edit: ignore, misunderstoodIt's honestly a little long.
Moreover, putting 'peak' in there isn't actually the worst idea since I did take max cool rate into the calculation (with the idea that min cool rate usually isn't what's happening when you are in trouble).
A table of all of Edsy's ship thermals.
- Thread starter Harrowdown
- Start date
It's honestly a little long.
Moreover, putting 'peak' in there isn't actually the worst idea since I did take max cool rate into the calculation (with the idea that min cool rate usually isn't what's happening when you are in trouble).
No sweat, i was just spit balling - and I do like "peak heat ratio" as well!
I've been wondering if I should dedicate a column to ship mass as well. A Type 10 weights three Anaconda's, in spite of having virtually identical thermals. Most of the lower class engines and shields and as a consequence reactors can't be fitted on it. I don't know, as far as the information goes in these tables it might be veering into TMI territory. And mass itself doesn't immediately tell you useful information about shields or thrusters regardless. What do you guys think?
We have been told that the chances of being scanned at ports is dependent on ship "size," so I would say the mass of the ship would likely be a good indicator of the ship size (Anaconda would likely be an exception because it's always .... well ... an outlier !).
So an indication of basic ship mass and some division of "heat emitted per unit ship mass" might give a useful indication of how good the ship is for certain stealth operations. I would suggest a separate Table because otherwise they start to get complicated. I'm not sure which parameter should be used for the heat, however: heat cap, min cooling rate, max cooling rate
Of course, ship mass will change with modules and maybe with some of the engineering features available, but a basic idea might be helpful.
So an indication of basic ship mass and some division of "heat emitted per unit ship mass" might give a useful indication of how good the ship is for certain stealth operations. I would suggest a separate Table because otherwise they start to get complicated. I'm not sure which parameter should be used for the heat, however: heat cap, min cooling rate, max cooling rate
Of course, ship mass will change with modules and maybe with some of the engineering features available, but a basic idea might be helpful.
Hm, I'd need some confirmation the mechanic actually works like that. Either way if I did a stealth table, someone would want a combat table and then engineering tables for both. I don't know, it seems like I'm slipping down a hill here.
Then don't do it. Nobody is clamoring for it, anyway. You've done an excellent job already
Thanks. 
I'm still trying to think of a solution, like minimum thruster/shield/plant size. It just seems... messy? Maybe minimum power consumption would be handier. I don't think Edsy lists the total power consumption, only the total of the thermals in percentages. Thankfully power consumption of individual modules is listed and I know how to add.
Oh and if I can get some confirmation that mass factors in the stealth mechanic (and not say volume or ship profile) I'll think about adding a column or a new table. I don't know about engineering though.
I'm still trying to think of a solution, like minimum thruster/shield/plant size. It just seems... messy? Maybe minimum power consumption would be handier. I don't think Edsy lists the total power consumption, only the total of the thermals in percentages. Thankfully power consumption of individual modules is listed and I know how to add.
Oh and if I can get some confirmation that mass factors in the stealth mechanic (and not say volume or ship profile) I'll think about adding a column or a new table. I don't know about engineering though.
Last edited:
No no, I am overthinking this by a factor of 50. All of this is contingent on ship mass. The best I can do is just list it and trust people can work out the rest themselves.
I will probably make one my main too. In spite of everything I can't get over that amazing cockpit view. Maybe it'll be a Type 9 if the stats for it work out better, but we'll see.
Added hull mass to the first table. As this is not really a 'gradient' sort of table (it affects thruster, shield and power plant module types), I'm not sure if adding a colour gradient is a good idea. Feedback on that is appreciated. It's worth noting that the DBS is significantly lighter than the DBX. That could explain why it could have a better thermal profile, as it in turn affects minimum module types.
The Federal Corvette was incorrectly not listed with the best minimum cooling rate. Has been fixed now. I also seem to have neglected adding the Keelback to the second table at all, but I have no more time to work on this further. Writing it down here as a reminder.
The Federal Corvette was incorrectly not listed with the best minimum cooling rate. Has been fixed now. I also seem to have neglected adding the Keelback to the second table at all, but I have no more time to work on this further. Writing it down here as a reminder.
Decided to try out a some colour on the Hull mass column after al, working it in now-ish. I'm hoping the change in colour and the * for clarification will make it clear enough that this column shouldn't be read as the same as the other three. I still believe having the colour there helps make the data easier to parse.
Oh I'm not sure if anyone needs to know, but I used https://colordesigner.io/gradient-generator to churn out the different gradients. Handy site.
Oh I'm not sure if anyone needs to know, but I used https://colordesigner.io/gradient-generator to churn out the different gradients. Handy site.
Hauler has less mass than a Sidewinder, so that value must be wrong.
Those values seem to be in order. Remember that you can always verify in Edsy or Coriolis if something seems off. Thanks for being vigilant though, I've already corrected a number of mistakes myself.
And again, a reminder to myself to add the damn Keelback to the second table.
Last edited:
I never appreciated it had so much less mass (I should have checked first). Maybe the Hauler is built from lightweight aluminum alloy after allThose values seem to be in order. Remember that you can always verify in Edsy or Coriolis if something seems off. Thanks for being vigilant though, I've already corrected a number of mistakes myself.
And again, a reminder to myself to add the damn Keelback to the second table.
Last edited:
Or pure chromium? I don't know if that would actually make for a lighter ship, but I bet those Thargoid wouldn't be able to put a scratch on your hull.
Very nice screen archery.
Very nice screen archery.
So while my charts helps you figure out details about ship thermals at a glance, it will always be a bit harder to see which 'ship beats the other' as mass imposed limitations on core and optional modules makes it difficult to predict how much additional heat a ship will produce.
I worked out one quick way to test this for ships that already have excellent max cooling rate: fuel scooping. You have to own both ships, kit them out as similarly (minimally) as you can and then just scoop as low as possible at the same star and see where the thermal capacity levels out. I sort of tested this with a Dolphin and a Type 10, although the Type 10 didn't have the right E rated modules on it yet. Still, it showed the dolphin's temperature leveled out at 53% while the Type 10 stopped increasing at 56%.
I'm going to try this again when I have all the right modules on the Type 10 (although it will be a while before I can afford an 8A fuel scoop).
I worked out one quick way to test this for ships that already have excellent max cooling rate: fuel scooping. You have to own both ships, kit them out as similarly (minimally) as you can and then just scoop as low as possible at the same star and see where the thermal capacity levels out. I sort of tested this with a Dolphin and a Type 10, although the Type 10 didn't have the right E rated modules on it yet. Still, it showed the dolphin's temperature leveled out at 53% while the Type 10 stopped increasing at 56%.
I'm going to try this again when I have all the right modules on the Type 10 (although it will be a while before I can afford an 8A fuel scoop).
Last edited:
May have. A combination of max cool rate and low ship mass. I'm trying to settle it once and for all here: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threa...cutter-and-maybe-a-conda.551705/#post-8617918
