Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 72

Thread: Mass Manager vs Deep Charge

  1. #1

    Mass Manager vs Deep Charge

    This will probably come up a lot when 3.0 drops, so here's your guide to which one to pick in order to maximise jump range.

    To recap:
    Mass manager: gives you a 4% increase to your optimised mass. This multiplies with any base optimised mass increase you have from the increased range blueprint.
    Deep charge: gives you a 10% increase in max fuel per jump.

    Tl;dr - mass manager is best for larger FSD classes; deep charge is best for smaller ones. The break-even point is a class 5 FSD; in that case choose mass manager because it will be more fuel efficient.

    The maths

    If like me you like equations almost as much as you like playing Elite, read on for the details...

    We begin with the hyperspace fuel equation:



    Where:
    • f is the fuel required (tons)
    • d is the distance to be travelled (light years)
    • M_ship is the mass of your ship (tons)
    • M_opt is the optimised mass of your drive (tons)
    • l and p are constants defined by the rating and class of your drive, respectively


    This governs your maximum range, because your drive cannot consume an unlimited amount of fuel per jump. This is why, if you select a system beyond your maximum range and attempt to jump, the error you get is 'max fuel exceeded'.

    Rearranging, we get



    Now we can see more clearly the factors affecting our maximum range. It scales linearly with optimised mass (irrespective of anything else), but any multiplier of maximum fuel is raised to the power of 1/p. The question, therefore, is which gives the higher multiplier: a straight 1.04 (Mass Manager) or 1.1^(1/p) (Deep Charge)? This calls for a spreadsheet! I like spreadsheets.

    FSD class p 1.1^(1/p)
    2 2 1.049
    3 2.15 1.045
    4 2.3 1.042
    5 2.45 1.04
    6 2.6 1.037
    7 2.75 1.035

    You can now see that they give the same result for a class 5 FSD. Mass Manager would actually have a tiny advantage because M_ship includes the mass of the fuel needed for the jump, but it's already the best choice because it is more efficient.

  2. #2
    Great research and well backed up with figures!

    I'm looking forward to engineering my ships in the new system, when I get back from the black.

  3. #3
    Respect and Rep - well researched CMDR! Will dive into it when the figures have settled, i.e. when the new Engineers go live.

  4. #4
    This. Is. Brilliant.

  5. #5
    If/when they change things please kick me and I'll update the first post; I'm on Xbox so I'm getting the new engineering details second hand.

  6. #6
    Excellent. Have a cuppa on me.

  7. #7
    Very good that both have their place :D

  8. #8
    Thanks for doing and posting this!
    The max. possible optimal mass is likely going to change though, as some current ultra-rare rolls exist that wouldn't be possible with the new system. (~56% optimum mass and a max fuel usage increase.) We'll see. In that case, I hope they'll adjust the +10% max fuel per jump as well.

    However, one thing about what you wrote. You sprinkled things like "the maths - 90% of you have probably stopped reading", "here's a boring table to finish you off", "nerdiness". That adds nothing to your text, but rather, it takes away from its quality. Why? Because it insinuates that parts of your (assumed) audience have a very short attention span and lack even a basic knowledge of mathematics. There might be a few readers like that, yes, but why point that out? In inserting such a comparison, you pretty much write a subtle variation of "we are so clever, guys". In my opinion, such remarks are not just unnecessary, but the presence of them makes the text worse. Which is a pity, because it's done well otherwise. So, what you wrote would be even better without them.

  9. #9
    Originally Posted by marx View Post (Source)
    However, one thing about what you wrote. You sprinkled things like "the maths - 90% of you have probably stopped reading", "here's a boring table to finish you off", "nerdiness". That adds nothing to your text, but rather, it takes away from its quality. Why? Because it insinuates that parts of your (assumed) audience have a very short attention span and lack even a basic knowledge of mathematics. There might be a few readers like that, yes, but why point that out? In inserting such a comparison, you pretty much write a subtle variation of "we are so clever, guys". In my opinion, such remarks are not just unnecessary, but the presence of them makes the text worse. Which is a pity, because it's done well otherwise. So, what you wrote would be even better without them.
    I read it as some lighthearted remarks not to be taken too seriously... *shrugs*

  10. #10
    Originally Posted by Corbin Moran View Post (Source)
    I read it as some lighthearted remarks not to be taken too seriously... *shrugs*
    How anyone reads it doesn't really matter: in such subjects, remarks about the (parts of the) audience don't add much, and negative remarks even less so. But yeah, that was just my suggestion to improve the text, which wasn't asked for.

  11. #11
    Originally Posted by marx View Post (Source)
    How anyone reads it doesn't really matter: in such subjects, remarks about the (parts of the) audience don't add much, and negative remarks even less so. But yeah, that was just my suggestion to improve the text, which wasn't asked for.
    I was attempting to appear self-deprecating - I'll have another go (I've also missed some units and my OCD won't stand for that!)

  12. #12

  13. #13

  14. #14
    Originally Posted by JonathanBurnage View Post (Source)
    I was attempting to appear self-deprecating - I'll have another go (I've also missed some units and my OCD won't stand for that!)
    I thought the text was better as it was. Now you have a problem - which random easily-offended internet censor to obey? Nice thread by the way!

  15. #15
    Originally Posted by HAL- 9000 View Post (Source)
    Great research and well backed up with figures!

    I'm looking forward to engineering my ships in the new system, when I get back from the black.
    Same. Unless, like all other good things, it's been nerfed by that time. :/

    I want to engineer my Cutter or Corvette to be used for DW2. Hopefully there's enough time to get all mats too. I understand that the new system requires a lot of materials.

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast