphere is simply huge and so the available route count is huge. (which is why it used to take so long to calculate before they improved the algorithm)

 

[Lightspeed]

Rep to Ellysaen too. I don't understand it all but the graphs sure look impressive.

OP you have created a "classic" thread for future reference [up]

 

[MrFailfactory]

(Note, hope nobody minds that I'm still posting a separate thread on this.)


It begins immediately... or rather, it begins when you start to feel it's not worth it. But it turns out what we're looking at is a straightforward y = 1/x curve.

View attachment 117751

I've run six different 1000 ly routes for 23 different jump ranges, between 9.76 LY and 55.46 LY. The above is a plot of the number of jumps needed by jump range. The curve immediately begins to shallow out, so the returns are always diminishing, and it's up to you when it's not worth it anymore. Certainly, I'd say after a 50 LY jump range you're really not saving much time at all: 1-2 jumps in 1000 LY, a 10% saving at best.

The curve is really beautifully clear if you look at the inverse: that is, 1/Number of Jumps.

View attachment 117752

This is a pretty clear indication we're looking at a N = L / j relationship, where N is the number of jumps you need to take, L is the distance to the destination, and j is your jump range. More specifically, the empirical equation is N = L / (1.009213j - 3.042410). I'm not normally a fan of empirical equations, but without Stellar Forge's data on stellar density this is the best way to look at it.

Since this thread is about jump efficiency, here's a chart of that:

View attachment 117753

though only take it as a rough guide. At 10 LY you'll only spend 60% of your time going in the right direction, up to 80% by 15 LY, 85% by 19 LY, 90% by around 25 LY and reaching a soft limit 95% by 40 LY. Note that this doesn't mean you don't get there any faster beyond a 40 LY jump range... you do, but it's not because of plotting a straighter route anymore.

One last way to talk about it... let's say you're either travelling 250 LY (you're an in-bubble player) or 1000 LY (you're an explorer plotting maximum routes).

In-Bubble Player (250 LY journey)
If your jump range is 10 LY, your journey will take 36 jumps. +1 LY range will drop this to 32 jumps, +5 LY range will drop this to 21 jumps.

If your jump range is 15 LY, you're looking at 21 jumps as above. +1 LY on this will drop you a single jump, to 20 jumps. +5 LY instead would get you down to a 15 jump journey.

20 LY jump range, 15 jump journey. +1 LY will take this to 14 jumps, +5 LY to 12.

Beyond this, 30 LY jump is 10 jumps, 35 is 8 jumps, 40 is 7 jumps, 45 is 6, 50 is also 6, 55 and 60 get it down to 5.

For an in-bubble player, I'd say anything over 40 will disappoint you.

Explorer (1000 LY journey)
Here, it's a bit different. A 40 LY jump range will get you across the 1000 LY stretch in 27 jumps, but you'll probably notice that a 50 LY jump range will cut it to 22. 60, and you're looking at 18... maybe not that big a deal, but probably still noticeable on a long trek.

Based on your first graph, what would you then conclude is the point of diminishing returns?

Riôt