[Research] Detailed Heat Mechanics
- Thread starter Frenotx
- Start date
Did you test them both with exactly identical loadouts? Not just comparable, but every module exactly the same? In my testing they have very similar heat capacities, and the Corvette is actually very slightly higher. But if you're testing "real world" loadouts you're bound to have a different idle power draw because of the different slot sizes, and that will put a different heat load on the ship which makes it impossible to properly compare their baseline heat capacities.
This was stock vs stock, both ships have the same class 8 E power plant, the cutter comes with class 8 thrusters... I know the cutter has a higher heat cap, both A rated too I tested the class 7 Cell on both ships the cutter came out with a lower heat. my tests where not conducted in perfect conditions but even with some leverage for mistakes and differences the cutter would still come out on top.
It also goes without saying that the cutter would need a higher heat cap simply because of the strain the FSD and Thrusters would put on it.
Maybe the problem is how we're defining our terms.
It sounds like you're talking about "heat capacity" as in the general overall real-world heat performance of the ship, which depends on its loadout and therefore also depends on the slot size classes you have available; as you said the Cutter can have class 8 Thrusters which will incur more heat load than the Corvette's class 7, but the Corvette also has 2 huge hardpoints to the Cutter's 1, and the internals are different, and on and on. All of these things will change how the ship feels in terms of heat management, and I don't doubt that in your experience, it's easier for you to keep the Cutter cooler than the Corvette, which makes you feel like the Cutter has a higher heat capacity.
But what I'm talking about, and what I think this thread was originally intended to work out, is the specific numeric "heat capacity" attribute of the ship hull, which determines how many units of "thermal load" you can soak up under silent running before you reach your 100% heat level, and also appears to determine how fast those thermal load units are dissipated when silent running is disabled. Comparing that attribute value between hulls requires careful testing with identical loadouts and identical power draw, and my results are that the Corvette has a slightly higher heat capacity attribute value than the Cutter, but they're very similar.
These two findings are not a contradiction. Because of all the different sizes of modules that you can equip on each ship, it is entirely possible for the Corvette to have a higher technical heat capacity and yet still feel like it runs hotter, perhaps because it can be equipped with modules that draw more power and/or have higher intrinsic thermal load (such as huge weapons).
Huge weapons do not incur more heat than others... unless firing, as I said this was stock vs stock at idle and FSD charging.
Sure they do, by drawing about 60% more reactor power, which adds waste heat via the power plant's efficiency attribute.
In a fully A rated build both will draw over their plants cap, so both are at 100%... at stock both ships come with class 1 pulse, so no the class 4 does not cause more heat like I said unless firing.
What I was testing here was raw thermal capacity, not a ship's relative ability to handle heat. If you suspect my numbers are faulty, then I invite you to conduct your own tests. In fact, I encourage it- that's why I documented the procedure. More confirmation / verification is always good. I think you'll find there are a lot of factors that go into a ship "running hot" or not, beyond just thermal capacity.
Last edited:
I feel like with the commanders update heat mechanics are now different. Is there anyone else experiencing this? I.e. shooting mines/dumbfires which were very cool before now all cause a lot of heat. But the only heat mechanic that was changed according to the patch logs was the railguns... or am i missing something?
Mines have generated a substantial amount of heat for quite some time. Make sure your WEP cap has plenty of charge before firing and you'll be fine.
I found this thread courtesy of a fellow racer making use of this information in our latest event. And I thought it's interesting information, so let's see if I can add to it.
The figures I've investigated so far:
Dolphin => 3A PP (0.4) x 5D Thrusters (4.59) x 2 min 15 secs => heat capacity 248
Viper mkIV - verified heat capacity 315 (2 min 40 secs using 3A PP (0.4) and 4A Thrusters (4.92))
Python - verified heat capacity 450 (1 min 28 secs using modded 7D PP (0.75 * 1.087 = 0.81525) and 6C Thrusters (6.30))
The figures I've investigated so far:
Dolphin => 3A PP (0.4) x 5D Thrusters (4.59) x 2 min 15 secs => heat capacity 248
Viper mkIV - verified heat capacity 315 (2 min 40 secs using 3A PP (0.4) and 4A Thrusters (4.92))
Python - verified heat capacity 450 (1 min 28 secs using modded 7D PP (0.75 * 1.087 = 0.81525) and 6C Thrusters (6.30))
It means that with cool mods on a ship with a big base heat capacity, you don't really end up with a big difference in allowable heat generation. You can easily slam on DD5 and overcharged PP 5 and will probably not notice any difference.
I have continued a bit more testing with other ships I own. I can add the heat capacity for the Type-6 (270), Viper mkIII (292) and Federal Dropship (498), as well as having verified the figures for the Adder, Asp Explorer, Cobra mkIII and Eagle.
For ease, I've also put all the data so far into a Google spreadsheet, along with a calculator to help in filling in the missing values and verifications.
For ease, I've also put all the data so far into a Google spreadsheet, along with a calculator to help in filling in the missing values and verifications.
Hey, nice work!
Sounds like it's time to update the original post.
Orca
Just ran your test with an Orca using stock 6A thrusters and stock 5A power plant. I got 130 seconds before the warning popped up at the top. So that would give it a score of 393.12 BTU.
Just ran your test with an Orca using stock 6A thrusters and stock 5A power plant. I got 130 seconds before the warning popped up at the top. So that would give it a score of 393.12 BTU.
Thanks for this! I used it in some testing I did comparing Clean and Dirty drives; if you're interested in that it's here.
In my testing I calculated the BTU for these ships:
- Asp Explorer 409
- Dolphin 248
- FDL 337
- T7 340
- Vulture 356
The numbers out to the hundredths are in a picture included in my silent running tests from the link above.
I can confirm 450 for the Python and 340 for the T7.
From this I honestly dont understand why the T7 overheats that much from just boosting or charging FSD (in a trade setup with low power usage), compared to a Vulture which has a similar capacity and class 5 thrusters? Is there anything we are missing when it comes to heat generation from thrusters, weapons etc, which is different from what we calculate here for the heat generation due to power usage?
From this I honestly dont understand why the T7 overheats that much from just boosting or charging FSD (in a trade setup with low power usage), compared to a Vulture which has a similar capacity and class 5 thrusters? Is there anything we are missing when it comes to heat generation from thrusters, weapons etc, which is different from what we calculate here for the heat generation due to power usage?