It is fairly common knowledge that SC speed is the same regardless of FSD or Thrusters (*see below re: this assumption), but did not find much re: maneuver effects, if any, for thrusters in SC - so decided to do my own tests.
TL;DR - On Maneuver speed - time to complete one full 360 degree rotation via Roll, Pitch, or Yaw
On Supercruise speed - time to accelerate from standstill to reach known distance point
Test methodology:
Results: *anomaly in bold italic red, expected superior result in bold green, neutral result in bold blue
Normal space - maneuver tests
Roll: A4 - 5.6s // B4 4.4s // D4 4.5s
Pitch: A4 - 10.4s // B4 10.7s // D4 11.0s
Yaw: A4 - 27.5s // B4 28.3s // D4 29.2s
Supercruise - maneuver tests
Roll: A4 - 4.2s // B4 4.4s // D4 4.2s
Pitch: A4 - 16.1s // B4 16.1s // D4 16.1s
Yaw: A4 - 34.8s // B4 34.8s // D4 34.8s
Supercruise - Speed from point A to B test; from 0 velocity to 10s eta marker of known object
(course from Goldstein Port 0.19 LS away in SC space at dead standstill --> Lembava B star 12,373 LS away - this route had no planetary bodies in alignment anywhere near A-B linear line for all 5 test runs)
A4: 4:22s
D4: 4:27s
*thoughts: unknown why against all expectation, there was consistently a near identical ~5.0 second delta between A4 thruster and D4 thruster; all expectations where that thrusters should have zero effect on SC top speed and acceleration.
however, the results were too consistent to ignore as timing or rounding error.
only hypothesis I have at this time is that during the 5 runs I did A4 tests, the far distance planetary bodies had a very slight lesser drag effect than during the ~30 min later period when I did the next 5 runs with D4 equipped. Given gravity effects are a part of this game, while we usually only see the direct impact via very close planets dragging our speed down and then accelerating us as we slingshot past - it is within normal physics for distant bodies to exert slight effects, so I guess kudos to FD if this is indeed what is modeled in game - otherwise I can't explain why A4 vs D4 thruster would have this slight speed advantage when it should have no difference
Anomalies in test -
1. The first big surprise was A4 thruster on this test ship - DBX - having such pronounced difference and inferiority of Roll speed vs B4 and D4. Both B4 and D4 were 0.1s apart - enough that given only 3 test points used for average, it's reasonable to conclude this is simply averaging error and B4/D4 are identical
But the consistent difference, and such a large magnitude difference of Roll 360 speed for A4 at 5.6s vs 4.4s for B4/D4 is an unexplainable gap other than FD must have coded something wrong here. The 1.2s delta is too large for human error in my timing via digital race clock - a few tenths of a second I could explain as my reaction time error to stop/start the clock, but 1.2s consistently over 5 tests is far too much.
2. Was happy to see that for most part, thrusters played little to no effect on SC maneuverability - hence it's just fine to equip exploration ships with the lightest D rated thrusters possible and not give up any SC maneuver time while rotating to scan planets, etc.
However, in this case - again for this one specific ship - the DBX - it is the B4 thruster that is borked. All pitch and yaw were identical for all thruster rating tested, but for B4 and only for Roll 360 tests, it was inferior to both A4 and D4. So again I conclude FD borked some in-game coding for this.
conclusion caution - because all tests were done with my 1 ship, I only conclude two things:
a) it is reasonable to assume these tests on a qualitative basis will be similar with other ships, but in no way reflects actual quantitative differences; for that each different ship would have to be tested
b) given that there are some anomalies - what I call borked results due to what may be bugs in expected module behavior - it's possible these anomalies are ONLY for the DBX, and/or that other ships will have different anomalies when testing them specifically
My main motivation to test this was due to kitting out my exploration ship for really long, not coming back in 1 day exploration trip. I wanted to use D grade thruster to save weight, but did not want to give up SC maneuverability - given that is where most exploration time is spent.
TL;DR - On Maneuver speed - time to complete one full 360 degree rotation via Roll, Pitch, or Yaw
- In Supercruise: Aside from one anomaly with B4 thruster Roll speed, in general Thruster rating had zero effect on Roll, Pitch, and Yaw speeds for 360 degree rotation
- In Normal space: Aside from one anomaly with A4 thruster Roll speed, in general Thruster rating affected maneuver speeds as expected, higher rating = faster Roll, Pitch, and Yaw 360 degree rotation (*with exception of A4 anomaly)
On Supercruise speed - time to accelerate from standstill to reach known distance point
- A4 thruster consistently beat D4 thruster SC speed by small margin - but possible gravitational effects of planetary bodies not on screen or direct path of test course may explain this
Test methodology:
- All tests conducted using Diamondback Explorer kitted out with A grade parts and armed. Only component changed for each test was A4, B4, or D4 thruster
- All times for each test done 5x, outlier min and max times discarded, and remaining three data points averaged
- All times tests conducted in same location, all SC speed tests conducted same 'race course' with no planetary bodies nearby to drag / accelerate - but obviously planetary bodies thousands of LS off were in system
- All Normal space maneuver tests performed with throttle setting at exact optimal middle blue band for turn speed
- All SC space maneuver tests also same as above
Results: *anomaly in bold italic red, expected superior result in bold green, neutral result in bold blue
Normal space - maneuver tests
Roll: A4 - 5.6s // B4 4.4s // D4 4.5s
Pitch: A4 - 10.4s // B4 10.7s // D4 11.0s
Yaw: A4 - 27.5s // B4 28.3s // D4 29.2s
Supercruise - maneuver tests
Roll: A4 - 4.2s // B4 4.4s // D4 4.2s
Pitch: A4 - 16.1s // B4 16.1s // D4 16.1s
Yaw: A4 - 34.8s // B4 34.8s // D4 34.8s
Supercruise - Speed from point A to B test; from 0 velocity to 10s eta marker of known object
(course from Goldstein Port 0.19 LS away in SC space at dead standstill --> Lembava B star 12,373 LS away - this route had no planetary bodies in alignment anywhere near A-B linear line for all 5 test runs)
A4: 4:22s
D4: 4:27s
*thoughts: unknown why against all expectation, there was consistently a near identical ~5.0 second delta between A4 thruster and D4 thruster; all expectations where that thrusters should have zero effect on SC top speed and acceleration.
however, the results were too consistent to ignore as timing or rounding error.
only hypothesis I have at this time is that during the 5 runs I did A4 tests, the far distance planetary bodies had a very slight lesser drag effect than during the ~30 min later period when I did the next 5 runs with D4 equipped. Given gravity effects are a part of this game, while we usually only see the direct impact via very close planets dragging our speed down and then accelerating us as we slingshot past - it is within normal physics for distant bodies to exert slight effects, so I guess kudos to FD if this is indeed what is modeled in game - otherwise I can't explain why A4 vs D4 thruster would have this slight speed advantage when it should have no difference
Anomalies in test -
1. The first big surprise was A4 thruster on this test ship - DBX - having such pronounced difference and inferiority of Roll speed vs B4 and D4. Both B4 and D4 were 0.1s apart - enough that given only 3 test points used for average, it's reasonable to conclude this is simply averaging error and B4/D4 are identical
But the consistent difference, and such a large magnitude difference of Roll 360 speed for A4 at 5.6s vs 4.4s for B4/D4 is an unexplainable gap other than FD must have coded something wrong here. The 1.2s delta is too large for human error in my timing via digital race clock - a few tenths of a second I could explain as my reaction time error to stop/start the clock, but 1.2s consistently over 5 tests is far too much.
2. Was happy to see that for most part, thrusters played little to no effect on SC maneuverability - hence it's just fine to equip exploration ships with the lightest D rated thrusters possible and not give up any SC maneuver time while rotating to scan planets, etc.
However, in this case - again for this one specific ship - the DBX - it is the B4 thruster that is borked. All pitch and yaw were identical for all thruster rating tested, but for B4 and only for Roll 360 tests, it was inferior to both A4 and D4. So again I conclude FD borked some in-game coding for this.
conclusion caution - because all tests were done with my 1 ship, I only conclude two things:
a) it is reasonable to assume these tests on a qualitative basis will be similar with other ships, but in no way reflects actual quantitative differences; for that each different ship would have to be tested
b) given that there are some anomalies - what I call borked results due to what may be bugs in expected module behavior - it's possible these anomalies are ONLY for the DBX, and/or that other ships will have different anomalies when testing them specifically
My main motivation to test this was due to kitting out my exploration ship for really long, not coming back in 1 day exploration trip. I wanted to use D grade thruster to save weight, but did not want to give up SC maneuverability - given that is where most exploration time is spent.
Last edited:
