Federal Assault ship vs Python

The premise of the thread seems a little odd to me. Sure, the FAS can apparently boost like a boss and I'm probably going to love that (DIVE DIVE DIVE HIT YOUR BURNERS PILOT!), but if you look at the whole package, compared to a Python the FAS has:

1 less Large hardpoint (FAS 2M/2L, Python 2M/3L)
130 more tons of hull mass (=less jump range and weaker shields)
A lower base shield value (meaning even weaker shields, compounded by the high hull mass)
FAR fewer internal compartments, none of which are higher than Class 5. This means less cargo, less SCBs, less everything.

So how is this outperforming an A-spec Python? Are you using it for drag racing?
 
I don't think there is anything odd about it at all. How can 480t of mass boost faster and maneuvre tighter than a mass of 350t? All thrusters being equal? Even if the hardpoints were the same, the shields were the same and everything else was the same the maths doesn't work.
 
I don't think there is anything odd about it at all. How can 480t of mass boost faster and maneuvre tighter than a mass of 350t? All thrusters being equal? Even if the hardpoints were the same, the shields were the same and everything else was the same the maths doesn't work.

Too many hidden numbers.
 
I don't think there is anything odd about it at all. How can 480t of mass boost faster and maneuvre tighter than a mass of 350t? All thrusters being equal? Even if the hardpoints were the same, the shields were the same and everything else was the same the maths doesn't work.

Well that's just because 80% of the "stats" FD gives us in the loadout screen are absolutely worthless, and our ships' "mass" is a made-up number that has little or no connection to reality. You should have seen the "will it float?" thread a while back, most of our ships are made of Styrofoam. :p

Which I do agree is annoying as hell, but that's a problem with FD's ridiculously opaque stat system rather than with the Federal Assault ship in particular. You would think that an easy thing to do, instead of using all these arcane hidden numbers, would be to just design the FAS so that it can comfortably use Class 7 thrusters if you want it to go fast...
 
I don't think there is anything odd about it at all. How can 480t of mass boost faster and maneuvre tighter than a mass of 350t? All thrusters being equal? Even if the hardpoints were the same, the shields were the same and everything else was the same the maths doesn't work.

you didn't take hull design into account. just compare thrust scc weight to it's speed, and the weight and speed of a f1 car. thrust scc has more weight and goes faster (it's still the fastest land vehicle).

as said - pythons design is from 2700, so it is 630 years old. spacecraft engineering went on :-D
 
you didn't take hull design into account. just compare thrust scc weight to it's speed, and the weight and speed of a f1 car. thrust scc has more weight and goes faster (it's still the fastest land vehicle).

as said - pythons design is from 2700, so it is 630 years old. spacecraft engineering went on :-D


The shape of the hull is completely irrelevant in space. Streamlined hull shapes make going fast easier on Earth because it reduces atmospheric drag: there is no atmosphere in space. A given rocket in space will accelerate a cube just as well as it would accelerate a Concorde. Though mostly what makes the Thrust SCC go so fast is the fact that it's over 75% jet engine.

It is possible though that a Class 6 FAS engine is not the same as a Class 6 Python engine (ie while everything we see in game implies they use the same engine, they in fact don't). Fitting a more efficient engine in the same sized slot would allow the FAS to go faster. But of course, we don't have anything to directly tell us what that difference is, which brings us back to the real problem of a completely opaque stat system filled with arcane hidden numbers.

And I still say that nobody has to worry about the FAS unseating the Python's place as the #1 PvP ship: the FAS still has less firepower, vastly weaker shields, and significantly less internal space. The Clipper will probably hold on to its #2 slot too, but the FAS will probably give it some competition. The Clipper also has better shields and internals than the FAS, but not by the same margin as the Python. It also lacks the Python's firepower advantage, and the FAS has better hardpoint placement.

So basically the FAS is more comparable to the Clipper than the Python. Whether you choose the FAS or the Clipper depends on whether you prefer good armor and hardpoint placement, or good shields and internal space.
 
"as said - pythons design is from 2700, so it is 630 years old. spacecraft engineering went on :-D"

Maybe. Personally though I'd say the basic shape of the hull is 600 odd years old. So what? The basic shape of the wheel hasn't changed in thousands of years but people keep making them better.

In the Star Wars universe some space ship designs are tens of thousands of years old, the basic shapes stay the same, only the tech changes. In space espectially the shape is unimportant, it is the tech that counts. the hull material, the thruster tech etc. The age of the basic design is not important like the difference between a WW1 biplane and a fifth gen super jet.

If the age of the design mattered I doubt the Python would remain in production for so long. At the time of the game setting it is still in production because a) it is a perfectly viable design and b) it has evolved.
 
Last edited:
Sorry. You beat me to it.

Yes I guess there is something new about the thrusters in the FAS or the FAS will get nerf'd like the Python did.
 
The shape of the hull is completely irrelevant in space. Streamlined hull shapes make going fast easier on Earth because it reduces atmospheric drag: there is no atmosphere in space. A given rocket in space will accelerate a cube just as well as it would accelerate a Concorde. Though mostly what makes the Thrust SCC go so fast is the fact that it's over 75% jet engine.

It is possible though that a Class 6 FAS engine is not the same as a Class 6 Python engine (ie while everything we see in game implies they use the same engine, they in fact don't). Fitting a more efficient engine in the same sized slot would allow the FAS to go faster. But of course, we don't have anything to directly tell us what that difference is, which brings us back to the real problem of a completely opaque stat system filled with arcane hidden numbers.

And I still say that nobody has to worry about the FAS unseating the Python's place as the #1 PvP ship: the FAS still has less firepower, vastly weaker shields, and significantly less internal space. The Clipper will probably hold on to its #2 slot too, but the FAS will probably give it some competition. The Clipper also has better shields and internals than the FAS, but not by the same margin as the Python. It also lacks the Python's firepower advantage, and the FAS has better hardpoint placement.

So basically the FAS is more comparable to the Clipper than the Python. Whether you choose the FAS or the Clipper depends on whether you prefer good armor and hardpoint placement, or good shields and internal space.
Exactly. It would be strange for this ship at its price point to out do a python. I see this ship as a direct competition to the clipper.

At the python price range we have the FDL and type 9, which rounds out that area nicely.

The Fed Assault is more in the price and performance range of the clipper, and when compared to a clipper they definitely both out do each other in different ways, providing two very viable options at that price range. I think it's a great looking and performing ship. I'll be keeping my pyhton but the Fed Assualt will have a place in my hangar.
 
As a somewhat nerdy aside, technically "top speed" is irrelevant in space too because on the ground, your top speed is the point where air resistance (and ground/internal friction for non-flying vehicles, or water resistance for boats) is equal to your engine's output. Basically at that point you can't go any faster because your engine is doing all it can to stop you from slowing down.

In space there's no air (or at least, not enough for you to care about), so the only top speed is C. The only thing that matters for maneuvering in space then is your acceleration, which is simply the force your engines put out divided by your mass. Well, I guess specific impulse matters too, that determines how fast you run out of fuel (think of it as "miles per gallon" in space). But we'll set fuel concerns aside for now.

So top speeds and even "boosting" are simply videogame mechanics that have no grounding at all in physics, though if we wanted to handwave them we could say that they are safety features built into the flight assist. The idea being they don't want you to go any faster than would allow you to turn or stop in a reasonable period of time to avoid collisions (the real reason is of course, game balance). This would also mean that what your top speed/boost speed are would actually have absolutely nothing to do with the physical characteristics of the ship, and be entirely dictated by what your ship's manufacturer considered to be safe. Although, the government mandating certain boundaries based on the ship's characteristics wouldn't be surprising.

Of course, FD doesn't give us actual acceleration values as far as I know. Which is kind of silly when you consider how trivial that would be to measure and how popular a marketing point that is for vehicles of all types IRL. However, by timing YouTube videos I can make a rough guess that the FAS goes from 0 to 400 m/s in about 3-ish seconds when boosting (this is fuzzy of course, because I'm just looking for the right circumstances to randomly pop up while someone else is flying, hardly a controlled test). This gives us a boost acceleration of around 133 m/s^2, or somewhere around 13-14 Gs. Since the FAS weighs 480 tonnes, or 480,000kg, that means that when boosting its engines have a combined thrust of 64MN (MegaNewtons, so 64 million Newtons). For reference, the first stage of the Saturn V rocket had about 34MN of thrust. So apparently the FAS has just a bit less than two Saturn V first stages strapped to it, which is pretty neat.
 
The shape of the hull is completely irrelevant in space.

you assume that space is a vacuum, which it is not, especially not closer to planetary objects, asteroids etc. if our ships are pressurized, stress will also come into shaping... in interstellar travel radiation pressure from the stars and dynamic pressure of solar winds would also come into account (which they do not in E:D ... we simply know nothing how sc or jump works physically). the whole concept of max speed even with FAOFF does not make sense scientifically (but it makes sense gamewise).

sorry for taking a misleading exampel with the trust ssc, though. i was not referring to "shape" = "speed", i was referring to "stats". i'm totally clear that the speed of python or FAS is neither a question of physics or lore, but of gamebalance. but if you'd ask for an "immersive explanation", that is what i would say. FAS has newer design and newer technic. it's the top of military engineering. that's why it is faster.
 
Last edited:
So top speeds and even "boosting" are simply videogame mechanics that have no grounding at all in physics, though if we wanted to handwave them we could say that they are safety features built into the flight assist.

great post, +rep! the thing is, you can't accelerate above max speed even with FAOFF. if you flying next to a ship with FAOFF you can't see any thrusters stopping it speed. so somehow e:d's galaxy is fundamental different ... and it's not the ship manufacturers or FA to blame...
 
Even with it's speed, I wish all of the hard points were on the bottom of the ship. That large hardpoint all alone on top seems silly. I don't know, maybe you could have the two medium and large points on the bottom as fixed beams or something. Then the top a PA.
 
Even with it's speed, I wish all of the hard points were on the bottom of the ship. That large hardpoint all alone on top seems silly. I don't know, maybe you could have the two medium and large points on the bottom as fixed beams or something. Then the top a PA.

I thought about a 2 rails and 1 beam fire group and a 2 beams fire group. That way the beam could be used as a targeting aid for the rails and both beams for situations where the rails aren't needed (and the two rails could be on secondary fire).

To bad it will take a long time until I can test the FAS - I'm 25.000 ly away from home.
 
Back
Top Bottom