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AFAIK none of this has been listed before, at least not comparatively other than in the research thread which is sadly out of date and has some unverified data.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.
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).
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.
Landing pad size | Hull mass* | Thermal Capacity | Min Cooling Rate | Max Cooling Rate | |
_ | |||||
Dolphin | S | 140 | 245 | 1.91 | 56 |
Diamondback Explorer | S | 260 | 351 | 2.46 | 50.55 |
Diamondback Scout | S | 170 | 346 | 2.42 | 48.05 |
Vulture | S | 230 | 237 | 1.87 | 35.63 |
Cobra Mk. IV | S | 210 | 228 | 1.99 | 31.68 |
Cobra Mk. III | S | 180 | 225 | 1.92 | 30.36 |
Viper Mk. IV | S | 190 | 209 | 1.82 | 28.98 |
Viper Mk. III | S | 50 | 195 | 1.69 | 26.2 |
Imperial Courier | S | 35 | 230 | 1.62 | 25.05 |
Adder | S | 35 | 170 | 1.45 | 22.6 |
Eagle Mk. II | S | 50 | 165 | 1.38 | 21.48 |
Imperial Eagle | S | 50 | 163 | 1.5 | 21.2 |
Sidewinder | S | 25 | 140 | 1.18 | 18.15 |
Hauler | S | 14 | 123 | 1.06 | 16.2 |
_ | |||||
Krait MkII | M | 320 | 300 | 2.68 | 52.05 |
Krait Phantom | M | 270 | 300 | 2.68 | 52.05 |
Python | M | 350 | 300 | 2.68 | 52.05 |
Alliance Challenger | M | 450 | 316 | 2.87 | 51.4 |
Federal Gunship | M | 580 | 325 | 2.87 | 51.4 |
Federal Dropship | M | 580 | 331 | 2.6 | 46.5 |
Alliance Chieftain | M | 400 | 289 | 2.6 | 46.5 |
Alliance Crusader | M | 500 | 316 | 2.35 | 45.23 |
Federal Assault Ship | M | 480 | 286 | 2.53 | 45.23 |
Fer-de-Lance | M | 250 | 224 | 2.05 | 41.63 |
Mamba | M | 250 | 165 | 2.05 | 41.36 |
Asp Explorer | M | 280 | 272 | 2.34 | 39.9 |
Keelback | M | 180 | 215 | 1.87 | 29.78 |
Asp Scout | M | 150 | 210 | 1.8 | 29.65 |
Type-6 Transporter | M | 155 | 179 | 1.7 | 24.55 |
_ | |||||
Imperial Cutter | L | 1100 | 327 | 3.27 | 72.58 |
Federal Corvette | L | 900 | 333 | 3.28 | 70.33 |
Anaconda | L | 400 | 334 | 3.16 | 67.15 |
Type-10 Defender | L | 1200 | 335 | 3.16 | 67.15 |
Beluga Liner | L | 950 | 283 | 2.6 | 50.85 |
Type-9 Heavy | L | 850 | 289 | 3.1 | 48.35 |
Imperial Clipper | L | 400 | 304 | 2.63 | 46.8 |
Orca | L | 290 | 262 | 2.3 | 42.68 |
Type-7 Transporter | L | 350 | 226 | 2.17 | 32.45 |
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 size | heat cap | max cooling rate | peak heat ratio | |
_ | ||||
Dolphin | S | 245 | 56 | 4.38 |
Vulture | S | 237 | 35.63 | 6.65 |
Diamondback Explorer | S | 351 | 50.55 | 6.94 |
Diamondback Scout | S | 346 | 48.05 | 7.2 |
Cobra Mk. IV | S | 228 | 31.68 | 7.2 |
Viper MkIV | S | 209 | 28.98 | 7.21 |
Cobra Mk. III | S | 225 | 30.36 | 7.41 |
Viper MkIII | S | 195 | 26.2 | 7.44 |
Adder | S | 170 | 22.6 | 7.52 |
Hauler | S | 123 | 16.2 | 7.59 |
Eagle Mk. II | S | 165 | 21.48 | 7.68 |
Imperial Eagle | S | 163 | 21.2 | 7.69 |
Sidewinder | S | 140 | 18.15 | 7.71 |
Imperial Courier | S | 230 | 25.05 | 9.18 |
_ | ||||
Mamba | M | 165 | 41.36 | 3.99 |
Fer-de-Lance | M | 224 | 41.63 | 5.38 |
Krait MkII | M | 300 | 52.05 | 5.76 |
Krait Phantom | M | 300 | 52.05 | 5.76 |
Python | M | 300 | 52.05 | 5.76 |
Keelback | M | 180 | 29.78 | 6.04 |
Alliance Challenger | M | 316 | 51.4 | 6.15 |
Alliance Chieftain | M | 289 | 46.5 | 6.22 |
Federal Gunship | M | 325 | 51.4 | 6.32 |
Federal Assault Ship | M | 286 | 45.23 | 6.32 |
Asp Explorer | M | 272 | 39.9 | 6.82 |
Alliance Crusader | M | 316 | 45.23 | 6.99 |
Asp Scout | M | 210 | 29.65 | 7.08 |
Federal Dropship | M | 331 | 46.5 | 7.12 |
Type-6 Transporter | M | 179 | 24.55 | 7.29 |
_ | ||||
Imperial Cutter | L | 327 | 72.58 | 4.51 |
Federal Corvette | L | 333 | 70.33 | 4.73 |
Anaconda | L | 334 | 67.15 | 4.97 |
Type-10 Defender | L | 335 | 67.15 | 4.99 |
Beluga Liner | L | 283 | 50.85 | 5.57 |
Type-9 Heavy | L | 289 | 48.35 | 5.98 |
Imperial Clipper | L | 304 | 46.8 | 6.5 |
Orca | L | 262 | 42.68 | 6.14 |
Type-7 Transporter | L | 226 | 32.45 | 6.96 |
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: