Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 56

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

  1. #16
    Originally Posted by Sire View Post (Source)
    Thanks for your answer.

    But to what the term "optimal" applies then if lighter ships can benefit from a further improved flight model?
    Ultimately, only the dev can put his exact thought on the subject with the words they used.

    I guess it is just a term to say : "hey, you have a ship with this mass so these thrusters are fine to use with"

    Also, higher rating/class thrusters have their pros (integrity, maneuverability, max speed, ...) but they also have cons (weight, price, power draw, etc.). Flight model is only one parameter among others

  2. #17
    Originally Posted by Cliffson View Post (Source)
    Hi CMDRs

    A summary of various ship's 360' turn times and speeds at optimum mass is below for reference:

    SPEED Agility Rotate(50 Throttle) Rotate (0 Throttle)
    Sidewinder 220 8 8.9 21.58
    Hauler 200 6 10.17 25.11
    Eagle 240 10 7.416 16.07
    Adder 220 8 9.6 23.76
    Viper 320 6 10.42 25.77
    Cobra 280 6 9.166 22.57
    DBS 280 8 8.73 21.5
    DBE 242 5 10.5 23
    ASP 250 6 9.68
    Vulture 210 9 8.66 16.45
    CLIPPER 300 2 9.5 22.54
    Python 230 6 12.713 30
    ~
    That explains a lot to me. I recently bought a Phyton comming from an Annaconda and I was surprised how it was so much harder to out turn the enemies.
    In fact the Phyton has a significant dissadavantage to the smaller ships.
    ~
    While you can outturn smaller ships with an anaconda C drive with 0 thrust the same is impossible with a phyton and an A Drive!
    The only useable fight speed with the phyton is the blue Range and that makes it inferior to fight with. Pilot skill can compensate that but only to a certain degree,
    ~
    I read that the nerfed the phyton in the past but since I didn't own one then I did not really read it.
    ~
    I have to say that the Phyton is nice to fly and fight but this disadvantage in it's master discipline makes it very qestionable as fighter to me.

  3. #18
    Originally Posted by askavir View Post (Source)
    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.

    That rating 6 for the Python is still the pre-nerf rating, and it was quite right back then. The nerf turned the Python into a brick, but the rating wasn't changed to reflect that.

  4. #19
    Originally Posted by TargetLost View Post (Source)
    ~

    While you can outturn smaller ships with an anaconda C drive with 0 thrust the same is impossible with a phyton and an A Drive!
    The only useable fight speed with the phyton is the blue Range and that makes it inferior to fight with. Pilot skill can compensate that but only to a certain degree,
    I've yet to get a conda (can afford the hull now just need credits for upgrades) but this just seems wrong from a design perspective. that said I'm unlikely to complain when I get it.

    Originally Posted by Banzz View Post (Source)
    Ultimately, only the dev can put his exact thought on the subject with the words they used.

    I guess it is just a term to say : "hey, you have a ship with this mass so these thrusters are fine to use with"

    Also, higher rating/class thrusters have their pros (integrity, maneuverability, max speed, ...) but they also have cons (weight, price, power draw, etc.). Flight model is only one parameter among others
    Yeah the choice of the word optimum is an odd one, unless they do mean it in the most favourable term, as in it's the point where you recieve diminishing returns for Credits/powerdraw/utility etc

  5. #20
    Originally Posted by Cmdr. Numa View Post (Source)
    That rating 6 for the Python is still the pre-nerf rating, and it was quite right back then. The nerf turned the Python into a brick, but the rating wasn't changed to reflect that.
    This is nonsense, the Python is far from being a 'brick' unless you fail to use directional thrusters. By comparison I also fly FDL, Vulture, DBS, Viper and recently Clipper on a regular basis. While the Python requires good pips management and thruster use it is more than capable of bringing fixed weapons to bear.

    On that note, and with respect to the OP; any maneuverability test which ignores directional thrusters is pretty meaningless.

  6. #21
    assuming the base speed is exactly 180 that gives 16.11% and 11.66'% so in line with the table, good to know.

    +Rep

  7. #22
    Originally Posted by Renegade Roach View Post (Source)
    This is nonsense, the Python is far from being a 'brick' unless you fail to use directional thrusters. By comparison I also fly FDL, Vulture, DBS, Viper and recently Clipper on a regular basis. While the Python requires good pips management and thruster use it is more than capable of bringing fixed weapons to bear.

    On that note, and with respect to the OP; any maneuverability test which ignores directional thrusters is pretty meaningless.
    Agreed, the directional thrusters still pack a punch, which makes the ship feel wrong even more, because those same thrusters govern pitch, and that has become horrible. Still, with directional thrust to evade and turrets to deliver it's still a potent ship.

  8. #23
    Originally Posted by Renegade Roach View Post (Source)
    This is nonsense, the Python is far from being a 'brick' unless you fail to use directional thrusters. By comparison I also fly FDL, Vulture, DBS, Viper and recently Clipper on a regular basis. While the Python requires good pips management and thruster use it is more than capable of bringing fixed weapons to bear.

    On that note, and with respect to the OP; any maneuverability test which ignores directional thrusters is pretty meaningless.
    Suggestion noted, the next bit of research I'm planning to do is on the acceleration characteristics of various ships and thrusters. The problem of this though is that the only meaningful test is an acceleration test and that is very susceptable to error, i.e I'll have to do a lot of runs.

    In the meantime in my original thread (link at bottom of OP) there is some Lateral and acceleration data, generally better thrusters / weight give better acceleration.

  9. #24
    Originally Posted by Ralph Vargr View Post (Source)
    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.

    For final builds, or, assuming you're at a station that sells everything you want.

    I find myself flying with B rated FSD, for example, on a lot of ships, because I don't quite have the cash to comfortably equip an A-rated, but I really want that extra range.

    Same for shields on ships that have fairly crap shield /hullmass ratios - B-rank for 10 mil less is awfully attractive option if you're only gaining ~50 mj.

  10. #25
    Originally Posted by Snarfbuckle View Post (Source)
    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.


    I can see it now: new racing bulkheads for your Anaconda! Negative mass and reduced hull hp!

  11. #26
    Originally Posted by Banzz View Post (Source)
    Ultimately, only the dev can put his exact thought on the subject with the words they used.

    I guess it is just a term to say : "hey, you have a ship with this mass so these thrusters are fine to use with"

    Also, higher rating/class thrusters have their pros (integrity, maneuverability, max speed, ...) but they also have cons (weight, price, power draw, etc.). Flight model is only one parameter among others
    My assumption is that the mass range from optimal mass to max mass is 100-0% effectiveness. Any mass rating that is under the optimal mass rating is a bonus. I've yet to get anything bigger than a python, so I'm not sure just what it's like flying a ship that actually nears its max mass rating

  12. #27
    I noted a few people claiming that A rating is the way to go for combat fits but I wonder if they've forgotten that B has the best integrity and often can mean the difference between life and death in some combat situations.

  13. #28
    ~Updated for fancy new high performance thrusters~

  14. #29
    Originally Posted by Cliffson View Post (Source)
    ~Updated for fancy new high performance thrusters~
    amazing! i assume, that x=Mass/optimal thruster mass % in that graph?

    i also assume, that the new thrusters have a-class optimal thruster mass?

  15. #30
    Originally Posted by goemon View Post (Source)
    amazing! i assume, that x=Mass/optimal thruster mass % in that graph?

    i also assume, that the new thrusters have a-class optimal thruster mass?
    Whoops, yeah it was late forgot to label axis.

    It is %increasr vs mass

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast