Hey now I like the Asp Scout and will probably get most of the progress from Elite 1 to Elite 2 in Exploration in one. haha
Curious FDev decision(New FSD)
- Thread starter Bob McBobblehead
- Start date
Although this Asp Scout is also an Asp Explorer playing a Python- "I know who I am! I'm a dude playing the dude, disguised as another dude!!"
9 months later they’ll have a litter of 3 tiny Haulers.
Not to mention a good handful of ships having missing SCO sound effects. How'd that happen?
How did they manage to reintroduce the flickering shadows bug they had already fixed once several updates ago?
How could they forget to fix it asap in 18.01? And 18.02?
Will 18.03 finally fix it? I guess it won't, because something something Titans and Thargoids.
Ah! the good old days.
This does explain the 30k+ percent heat I reached when I first tested SOC...
If I lock frame rate to one per second think it will be possible to make it to Hutton and still be able to cool down before losing the ship?
No, but the game has had and does have many things that are inexplicably tied to render frame rate. Some examples would be ship menu animations and the control sensitivity of the FSS. They need a clear policy of making this stuff independent and better QA to verify that's actually the case.
If I lock frame rate to one per second think it will be possible to make it to Hutton and still be able to cool down before losing the ship?
No, but the game has had and does have many things that are inexplicably tied to render frame rate. Some examples would be ship menu animations and the control sensitivity of the FSS. They need a clear policy of making this stuff independent and better QA to verify that's actually the case.
Indeed I noticed these while testing myself for ability to withstand 30fps. It seems like the SCO heat is, like those, not part of the physics engine, which itself seems pleasantly framerate independent.
Always wondered why the FSS felt weird swapping between my laptop and desktop even though the controls and options files are identical on both computers. It never occurred to me it was framerate-related because that seems ridiculous but makes sense in hindsight considering my desktop can pull like triple the FPS.
IIRC the heat up time vs fps function is not quite linear. I posted a test video in this thread a couple of pages ago, showing the time needed to reach 200% heat at 30, 45, 60, 90, 120, 144, 300 and ~400 fps, and the difference between 30 and 45 fps was minimal.
Attachments
rootsrat
Volunteer Moderator
Sounds like Netflix adaptation to me.
How about I attempt to boot ED on my 1995 dell optiplex? 0.2 FPS ought to get me somewhere.So if I'm reading this right, if I plug my GT 1030 in, change my CPU speed to super conservative values I'll go so fast with SCO I might time travel to U19s release?
I think that would break reality.
The Release Notes for 18.04 claim that this has been fixed. In those immortal words: Please Re-test.
I can confirm this has been fixed. My SCO enabled Cobra overshot me after a 10% heat rise on a trip that would've taken multiple bursts to control the heat before.
I can also confirm it appears to be fixed.
Tests with a Python Mk II, with the default C-class FSD and then with a D-class one, showed no measurable difference in heat generation between 30 and 120 FPS.
BTW, there appears to be another curious FDev decision (or possibly a data entry mistake): B-rated SCO FSDs are strictly worse than C-rated ones. The only differences are SCO heat generation, which is higher for B-rated ones, and of course price, which is also higher.
Tests with a Python Mk II, with the default C-class FSD and then with a D-class one, showed no measurable difference in heat generation between 30 and 120 FPS.
BTW, there appears to be another curious FDev decision (or possibly a data entry mistake): B-rated SCO FSDs are strictly worse than C-rated ones. The only differences are SCO heat generation, which is higher for B-rated ones, and of course price, which is also higher.
I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm really curious, as I tend to buy either A rated modules or D . Why would you buy a B or a C at all? Again, serious question as I'm assuming there's something I'm just not taking into account.
Edge cases that I can think of:
- B-rated modules have more integrity, but also heavier. So some builds which see combat more often might use them, still very niche.
- B-rated SCBs have 1 extra recharge compared to A-rated ones. A might give more shields back per charge, but the nett gain is more with B.
Last edited:
Thanks, Didn't know that about the SCB..
Yeah I have been here since just before Horizons and engineering so I do remember those days, even took a keelback with 25LY range to Colonia and back to see the new place
But even then the only B rate I ever bought was a fuel scoop (for exactly that reason, didn't have the cash for an A) but of course scoops have no weight. I was just wondering if I was missing something obvious (which is ENTIRELY possible).
It's kinda like in the old days you'd fly something other than a 'conda because it would take you a while to get a conda. But if it just takes a couple of hours to make enough to buy a 'conda, why would you bother with any ship in between? You used to do with a lesser module because it offered an immediate improvement while you saved for an even better one, now, why bother?
And now, why bother even doing that? Just drop your Arx for "accessiility".
And now, why bother even doing that? Just drop your Arx for "accessiility".