Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 21

Thread: Some brief tests on AFMUs and Thrusters

  1. #1

    Some brief tests on AFMUs and Thrusters

    Previous Post just below. For updated info, check after the edit.

    Greetings Commanders. After conducting some brief (more or less) scientific tests on both AFMUs and Thrusters, I'd like to share my results with you. TL;DR version provided at the bottom.

    Auto Field-Maintenance Units (AFMUs)

    After making a brief exploration journey out into the unknown recently, I headed back to inhabited space - but underway, I began wondering about my choice of AFMU rating. I had chosen some B-rated AFMUs because they had more ammo, assuming that their lower repair capacity meant that they simply repaired more slowly but more module health in total thanks to their larger ammo pool. And seeing as repair speed really isn't much of an issue so far from any would-be attackers, B-rated AFMUs seemed the way to go.

    But are they really? After arriving back, I decided to put this to a simple test: I bought myself a Viper, equipped it with one E1 and one D1 AFMU before heading straight for the nearest sun (smacking repeatedly into a station wall didn't damage my modules very much, unfortunately). Once there, I cranked the heat up to get my modules damaged and waited for something to break completely - the first thing to do so being the powered-down Cargo Hatch. Using one AFMU to repair the other (though not quite to 100%, unfortunately - hope this does't have much of an effect on them), I then set the second one to repair the Cargo hatch, noting the health it restored the Cargo Hatch to and how long this took (approximately - a stop watch and human error would probably allow for maybe 1-2 seconds of error either way). I then headed back to the nearest station, fully repaired my Viper, refilled my AFMUs and headed back out to test the AFMUs with their roles reversed.

    Here are the results:
    The E1 AFMU repaired the Cargo Hatch from 0% to 60% health over the course of approximately 110 seconds (1:50).
    The D1 AFMU repaired the Cargo Hatch from 0% to 71% health over the course of approximately 88 seconds (1:28).

    Comparing these two, we see that the D1 AFMU repaired 11% more health, which is (relatively speaking) 18.33% more than the E1 AFMU. Remember that the AFMUs weren't at 100% health, possibly reducing their maximum repairiness (yes, that's a word now).
    Furthermore, to do so took the D1 AFMU approximately 22 seconds less time, which is 20% less than the E1 AFMU. Again, remember these values may be off by a second or two.

    For quick reference, here are the stats of the AFMUs:
    A E1 AFMU has 1000 ammunition and a repair capacity of 12.000.
    A D1 AFMU has 900 ammunition and a repair capacity of 14.400.

    So what does this mean? Well, as far as AFMUs are concerned, the only stat that actually matters seems to be repair capacity for which more = better. Therefore, if you can afford the power draw (while active, as they can just be turned off as needed) A-rated AFMUs really are better than B-rated AFMUs both in terms of repair speed and total possible repairs. Which should be relevant information for all explorers out there.
    Well, actually only those not out there - not much you can do about your loadout a few ten thousand light years from home after all.


    Thrusters (and Power Distributors)

    Having gotten into the taste of testing, I decided to follow my urges to do some more. Specifically, thrusters. Even more specifically, something I had suspected for a while: Thrusters actually have a minimum mass below which any further mass reductions have no positive effect whatsoever. To test this, I bought myself a Sidewinder, stripped it of any unnecessary weight and equipped D-rated modules as well as some A2 thrusters on it. The result was a Sidewinder with 33.0T mass, an Optimal Mass of 72.0T and a Maximum Mass of 108.0T (36.0T or 50% more than Optimal Mass). Unfortunately, I could only test top speeds - frame-accurate measurements of varius pitches, rolls and whatnot are beyond my scope of testing. However, I believe that a ship's maneuverability is affected in the same manner as the top speed.

    So, with my Sidewinder thusly equipped, I headed out of the station and recorded the top speed I could reach in a straight line with various pips to engines, both normal and boosted. I then repeated this test for a number of masses, specifically 36.0T (36.0T less than Optimal Mass and what I presumed to be Minimum Mass), 37.0T, 38.0T, 39.0T and finally 72.0T (Optimal Mass). Note that the boosted speed was the highest value seen when boosting in a straight line from unboosted top speed and may be off by 1-2 m/s due to human error, so take those values with a grain of salt.

    The results are ordered by Mass and ENG pips, the values being unboosted / boosted top speeds in m/s as they appeared on the HUD (again, boosted speeds may be off by 1-2 m/s).

    Sidewinder Mass 33.0T 36.0T 37.0T 38.0T 39.0T 72.0T
    0.0 ENG Pips 116 / 338 116 / 339 115 / 336 115 / 335 114 / 333 100 / 292
    0.5 ENG Pips 133 / 341 133 / 341 133 / 339 132 / 337 131 / 336 115 / 294
    1.0 ENG Pips 151 / 343 151 / 343 150 / 342 149 / 339 148 / 338 130 / 296
    1.5 ENG Pips 168 / 345 168 / 346 167 / 344 166 / 342 165 / 340 145 / 298
    2.0 ENG Pips 186 / 348 186 / 347 185 / 346 184 / 344 183 / 342 160 / 300
    2.5 ENG Pips 203 / 349 203 / 349 202 / 347 201 / 346 200 / 344 175 / 301
    3.0 ENG Pips 220 / 351 220 / 351 219 / 349 218 / 347 217 / 345 190 / 303
    3.5 ENG Pips 238 / 353 238 / 353 236 / 352 235 / 349 234 / 347 205 / 304
    4.0 ENG Pips 255 / 355 255 / 355 254 / 353 252 / 352 251 / 350 220 / 306

    Note the values for both 33.0T (3.0T under Minimum Mass) and 36.0T (exactly at Minimum Mass). Looking at these results, I believe I can confirm: Thrusters do indeed have a Minimum Mass below which is to be had for further mass reductions. Furthermore, at least with this Sidewinder's A2 thruster, each ENG pip above 0.0 linearly increases the unboosted top speed by 30% (15% per half pip). Edit: This is just a coincidence. The increase in speed due to ENG Pips depends on the ship and is not always exactly 15% per half pip. See Jackie Silver's post here for more info on this!

    As a small bonus test: Whilst maintaining a 36.0T Minimum Mass, I tried out both the D1 Power Distributor and the B1 Power Distributor. This had no effect on the maximum speeds - I can therefore also confirm that Power Distributors don't directly affect your ship's top speed (and presumably maneuverability), only indirectly through their mass and the availability of power for boosting. It stands to reason that this is also true in regards to the Power Distributor's class.

    So what does this mean? Well, simple: Going below 50% of your thrusters' Optimal Mass means going below a hidden Minimum Mass and has no further benefits. This could be useful if you're trying to design a racing ship or whether you should slap on some military grade composite armor on your Vulture.


    TL;DR

    A-rated AFMUs repair more quickly and more total module health than B-rated AFMUs of the same class despite having less ammo.
    Reducing a ship's mass below 50% of its thrusters' Optimal Mass provides no further benefits in regards to speed (and presumably maneuverability).
    Higher rated (and presumably class) Power Distributors don't affect your ship's top speed directly, only indirectly through mass and by allowing for more boosts in the same time.

    Hope this may help some people out there when kitting out their ships for future endeavours - and possibly inspire some more test. For Science!

    ---

    Edit

    Updates! More data on AFMUs (1E through 1A) and Thrusters (Turn rates included).

    Auto Field-Maintenance Units (AFMUs)

    After the rather basic tests on just the E1 and D1 modules, I jumped around until I found a station which offered all of them. Using a trusty Sidewinder (I call it Testwinder by now), I high-fived the nearest sun in order to get my Cargo Hatch down to 0%. Using some other AFMUs, I repaired the to-be-tested AFMU to 100% before setting about repairing the Cargo Hatch and repeated the process for each rating whilst recording. Here are the results:

    AFMU
    1E 1D 1C 1B 1A
    Ammo total
    1000 900 1000 1200 1100
    Repair capacity
    12.0 14.4 20.0 27.6 30.8
    Health repaired 60% 72% 100% 100% 100%
    Ammo used 1000 (100%) 900 (100%) 1000 (100%) 870 (72.5%) 715 (65%)
    Ammo left 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 330 (27.5%) 385 (35%)
    Time taken 99.867s 89.884s 100.034s 86.936s 71.384s
    Health/second 0.60% 0.80% 1.00% 1.15% 1.40%
    Health/ammo
    0.060% 0.080% 0.100% 0.115% 0.140%
    Total healing
    60.00% 72.00% 100.00% 137.93% 153.85%
    Note: All health values refer to a Sidewinder's Cargo Hatch.
    Time taken refers to the 60 fps frame-accurate time between activating the AFMU and either the time its ammo reaches 0 or the Cargo Hatch reached 100% health.

    So, seeing these results, I can fully confirm: Higher rated AFMUs repair more health and repair the same amount of health in a lower amount of time as compared to lower-rated ones.
    Also, all (Class 1) AFMUs consume 10 ammo per second while repairing.
    Also note that repair capacity seems to be the stat that matters in terms of how much health an AFMU can repair.


    Thrusters (and Power Distributors)

    To reiterate, here it the table on how mass relates to top speed both normal and boosted with various ENG pips settings. New data beneath that.

    Sidewinder Mass
    33.0T
    36.0T
    37.0T
    38.0T
    39.0T
    72.0T
    0.0 ENG Pips
    116 / 338 116 / 339 115 / 336 115 / 335 114 / 333 100 / 292
    0.5 ENG Pips
    133 / 341 133 / 341 133 / 339 132 / 337 131 / 336 115 / 294
    1.0 ENG Pips
    151 / 343 151 / 343 150 / 342 149 / 339 148 / 338 130 / 296
    1.5 ENG Pips
    168 / 345 168 / 346 167 / 344 166 / 342 165 / 340 145/ 298
    2.0 ENG Pips
    186 / 348 186 / 347 185 / 346 184 / 344 183 / 342 160 / 300
    2.5 ENG Pips
    203 / 349 203 / 349 202 / 347 201 / 346 200 / 344 175 / 301
    3.0 ENG Pips
    220 / 351 220 / 351 219 / 349 218 / 347 217 / 345 190 / 303
    3.5 ENG Pips
    238 / 353 238 / 353 236 / 352 235 / 349 234 /347 205 / 304
    4.0 ENG Pips
    255 / 355 255 / 355 254 / 353 252 / 352 251 / 350 220 / 306
    Note: Sidewinder with A2 Thrusters (72.0T Optimum Mass).
    All values in m/s as they appeared on the HUD.
    The boosted values may be off by 1-2 m/s due to human error.
    Higher-rated Power Distributors have no beneficial effect and only affect speed indirectly due to mass and availability of boost energy.

    As we can see, going below 50% of your Thruster's Optimum Mass yields no further benefits. But how does mass affect turning? To test this, I took the same Sidewinder and completed two full loops (continuous upward pitching via holding a key with zero roll/yaw) whilst at 50% thrust (and thereby within the blue optimum turning speed) with all ENG pip settings and recorded the time taken for the second loop (meaning no possible time loss for having to first accelerate the turn) to complete a full 360 degree. This was repeated for all the mass values already tested above.

    Note that these times are frame-accurate to 60fps and may therefore be off by up to 16.66 milliseconds or 0.016 seconds in either direction. The values given are in seconds and refer to the time taken to complete one full loop. Here are the results:

    Sidewinder Mass
    33.0T
    36.0T
    37.0T
    38.0T
    39.0T
    72.0T
    Gain 0P
    Gain prev.
    0.0 ENG Pips
    9.260s 9.250s 9.268s 9.327s 9.400s 10.683s +0.000% +0.000%
    0.5 ENG Pips
    8.984s 8.983s 9.033s 9.083s 9.133s 10.384s +2.879% +2.879%
    1.0 ENG Pips
    8.752s 8.750s 8.800s 8.851s 8.901s 10.132s +5.438% +2.487%
    1.5 ENG Pips
    8.517s 8.534s 8.567s 8.617s 8.648s 9.832s +8.655% +3.051%
    2.0 ENG Pips
    8.313s 8.300s 8.350s 8.417s 8.433s 9.611s +11.154% +2.299%
    2.5 ENG Pips
    8.118s 8.116s 8.159s 8.200s 8.246s 9.350s +14.257% +2.791%
    3.0 ENG Pips
    7.898s 7.917s 7.964s 8.001s 8.033s 9.136s +16.933% +2.342%
    3.5 ENG Pips
    7.750s 7.733s 7.750s 7.802s 7.867s 8.918s +19.791% +2.444%
    4.0 ENG Pips
    7.567s 7.550s 7.611s 7.650s 7.685 8.710s +22.652% +2.388%
    Avg. add. Time +0.00ms +2.88ms +35.44ms +49.44ms +44.22ms +1156.66ms N/A +2.585%
    Note: Avg. add. Time refers to the average additional time it takes to perform each full turn versus the previous, lighter column in milliseconds (0.001 seconds).
    Gain 0P refers to how much faster the turn is compared to 0 ENG Pips (using the 72.0T column).
    Gain prev. refers to how much faster the turn is compared to using the previous row, i.e. 0.5 ENG Pips less (using the 72.0T column). Avg. add. Time row refers to average increase in turn speed.

    So looking at these numbers, Minimum Mass affects both top speed and turn rate, meaning that from 0% to 50% of your Thrusters' Optimum Mass, your normal space flying characteristics will be exactly the same. The minor differences between 33.0T and 36.0T are easily within the margin of error (and stray into both positive and negative); especially when one compares this 3.0T difference to how the numbers increase for a mere 1.0T difference between 36.0T and 37.0T.

    Therefore I can confirm: Minimum Mass is a thing, it's equal to 50% of Optimum Mass and going below it has zero benefits both for top speed and turn rate.

    Additionally, a higher-rated Power Distributor, like with top speed, did not affect the turn rate, assuming mass and ENG Pips remained the same.


    TL;DR

    Higher-rated AFMUs repair more module health and do so more quickly than a lower-rated one. Therefore, A > B > C > D > E both in terms of health repaired and in time taken to do so.
    Thrusters have a hidden Minimum Mass (equal to 50% of Optimum Mass) below which no benefits are gained in terms of speed or turn rate by reducing mass.
    Higher rated (and presumably class) Power Distributors don't affect your ship's speed or turn rate directly, only indirectly through mass and by allowing for more boosts in the same time.

    Further Reading

    Jackie Silver has made some interesting observations regarding top speeds at Minimum Mass with a number of ships. Check them out here and here!

    Additional testing done in regards to how Thruster Ratings affect Top Speed whilst at Minimum, Optimum and Maximum Mass can be found here.

    Additional testing done in regard to how Mass affects Top Speed can be found here and here.

    I believe this should cover some of the questions about AFMUs and Thrusters. Hope this helps you in your future endeavours, Commanders.

  2. #2
    Why did you choose just E and D? I'd be interested in seeing the full gamut. Modules don't always scale the same, particularly with B and D grades.

    On thrusters, I'd be interested to see maneuverability and not just top speed - the main reason I try to drop mass is for tighter turns.

    Anyhow interesting data! Thanks for doing these tests.

  3. #3
    Thanks for the testing. It would be good to see the other classes as well, as I recall the test thread on the Shields showed the were slower but offered more overall boost. I assumed it might be the same for AFMUs.

  4. #4
    One note on anyone performing such experiments where you need to time things, I find the easiest way is to record the game to video (I use free Bandicam, but obviously ShadowPlay, FRAPS or any other program that works with ED will suffice) and then play the video back in something that displays sub-second timestamps and allows you step frame by frame if needs be. It's how I did some investigation into SYS pip effects on shield lifetime back in Beta.

  5. #5
    Originally Posted by Takaru Minari View Post (Source)
    Thrusters do indeed have a Minimum Mass below which is to be had for further mass reductions.
    Below half thruster optimal mass further weight reductions (of total ship mass) have no beneficial effect on maximum speed.

    I haven't tested acceleration or rotational performance below half optimal mass, however.

    Originally Posted by Athan View Post (Source)
    play the video back in something that displays sub-second timestamps and allows you step frame by frame if needs be. It's how I did some investigation into SYS pip effects on shield lifetime back in Beta.
    I do the same thing.

  6. #6
    Originally Posted by Goilveig View Post (Source)
    Why did you choose just E and D? I'd be interested in seeing the full gamut. Modules don't always scale the same, particularly with B and D grades. [...]
    Two reasons, really: For one, they provided the same situation as with B/A AFMUs, namely that the lower-rated one has more ammo with a lower Repair Capacity. Additionally, E and D AFMUs were the only ones that were available at the station I had been testing at.

    Originally Posted by Athan View Post (Source)
    One note on anyone performing such experiments where you need to time things, I find the easiest way is to record the game to video (I use free Bandicam, but obviously ShadowPlay, FRAPS or any other program that works with ED will suffice) and then play the video back in something that displays sub-second timestamps and allows you step frame by frame if needs be. It's how I did some investigation into SYS pip effects on shield lifetime back in Beta.
    Probably should have thought of that myself. Incidentally, that's such a good idea that I decided to review some of the things I missed! Therefore, we've got some updated data: How much an AFMU (1E through 1A) repairs and how fast it does so, how Thrusters (and Power Distributors) affect turn rate (or don't, in the Distributors' case) and how ENG Pips affect turn rate.

    Auto Field-Maintenance Units (AFMUs)

    After the rather basic tests on just the E1 and D1 modules, I jumped around until I found a station which offered all of them. Using a trusty Sidewinder (I call it Testwinder by now), I high-fived the nearest sun in order to get my Cargo Hatch down to 0%. Using some other AFMUs, I repaired the to-be-tested AFMU to 100% before setting about repairing the Cargo Hatch and repeated the process for each rating whilst recording. Here are the results:

    AFMU
    1E 1D 1C 1B 1A
    Ammo total
    1000 900 1000 1200 1100
    Repair capacity
    12.0 14.4 20.0 27.6 30.8
    Health repaired 60% 72% 100% 100% 100%
    Ammo used 1000 (100%) 900 (100%) 1000 (100%) 870 (72.5%) 715 (65%)
    Ammo left 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 330 (27.5%) 385 (35%)
    Time taken 99.867s 89.884s 100.034s 86.936s 71.384s
    Health/second 0.60% 0.80% 1.00% 1.15% 1.40%
    Health/ammo
    0.060% 0.080% 0.100% 0.115% 0.140%
    Total healing
    60.00% 72.00% 100.00% 137.93% 153.85%
    Note: All health values refer to a Sidewinder's Cargo Hatch.
    Time taken refers to the 60 fps frame-accurate time between activating the AFMU and either the time its ammo reaches 0 or the Cargo Hatch reached 100% health.

    So, seeing these results, I can fully confirm: Higher rated AFMUs repair more health and repair the same amount of health in a lower amount of time as compared to lower-rated ones.
    Also, all (Class 1) AFMUs consume 10 ammo per second while repairing.
    Also note that repair capacity seems to be the stat that matters in terms of how much health an AFMU can repair.


    Thrusters (and Power Distributors)

    To reiterate, here it the table on how mass relates to top speed both normal and boosted with various ENG pips settings. New data beneath that.

    Sidewinder Mass
    33.0T
    36.0T
    37.0T
    38.0T
    39.0T
    72.0T
    0.0 ENG Pips
    116 / 338 116 / 339 115 / 336 115 / 335 114 / 333 100 / 292
    0.5 ENG Pips
    133 / 341 133 / 341 133 / 339 132 / 337 131 / 336 115 / 294
    1.0 ENG Pips
    151 / 343 151 / 343 150 / 342 149 / 339 148 / 338 130 / 296
    1.5 ENG Pips
    168 / 345 168 / 346 167 / 344 166 / 342 165 / 340 145/ 298
    2.0 ENG Pips
    186 / 348 186 / 347 185 / 346 184 / 344 183 / 342 160 / 300
    2.5 ENG Pips
    203 / 349 203 / 349 202 / 347 201 / 346 200 / 344 175 / 301
    3.0 ENG Pips
    220 / 351 220 / 351 219 / 349 218 / 347 217 / 345 190 / 303
    3.5 ENG Pips
    238 / 353 238 / 353 236 / 352 235 / 349 234 /347 205 / 304
    4.0 ENG Pips
    255 / 355 255 / 355 254 / 353 252 / 352 251 / 350 220 / 306
    Note: Sidewinder with A2 Thrusters (72.0T Optimum Mass).
    All values in m/s as they appeared on the HUD.
    The boosted values may be off by 1-2 m/s due to human error.
    Higher-rated Power Distributors have no beneficial effect and only affect speed indirectly due to mass and availability of boost energy.

    As we can see, going below 50% of your Thruster's Optimum Mass yields no further benefits. But how does mass affect turning? To test this, I took the same Sidewinder and completed two full loops (continuous upward pitching via holding a key with zero roll/yaw) whilst at 50% thrust (and thereby within the blue optimum turning speed) with all ENG pip settings and recorded the time taken for the second loop (meaning no possible time loss for having to first accelerate the turn) to complete a full 360 degree. This was repeated for all the mass values already tested above.

    Note that these times are frame-accurate to 60fps and may therefore be off by up to 16.66 milliseconds or 0.016 seconds in either direction. The values given are in seconds and refer to the time taken to complete one full loop. Here are the results:

    Sidewinder Mass
    33.0T
    36.0T
    37.0T
    38.0T
    39.0T
    72.0T
    Gain 0P
    Gain prev.
    0.0 ENG Pips
    9.260s 9.250s 9.268s 9.327s 9.400s 10.683s +0.000% +0.000%
    0.5 ENG Pips
    8.984s 8.983s 9.033s 9.083s 9.133s 10.384s +2.879% +2.879%
    1.0 ENG Pips
    8.752s 8.750s 8.800s 8.851s 8.901s 10.132s +5.438% +2.487%
    1.5 ENG Pips
    8.517s 8.534s 8.567s 8.617s 8.648s 9.832s +8.655% +3.051%
    2.0 ENG Pips
    8.313s 8.300s 8.350s 8.417s 8.433s 9.611s +11.154% +2.299%
    2.5 ENG Pips
    8.118s 8.116s 8.159s 8.200s 8.246s 9.350s +14.257% +2.791%
    3.0 ENG Pips
    7.898s 7.917s 7.964s 8.001s 8.033s 9.136s +16.933% +2.342%
    3.5 ENG Pips
    7.750s 7.733s 7.750s 7.802s 7.867s 8.918s +19.791% +2.444%
    4.0 ENG Pips
    7.567s 7.550s 7.611s 7.650s 7.685 8.710s +22.652% +2.388%
    Avg. add. Time +0.00ms +2.88ms +35.44ms +49.44ms +44.22ms +1156.66ms N/A +2.585%
    Note: Avg. add. Time refers to the average additional time it takes to perform each full turn versus the previous, lighter column in milliseconds (0.001 seconds).
    Gain 0P refers to how much faster the turn is compared to 0 ENG Pips (using the 72.0T column).
    Gain prev. refers to how much faster the turn is compared to using the previous row, i.e. 0.5 ENG Pips less (using the 72.0T column).

    So looking at these numbers, Minimum Mass affects both top speed and turn rate, meaning that from 0% to 50% of your Thrusters' Optimum Mass, your normal space flying characteristics will be exactly the same. The minor differences between 33.0T and 36.0T are easily within the margin of error (and stray into both positive and negative); especially when one compares this 3.0T difference to how the numbers increase for a mere 1.0T difference between 36.0T and 37.0T.

    Therefore I can confirm: Minimum Mass is a thing, it's equal to 50% of Optimum Mass and going below it has zero benefits both for top speed and turn rate.

    Additionally, a higher-rated Power Distributor, like with top speed, did not affect the turn rate, assuming mass and ENG Pips remained the same.


    TL;DR

    Higher-rated AFMUs repair more module health and do so more quickly than a lower-rated one. Therefore, A > B > C > D > E both in terms of health repaired and in time taken to do so.
    Thrusters have a hidden Minimum Mass (equal to 50% of Optimum Mass) below which no benefits are gained in terms of speed or turn rate by reducing mass.
    Higher rated (and presumably class) Power Distributors don't affect your ship's speed or turn rate directly, only indirectly through mass and by allowing for more boosts in the same time.

    I believe this should cover some of the questions about AFMUs and Thrusters. Hope this helps you in your future endeavours, Commanders.

    Edit: Added this updated info to OP.

  7. #7
    Originally Posted by Takaru Minari View Post (Source)
    Hope this may help some people out there when kitting out their ships for future endeavours - and possibly inspire some more test. For Science!
    I'm testing along these lines at present. Some interesting results, bear with me.

    Also just smashed my test Hauler into Shinrarta... without claiming ~1 MCr worth of bounties first.

  8. #8
    I can't believe I just did this: the Vulture has such big engines (OPT: 840t) relative to its size that it's hard to bring its mass over the 420t limit.
    I bought the biggest cargo holds it could manage, bought Biowaste to fill them, went out and flew laps round Jameson Memorial, came back to dock and had to sell the Biowaste back before getting a new ship.
    In other words I just leased over 20 tons of you-know-what for a ten minute joyride.

  9. #9
    I tried out a series of ships, each fitted with their highest possible thrusters, highest possible power distributor and otherwise configured to have the lowest possible mass.

    Observations:

    Maximum speed (with 4 pips in ENG and highest rated thrusters, and with mass below half optimum) goes as 1.16 * the rated speed of the ship.
    Maximum boost (similarly) goes as 1.16 * the rated boost of the ship.

    It is not possible to bring all the ships (e.g. the Viper) below half their rated optimum mass, and not practical for some ships (e.g. the Eagle). Conversely, some ships (e.g. the Vulture) can be fitted out to very high spec and still not go over half optimum mass.

    Boost speed is not affected by the number of pips in ENG, although in practice you won't be able to reach maximum boost speed if you're starting from too low a normal speed.
    The amount of energy in the ENG capacitor varies according to the number of pips in ENG, so you can't chain boosts together if you have too few pips in ENG.

    The amount to which having different numbers of pips in ENG affects the normal speed of the ship is highly variable between different ships.
    This difference is not a function of the ships maneouverability, its power distributor (e.g a Vulture loses less speed with fewer pips than a FDL, though the FDL has a higher power distributor), or its actual mass (e.g. there's no difference between the profile of a Vulture of 335 tons mass and a Vulture of 400 tons mass.)

    Some examples: (the Adder and Type-6 are almost, but not exactly, the same)

    Attachment 31775

    The same chart with additional ships that are close to, but not below their half-optimum values (the slope is probably correct, but the precise y-position will be off by a few m/s.)

    Attachment 31777

  10. #10
    (waves clenched fist) Huzzah for science!!

  11. #11
    Very interesting! The results now seem conclusive on thrusters - there's no point to further optimizing mass once you're below 50% of your thruster optimal mass. That means there's no real harm in my Vulture loadout to upgrading the hull - I had always kept lightweight alloy for what I thought was better maneuverability.

  12. #12
    Originally Posted by Jackie Silver View Post (Source)
    I tried out a series of ships, each fitted with their highest possible thrusters, highest possible power distributor and otherwise configured to have the lowest possible mass. [...]
    Interesting. Looks like my initial observation about the increase in top speed for the Sidewinder was just a one-off thing. Seems like the only thing all those lines have in common are that more pips = faster and that it's a linear progression, with everything after that being dependant on the ship. Incidentally, this looks pretty much consistent with the data on turn rates in which the Sidewinder turned 2.299% to 3.051% (average 2.585%) faster with every ENG Pip and would most likely be equally linear if it weren't for the inherent measurement inaccuracy in frame counting.

    Also, I did some additonal looking into how Thruster Ratings affect the top speed - we can infer that it's likely to be similar in regards to turn rate - on a Hauler by testing it's 2E to 2A Thrusters at Minimum Mass, at Optimum Mass and (in the case of 2E and 2D) Maximum Mass. Or rather, Maximum Mass -0.4T because the Outfitter maintained that going exactly to Maximum Mass exceeded my Maximum Mass. I think my Outfitter thinks I'm fat.

    In any case, I did a simple test. Using the Hauler (Rated Top Speed: 200 m/s) at 4 ENG Pips and 100% Thrust, I flew in a straight line to get my unboosted top speed at varying Masses. All values are in m/s. Here are the results:

    Thrusters
    Minimum Mass
    Optimum Mass
    Maximum Mass -0.4T
    2E
    206 200 179 (71.6T)
    2D
    212 200 175 (80.6T)
    2C
    220 200 N/A
    2B
    226 200 N/A
    2A
    232 200 N/A
    Note: The values in parantheses are the masses used for Maximum Mass. Outfitting didn't allow to get to the Thrusters' exact Maximum Mass, unfortunately.

    As we can see here, Thrusters perform all the same (in regard to top speed) at Optimum Mass. As we hit Minimum Mass, however, higher-rated Thrusters will perform better. Interestingly, at Maximum Mass higher-rated Thrusters will actually perform worse - albeit doing so whilst moving at a higher total mass. Unfortunately, 2C and better Thrusters couldn't hit Maximum Mass on the Hauler, so I couldn't test if this trend continues with higher-rated thrusters.
    It would seem that a higher rating allows for a wider margin of speeds when straying from Optimum Mass. Perhaps I'll try this with an Adder tomorrow to see if these results hold true - that would also allow to test with different classes, not just ratings.

  13. #13
    I tested some more ships, the Python, Clipper, Orca and Type-7. Of these I couldn't get the Type 7 to below half its optimum mass.
    (It was getting expensive so no Type-9 or Anaconda, and I don't have sufficient Federal clout to test a Dropship.)

    Here's the updated chart:
    (n.b. Cobra, Viper, Eagle and Type-7 are not below half optimum mass.)

    Attachment 32428

    Makes for some interesting nuances of balance.

  14. #14
    Well, looks like we can confirm that ENG Pips work in a linear manner, at least in regards to top speed. Thanks for that!
    Also, it seems like combat ships have a tendency to gain less per pip than the other ships. Perhaps they gain more in terms of turn rate?

    Summing up what we know about Thrusters so far:
    -Thrusters have a Minimum Mass equal to 50% (i.e. half) of Optimum Mass. Once at Minimum Mass, further mass reductions have no benefit in regards to speed or turn rate.
    -Going below Optimum Mass (toward Minimum Mass) grants smaller bonuses to Top Speed than going over Optimum Mass (toward Maximum Mass) by the same amount of mass.
    -At Optimum Mass, a ship's Top Speed is the same regardless of its Thrusters' Class or Rating (as long as said Thrusters' Optimum Mass can be reached).
    -Higher rated Thrusters allow for higher Top Speeds at Minimum Mass but also lower top speeds at Maximum Mass.
    -ENG Pips increase a ship's performance linearly. The exact effect is dependant on the ship.
    -Power Distributors have no direct effect on Top Speed or Turn Rate, only indirectly through mass and boost energy/recharge.

    Some assumptions we can make based off of what we've seen so far - though until tested, they can't be sure:
    -Anything that affects Top Speed also affects Turn Rate in a similar fashion.
    -Therefore, going below Optimum Mass (toward Minimum Mass) grants smaller bonuses to Turn Rate than going over Optimum Mass (toward Maximum Mass) by the same amount of mass.
    -Therefore, at Optimum Mass, a ship's Turn Rate is the same regardless of its Thrusters' Class or Rating (as long as said Thrusters' Optimum Mass can be reached).
    -Therefore, higher rated Thrusters allow for better Turn Rates at Minimum Mass but also worse Turn Rates at Maximum Mass.

    Some of the things that are yet untested:
    -How mass affects a ship exactly. Is it linear or exponential, i.e. will going from 100T to 101T have the same effect as going from 101T to 102T?
    -Acceleration/Deceleration. Do better thrusters allow you to reach a given speed (e.g. 10, 50 or 100 m/s) and Top Speed more quickly? How does it look in reverse? How does mass factor in? How do ENG Pips factor in?
    -How Thrusters' Class affects a ship's Top Speed and Turn Rate.
    -Whether Thrusters' Class/Rating or a ship's mass has an effect on how much ENG capacitor energy a boost requires.

    Perhaps if we manage to gather enough data, we might even be able to generate the formula behind all this which would allow us to calculate each ship's performance. Looks like it's made up out of some function using Thruster rating (and class?), its total Mass (which relates to the Thrusters and their Minimum/Optimum/Maximum Mass) and some hardcoded values that vary from ship to ship as a base. The effect of each ENG Pip is then applied to this in a linear fashion - how much said linear increase/decrease happens to be would, again, be particular to each ship.

    I'd like to do some more testing myself, but unfortunately I'm kind of tied up at the moment with my latest exploration trip, so it might be a while before I can get back to testing some of these things.
    But thanks again for those expensive tests, Jackie!

  15. #15
    Originally Posted by Takaru Minari View Post (Source)
    Interestingly, at Maximum Mass higher-rated Thrusters will actually perform worse - albeit doing so whilst moving at a higher total mass.
    It may be worth looking at performance normalized to the same total ship mass, as it seems rather misleading, even if technically accurate, to state that higher thrusters perform worse at maximum mass if maximum mass is simply scaling faster than performance at a given mass.

    Originally Posted by Takaru Minari View Post (Source)
    Also, it seems like combat ships have a tendency to gain less per pip than the other ships. Perhaps they gain more in terms of turn rate?
    I don't think this is the case, but it might be worth testing. Combat ships tend to be light relative to the thrusters they mount and may be balanced so that they are not uselessly slow with pips placed somewhere other than ENG, or to keep maximum speeds in check.

    Originally Posted by Takaru Minari View Post (Source)
    -Whether Thrusters' Class/Rating or a ship's mass has an effect on how much ENG capacitor energy a boost requires.
    Haven't done formal testing of this, but I can say with good confidence that the answer is no to the former, and with near absolute confidence that it's yes to the latter. I've noticed no difference in energy required to boost with ships that can increase mass via a significant fraction with cargo. Also, a distributor that can boost with less power hungry thrusters often cannot with more power hungry ones.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast