Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 56

Thread: Thrusters explained in one simple table (Rating and Mass)

  1. #1

    Thrusters explained in one simple table (Rating and Mass)

    Hi CMDRs

    First off thanks to the contributors to these threads for inspiration and data:
    https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=164451
    https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=139844

    EDIT: also for Taleden's excellent research and a handy graph: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showth...=1#post2804064

    From my previous thruster research (link at end) I noticed that all ships seemed to have the same ratio improvement in speed and turn time for A rated thrusters at 50% optimum mass, and the same held at other mass thruster combinations I had tested. So I decided to test a few ships across thruster grades A-E at optimum mass ratios of 90-50% (in 10% incriments). The following table summarises the improvements in performance over a ship operating at optimum mass (All thruster ratings have equal performance at their optimum mass)

    Mass/Optimum E D C B A
    90.00% 0.50% 1.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00%
    80.00% 1.50% 2.50% 4.00% 4.50% 4.50%
    70.00% 2.00% 3.80% 6.00% 7.00% 8.00%
    60.00% 2.50% 4.50% 8.00% 10.00% 12.00%
    50.00% 3.00% 6.00% 10.00% 13.00% 16.00%
    Speed increases by the % shown. Turn time changes by [Turn time/(1+improvement%)]

    The ships used for testing were: Hauler, Vulture, Clipper, ASP; not all ships were tested for all combinations but there was plenty of overlap.

    The A(50%) figure has also been tested on Cobra, sidewinder and DBS as well as the above ships.

    Note there is a degree of smoothing in the above table due to the limitations of measurement (speedometer only shows nearest m/s, turn rate is average of 10 rotations)

    For the new High performance Thrusters see this Graph:

    http://imgur.com/0SfMTVc

    %change vs mass

    Note that the speed and agility bonus have been decoupled unlike for the standard A-E thrusters.

    For Ships base speeds and rotation speeds see my other thread:

    https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=182465


    Understanding Thrusters in 2.1 outfitting screen:

    With the new outfitting screens you can see better what thrusters do.

    There are six thruster stats to consider. Minimum mass, optimum mass and maximum mass. Maximum multiplier, optimum multiplier and minimum multiplayer.

    When your ship is at minimum mass you get the maximum multiplier applied to your speed and turn speed.

    When your ship is at optimum mass you get the optimum multiplier.

    As you get heavier you approach the minimum multiplier (not tested where this is may be maximum mass but that's very hard to reach).

    The Engineer upgrade multiplies all three multipliers up b the same amount. so if you roll a +25%, a standard A rated drive will apply 1.125 minimum multiplier, 1.25 optimum multiplier and 1.45 maximum multiplier. (original values .90,1.00,1.16)

    They seem to follow the same curves as the previous calculations so it's just a straight % boost to speed, acceleration and pitch.

  2. #2
    This data proves what I felt while flying the Clipper. Despite its agility rating of 2 (?), the Clipper is one of the most agile ships in the game, and surely by far the most agile of the "big ships".

    Can't understand where its agility 2 rating comes from. When I "upgraded" from the Clipper to the Python I was shocked by how cumbersome and sluggish the Python is for an agility 6 (?) rated ship.

  3. #3
    Indeed, i was suprised when i got one and finally understood the hype. Lovely ship.

  4. #4
    As I understand it, the Agility rating appears to be based off of the lowest of all the aspects of turning, covering Yaw, Pitch and Roll. The Clipper is supposed to have the one of the lowest Yaw (side to side) rates of the large ships, but has an advantage in the Pitch and possibly the Roll. So under their system, even though it may be a 7 (guessing) for Pitch, it is rated at a 2 for Yaw. It isn't very clear, but then again neither is a lot of the numbers systems in the game we have seen.

  5. #5
    War!
    Huh!
    Good God, Yaw..
    What is it good for?
    Absolutely nuthin.
    Say it again.....

  6. #6
    Clipper has best Yaw in the game. Period.

  7. #7
    Hmmm. "D" doubles your performance, "C" roughly doubles it again, while "A" is a diminishing return over "B" and "C".

    From an explorer's standpoint, "D" and "C" are the most that you would need. "A" is for combat. "B" is an unhappy middle child.

    Duly repped.

  8. #8
    Originally Posted by Scifimyth View Post (Source)
    As I understand it, the Agility rating appears to be based off of the lowest of all the aspects of turning, covering Yaw, Pitch and Roll. The Clipper is supposed to have the one of the lowest Yaw (side to side) rates of the large ships, but has an advantage in the Pitch and possibly the Roll. So under their system, even though it may be a 7 (guessing) for Pitch, it is rated at a 2 for Yaw. It isn't very clear, but then again neither is a lot of the numbers systems in the game we have seen.
    Cheers, that might explain it? Do the adder/viper have a comparitively good yaw or roll, does anyone know, as that could explain their lacklustre pitch rates.

  9. #9
    Would be nice if it was consistent with ship maneuverability values.

    Spitballing ideas
    -Each agility rating is a base 1% roll/yaw rate
    -Each PIP is Engines add an additional 1% roll/yaw/pitch rate per maneuverability rating
    -Each engine rating adds an additional 1% to roll/yaw/pitch rate per maneuverability rating
    -Speed above/below 50% adds or detracts an additional 1% per 10% from center.
    -Hull mass below treshold for engine adds an additional 1% per 10% below minimum hull mass


    And the T9 should really have a minimum of 1 and not zero.

    So a ship with 10 agility and 4 pips to engine and A rated engine gains 20% roll/yaw/pitch rate at 50% speed and 15% at 100% speed or 25% at 0% speed.
    An Anaconda would have 12% roll/yaw/pitch rate at 50% speed or 16% at 0% speed.

    Large ships should not be agile in any direction and should have to sacrifice weight to gain agility.

  10. #10
    I agree it would be good to have a more understandable/prescribed agility rating.

    Currently pips have more effect than anything with each half pip adding about 9% (see second link in op).

  11. #11
    Originally Posted by Ralph Vargr View Post (Source)
    Hmmm. "D" doubles your performance, "C" roughly doubles it again, while "A" is a diminishing return over "B" and "C".

    From an explorer's standpoint, "D" and "C" are the most that you would need. "A" is for combat. "B" is an unhappy middle child.

    Duly repped.
    Yarp. I now only seem to use A or D spec thrusters. A for combat/ multi. D for explorer and trade. The only exception is C grade on the Vulture. Its so agile anyway the gain is not worth the power draw

  12. #12
    All this fits into the basic ship design/outfitting model: There are exponential cost increases, and diminishing returns for rating increases.

    I think many of us use "A" power plants and jump drives (power, heat, and range), but are choosy over everything else. The thrusters will get shorted before shields will, as an example. I have a bias for "A" sensors. You would have to be daft to keep "E" life support and power distribution (the latter of which needs to be "A" on combat craft).

    "D" equipment works for everything except pure combat craft. And, saving mass increases performance in normal space, as well as in jump performance. It also greatly reduces operational costs. "A/C/D" are the only ratings that make sense.

  13. #13
    Originally Posted by Cliffson View Post (Source)


    Mass/Optimum E D C B A
    90.00% 0.50% 1.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00%
    80.00% 1.50% 2.50% 4.00% 4.50% 4.50%
    70.00% 2.00% 3.80% 6.00% 7.00% 8.00%
    60.00% 2.50% 4.50% 8.00% 10.00% 12.00%
    50.00% 3.00% 6.00% 10.00% 13.00% 16.00%
    Sorry but just one thing I don't understand: if there is an optimal mass it should mean that the closer you are to that optimal mass the better shoud be thrusters' performance, right?

    And that the farther you go from that optimal mass, both being heavier or lighter, the worst should be thrusters' performance, right?

    But from the table above I deduce that best performance is reached at 50% of optimal mass, right?

    Now, the question is: why is it called optimal mass if there's room for better performance further lowering mass?

    And more: why the table stops at 50% of optimal mass and doesn't go on until 10% optimal mass?

  14. #14
    Originally Posted by Sire View Post (Source)
    And that the farther you go from that optimal mass, both being heavier or lighter, the worst should be thrusters' performance, right?
    A long time ago, in a post far, far away from now, a developer said that ships lighter than their thrusters optimal mass have an improved flight model

  15. #15
    Originally Posted by Banzz View Post (Source)
    A long time ago, in a post far, far away from now, a developer said that ships lighter than their thrusters optimal mass have an improved flight model
    Thanks for your answer.

    But to what the term "optimal" applies then if lighter ships can benefit from a further improved flight model?

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast