Am I being Too Logical?

IndigoWyrd · Mar 11, 2017

Jump range is largely a factor of mass. Less mass means longer jumps.
One thing we can do to increase jump range is to carry a smaller fuel tank.

But I have to wonder why the mass of the actual fuel is not accounted for when calculating our jump ranges.
Surely at half a tank I should have a longer jump range than when I have a full tank, right?

Brieus · Mar 11, 2017

You do. But the route plotter doesn't take that into account. You'd have to go back and replot after every jump.

What I don't get, is why the larger ships have longer jump ranges.

Loskene · Mar 11, 2017

Brieus said:
You do. But the route plotter doesn't take that into account. You'd have to go back and replot after every jump.

What I don't get, is why the larger ships have longer jump ranges.

Because they have considerably more powerful FSDs capable of moving more mass. And the route plotter doesn't consider fuel balance because it would have to take refuelling mid journey into account, the details of which it cannot know until you refuel each time. On a surface level I would like if it did this but with practical consideration it would cause some annoying issues, like jumping into a system and being given your next destination only for that destination to suddenly change when you scoop fuel and your original target is no longer reachable.

xondk · Mar 11, 2017

IndigoWyrd said:
Jump range is largely a factor of mass. Less mass means longer jumps.
One thing we can do to increase jump range is to carry a smaller fuel tank.

But I have to wonder why the mass of the actual fuel is not accounted for when calculating our jump ranges.
Surely at half a tank I should have a longer jump range than when I have a full tank, right?

It is accounted for in your actual jump range..
However the plotter does not do so, it goes from your heaviest at the time, weigh, reasoning is quite simple really, it has no idea when or if you would refuel, which would if you got heavier then when you plotted the route, make you unable to jump said route.

Qohen Leth · Mar 11, 2017

IndigoWyrd said:
Jump range is largely a factor of mass. Less mass means longer jumps.
One thing we can do to increase jump range is to carry a smaller fuel tank.

But I have to wonder why the mass of the actual fuel is not accounted for when calculating our jump ranges.
Surely at half a tank I should have a longer jump range than when I have a full tank, right?

That's how it currently works. Pay more attention and you'll see it.

Garagiste · Mar 11, 2017

I seem to recall that for a time the route planner was doing the opposite, meaning the next jump after scooping was suddenly unavailable.
It was a right pain and I'm pleased it reverted.

There are times, when all the world's asleep, the pressures run too deep, for such a simple man...

SeaFireliv · Mar 11, 2017

No such thing as too logical. There`s either logic or no logic.

Codger · Mar 11, 2017

SeaFireliv said:
No such thing as too logical. There`s either logic or no logic.

Or game logic.

Iskariot · Mar 11, 2017

Brieus said:
What I don't get, is why the larger ships have longer jump ranges.

Fluff reason:
Larger FSD are more effective and are able to move more mass over longer distances.
It simply is how the technology works.

Thetele · Mar 11, 2017

Iskariot said:
Fluff reason:
Larger FSD are more effective and are able to move more mass over longer distances.
It simply is how the technology works.

Its not that. FSDs scale well but the ship mass doesn't. Big ships are way too light for their size and fsd size. Anaconda should weight double, same with many other big ships.

Loskene · Mar 11, 2017

Thetele said:
Its not that. FSDs scale well but the ship mass doesn't. Big ships are way too light for their size and fsd size. Anaconda should weight double, same with many other big ships.

It's less that the hull mass doesn't scale properly, and more that the value has nothing to do with the ship itself and is used as a means to tweak the effective FSD range. Nobody knows what an Anaconda "should" weigh, because all of the hull mass numbers are arbitrary and there's nothing to compare them to.

the100thmonkey · Mar 11, 2017

I think the hull mass issue is related to being able to fit modules, specifically FSDs, shields and thrusters, of smaller sizes than the slot.

You will be able to stick class 3 thrusters on the Dolphin, for example, although the slot is actually a class 4, and only lose a few m/s from your max cruise and boost speeds. This is great for explorers as it basically means free FSD range. Enhanced performance thrusters are an interesting proposition because the Dolphin basically pitches like a comet already, while yawing about as fast as a Viper can pitch.

If the mass actually did increase logically (I'm thinking to the cube of surface area), there would be basically no flexibility in build - you'd need a class 6 shield for a class six slot or your shields would be almost entirely useless. Traders would lose out massively.

Loskene · Mar 11, 2017

the100thmonkey said:
I think the hull mass issue is related to being able to fit modules, specifically FSDs, shields and thrusters, of smaller sizes than the slot.

You will be able to stick class 3 thrusters on the Dolphin, for example, although the slot is actually a class 4, and only lose a few m/s from your max cruise and boost speeds. This is great for explorers as it basically means free FSD range. Enhanced performance thrusters are an interesting proposition because the Dolphin basically pitches like a comet already, while yawing about as fast as a Viper can pitch.

If the mass actually did increase logically (I'm thinking to the cube of surface area), there would be basically no flexibility in build - you'd need a class 6 shield for a class six slot or your shields would be almost entirely useless. Traders would lose out massively.

I'd be careful putting performance thrusters on larger ships though, they have a very low optimal mass so your gains will fall off rapidly. Heavier courier builds with PETs gain little but increased power draw and heat generation. They're an absolute godsend for racing eagles though

Jon474 · Mar 11, 2017

...I know it sounds absurd, but please tell me who I am.

Flying happy
Jon
"Explorer"

Comrade Napoleon · Mar 11, 2017

OP: Larger vessels like the ' Conda (mine is the "Enhjørningen) has a hull that is mainly manufactured by Jumponiaum. The exact formula is a trade secret , so I cant tell you. Suffice for you to know is that it works. Cheaper crap vessels, FDL, FGS, Python are made without Jumponium. Cheap tricksters from the Lakon Spaceways (They be dammed) managed to get a recipe working for that deplorable Asp, Hrmmmpf.

Cheers Cmdr's

Comrade Napoleon (unofficial representative of Faucon DeLacy)

Stealthie · Mar 11, 2017

Loskene said:
Because they have considerably more powerful FSDs capable of moving more mass. And the route plotter doesn't consider fuel balance because it would have to take refuelling mid journey into account, the details of which it cannot know until you refuel each time. On a surface level I would like if it did this but with practical consideration it would cause some annoying issues, like jumping into a system and being given your next destination only for that destination to suddenly change when you scoop fuel and your original target is no longer reachable.

Of course, that's a calculation that is also confounded by the fact that different lengths of jump use different amounts of fuel too.

That's something which has always bugged me too.

It uses MORE fuel to jump, say, 30Ly in one go than it takes to make 3 x 10Ly jumps.
This is explained on the basis that it takes more energy to make a single, longer, jump.

If that was the case, why wouldn't your FSD just automatically make 3 x 10 Ly jumps to get to a destination 30Ly away?
In fact, why wouldn't it just make 30 x 1 Ly jumps to get to the same place using even less fuel?

Obviously, the correct answer is "cos, game" but that's kinda weak.

Father Giliam · Mar 11, 2017

Stealthie said:
If that was the case, why wouldn't your FSD just automatically make 3 x 10 Ly jumps to get to a destination 30Ly away?
In fact, why wouldn't it just make 30 x 1 Ly jumps to get to the same place using even less fuel?

Obviously, the correct answer is "cos, game" but that's kinda weak.

Two reasons.

#1 The FSDs on our ships must lock onto a significant mass (the highest if there are several relatively close) to jump. The drives on Captial class ships and Stations like Jacques (and likely Mega ships) don't have this constraint.

#2 If there were enough targets to make that many jumps, the pilot may decide not to do that. Why? Time. The cooldown on the FSD would eat up time that the pilot may not want to use to get to the destination.