A table of all of Edsy's ship thermals.

I made this table to get a more comparative overview for my own purposes, but it occurred to me I might as well share it. AFAIK none of this has been listed before, at least not comparatively other than in the research thread which is sadly out of date and has some unverified data. Thanks to Taladen & whoever else works on Edsy for having this data publicly available. Thanks to Fretnox for being the first to crunch the numbers.

Landing pad sizeHull mass*Thermal CapacityMin Cooling RateMax Cooling Rate
_
DolphinS1402451.9156
Diamondback ExplorerS2603512.4650.55
Diamondback ScoutS1703462.4248.05
VultureS2302371.8735.63
Cobra Mk. IVS2102281.9931.68
Cobra Mk. IIIS1802251.9230.36
Viper Mk. IVS1902091.8228.98
Viper Mk. IIIS501951.6926.2
Imperial CourierS352301.6225.05
AdderS351701.4522.6
Eagle Mk. IIS501651.3821.48
Imperial EagleS501631.521.2
SidewinderS251401.1818.15
HaulerS141231.0616.2
_
Krait MkIIM3203002.6852.05
Krait PhantomM2703002.6852.05
PythonM3503002.6852.05
Alliance ChallengerM4503162.8751.4
Federal GunshipM5803252.8751.4
Federal DropshipM5803312.646.5
Alliance ChieftainM4002892.646.5
Alliance CrusaderM5003162.3545.23
Federal Assault ShipM4802862.5345.23
Fer-de-LanceM2502242.0541.63
MambaM2501652.0541.36
Asp ExplorerM2802722.3439.9
KeelbackM1802151.8729.78
Asp ScoutM1502101.829.65
Type-6 TransporterM1551791.724.55
_
Imperial CutterL11003273.2772.58
Federal CorvetteL9003333.2870.33
AnacondaL4003343.1667.15
Type-10 DefenderL12003353.1667.15
Beluga LinerL9502832.650.85
Type-9 HeavyL8502893.148.35
Imperial ClipperL4003042.6346.8
OrcaL2902622.342.68
Type-7 TransporterL3502262.1732.45

Hull mass: sets a lower bound to the absolute minimum tier of shield, thruster and power plant modules you can install, which in turn further impacts reactor draw and heat generation. May also impact stealth mechanics, not confirmed. Important figure but cannot be calculated into thermals properly as it affects the figures indirectly.*
Thermal capacity: how many units of heat a ship can store, more massive ships tend to have more of it.
Min cooling rate: how many units it gets rid of per second when at a low % of thermal capacity. Useful for silent running.
Max cooling rate: how many units it gets rid of when at a high %. Useful for combat, fuel scooping, frequent boosting, etc. Caps out when a ship reaches 66% of its thermal capacity.

* Hull mass numbers close to each other will likely (but not always) result in identical minimal thermal figures for ships as the same modules with the same power draw apply. In other words, there is no 'gradient' between a 2A-E core module and a 3A-E module as it will just be one or the other. Every now and then though a small variation may tip a ship into requiring a higher 'minimum' tier module. Lastly, it's worth noting that differences this figure will impact L size ships much more heavily than S size ships.

Interestingly, some of the ship data seems to have been cloned. A Krait and a Phantom I can almost understand, but a Python having the same stats as both? The Type 10 and the Anaconda have almost the same figures despite having very different masses and shape. The Hauler having the worst thermals of any ship, didn't see that coming. It's not as likely to run hot as say an Imperial Courier, but then again you probably won't be doing the same things with it anyway. Then there's the DBX, good stats but I guessed incorrectly that it'd lose heat the fastest at max thermal capacity. It's not even in the top 3.

By the way, I'm taking a leap of faith with the Edsy data being correct. I have no reason to believe it isn't as it's AFAIK the only place to accuratelyish calculate a ship's thermal footprint.

____

This next table has nothing to do with Edsy. I've sorted the ships per size class and divided their heat capacity by their max cooling rate. To what purpose? To show how easily heat can be managed. A ship can have low thermal capacity but enough (potential) cooling rate to not really make that an issue. And vice verca, a ship with good max cool rate may still have poor thermal capacity. Per Guyperson's suggestion I've renamed this ratio 'peak heat ratio' until someone comes up with a better title. Lower numbers are 'better'.

A fair warning: this data needs to be taken with a grain of salt, as it says nothing about ship configurations, core and internal compartment limitations and the fact that cooling rate isn't a constant value (it peaks at 66% heat capacity according to Fretnox's findings).

landing pad sizeheat capmax cooling ratepeak heat ratio
_
DolphinS245564.38
VultureS23735.636.65
Diamondback ExplorerS35150.556.94
Diamondback ScoutS34648.057.2
Cobra Mk. IVS22831.687.2
Viper MkIVS20928.987.21
Cobra Mk. IIIS22530.367.41
Viper MkIIIS19526.27.44
AdderS17022.67.52
HaulerS12316.27.59
Eagle Mk. IIS16521.487.68
Imperial EagleS16321.27.69
SidewinderS14018.157.71
Imperial CourierS23025.059.18
_
MambaM16541.363.99
Fer-de-LanceM22441.635.38
Krait MkIIM30052.055.76
Krait PhantomM30052.055.76
PythonM30052.055.76
KeelbackM18029.786.04
Alliance ChallengerM31651.46.15
Alliance ChieftainM28946.56.22
Federal GunshipM32551.46.32
Federal Assault ShipM28645.236.32
Asp ExplorerM27239.96.82
Alliance CrusaderM31645.236.99
Asp ScoutM21029.657.08
Federal DropshipM33146.57.12
Type-6 TransporterM17924.557.29
_
Imperial CutterL32772.584.51
Federal CorvetteL33370.334.73
AnacondaL33467.154.97
Type-10 DefenderL33567.154.99
Beluga LinerL28350.855.57
Type-9 HeavyL28948.355.98
Imperial ClipperL30446.86.5
OrcaL26242.686.14
Type-7 TransporterL22632.456.96

This table confirms a lot about things we already kinda new about most ships like the Courier, the Type 6 and 7 and the Cutter. Seeing the suspicions about the Dolphin to some extend being superior to the DBX confirmed was very nice (Future Harrodown here: this has now been confirmed - the Dophin has the best 'effective' max cool rate in the game). Furthermore, it also shows that the Hauler is not as bad as it initially appears in the previous table. The big surprise is the Mamba. Clearly a bit of engineering goes a very long way to make that ship's thermals viable.
 
Last edited:
Then there's the DBX, good stats but I guessed incorrectly that it'd lose the heat fastest. It's not even in the top 3.
They're small ships with small low power modules which don't output that much heat relative to their cooling rate. Proportionally that is huge and coupled with the highest heat capacity in the game it's no wonder they idle at such a low temperature. If they cooled off any faster they'd probably have permanently frosted canopies.
 
Edited the Imperial Cutter and turns out it's the fastest max cooling ship now. The Federal Cutter still has the fastest stock cooling, which matters when you're simply not going to engineer thermals at all. It's interesting how spread out the optimal stats are between the DBX, the Corvette and the Cutter.
 
Edited the Imperial Cutter and turns out it's the fastest max cooling ship now. The Federal Cutter still has the fastest stock cooling, which matters when you're simply not going to engineer thermals at all. It's interesting how spread out the optimal stats are between the DBX, the Corvette and the Cutter.
The Federal Cutter. Now that would be an interesting ship!
 
Interesting table !

I note that several pirates have reported the Dolphin as being an excellent ship for silent running, but it's not clearly shown in this data. Perhaps another column of "max cooling per ship mass" would highlight the coolest running ships in practice.

Those of us have taken the T-10 out exploring have noticed it runs very cool while fuel scooping. The data shows why.
 
Last edited:
Dolphin data doesn't seem right to me. It's the coldest ship in the game, but you wouldn't know that by looking at this chart. Also, the DBS is probably cooler than the DBX...
 
Perhaps another column of "max cooling per ship mass" would highlight the coolest running ships in practice.
I have been thinking of something similar. While it's intuitive that a larger mass or surface area would be helpful, there are some hints that the numbers chosen for this calculation are arbitrary for every ship. Thermal capacity is the number we are sure of, so max cooling by thermal capacity seems like the solution. Problem is that I've indicated that all data in the table comes from Edsy and a third column that I kinda made up would be out of place.

Maybe I'll add a second table or something.
 
Last edited:
You mean the Python is a Krait Mk II light.
No. The Krait MK II is lighter, a little faster and more maneuverable than a Python with less hull and shield protection. But with a good pilot in combat the Krait will always win per the slower Python. Then the Python wisely used pays for every other ship in the game with the help of a trading Cutter later on. This week many players thought mining LTDs was the only avenue to obtain any engineered ship in the game. I laugh at their lack of experience playing ED never once mining a LTD and are doing just fine.
 
No. The Krait MK II is lighter, a little faster and more maneuverable than a Python with less hull and shield protection. But with a good pilot in combat the Krait will always win per the slower Python. Then the Python wisely used pays for every other ship in the game with the help of a trading Cutter later on. This week many players thought mining LTDs was the only avenue to obtain any engineered ship in the game. I laugh at their lack of experience playing ED never once mining a LTD and are doing just fine.
Ah you mean light as in lighter, not light as in "lite" as in lesser version. Thought you might have been saying that one.

Krait MK2>python.
 
Ah you mean light as in lighter, not light as in "lite" as in lesser version. Thought you might have been saying that one.

Krait MK2>python.
We all read posts 10 different ways. It gets worse having a relationship with a girl separated and doing texting.
Girls love it at even face -to-face we guys will never figure them out.
 
I have been thinking of something similar. While it's intuitive that a larger mass or surface area would be helpful, there are some hints that the numbers chosen for this calculation are arbitrary for every ship. Thermal capacity is the number we are sure of, so max cooling by thermal capacity seems like the solution. Problem is that I've indicated that all data in the table comes from Edsy and a third column that I kinda made up would be out of place.

Maybe I'll add a second table or something.
I've done this now and wow. Clearly it isn't an accurate figure as there are other things like ship-specific module limitations that this table doesn't take into account, but as far as rough indications go that can still be compared to other ships of the same class, wow this really is something! There is definitely a verifiable difference between a 'cool ship' and a 'cool running ship', as in a ship that has an easy time managing heat while flying and doing stuff. The Dolphin is indeed belongs to the latter category as has been suggested in this thread, a heckin' cool running ship. But guess what ship comes out on top there? The Mamba! I guess that makes sense because with a bit of engineering that ship does sing, combat and speed-wise.

Hold on a bit while I figure out how to convert the Excel table to forum code again.

Edit: I can't figure what to call that column, heat capacity divided by max cooling rate. What an odd road block. Any ideas?
 
Last edited:
Second table added. I like how much it confirms about what I know about ships like the Type 7, the Dolphin and the Imperial Courier, but still managed to completely surprise me about the Mamba. Also, hey hey, the Hauler has been redeemed a little from the results in the first table. 🥳

Anyway, I guess I have to look at the Mamba again. :whistle:
 
Second table added. I like how much it confirms about what I know about ships like the Type 7, the Dolphin and the Imperial Courier, but still managed to completely surprise me about the Mamba. Also, hey hey, the Hauler has been redeemed a little from the results in the first table. 🥳

Anyway, I guess I have to look at the Mamba again. :whistle:
Good job! Another interesting table ;)
 
Top Bottom