Ship Builds & Load Outs Ships FSD Optimized Mass Basic Value

[GG]

o7 Everyone!

Requesting a help. Does anyone have a clue where the FSD optimized mass value comes from? How do you calculate it?

For instance, 5A FSD basic optimized mass = 1050t. What values are used and how to come to this particular value?

What the notion "optimized mass" means at all?

What happens to FSD if total mass is above or lower of optimized mass?

I guess, I'm not alone who starts questioning this issue on a certain stage of playing. Sadly, Youtube, Google, Wiki Fandom and forums here don't give distinct answers. (Or I might have overlooked them...)

 

[Aleks Zuno]

Great question—actually, that "optimised mass" value is one of the basic properties of the module, from which your hyperspace jump performance is derived (I will get to that in a moment). Jump performance here means both range and fuel efficiency, which you are about to discover are one and the same.

Everything comes down to the Hyperspace Fuel Equation, which is exponential, hence why Economical routing lets you make a longer journey. There are a few quantities involved there:

• That "optimised mass" you saw, which Engineering can improve. This forms a ratio with your starship mass, which is then used as a distance multiplier.
• The result is raised to a power and scaled with a factor, two hidden values depending on your Frame Shift Drive module, and can not be modified.

Thus far, that equation turns distances into fuel costs, referring to an individual hyperspace jump. To get your range, one more value is involved:

• The maximum fuel per jump, which also comes from the Frame Shift Drive module, and can be modified a small amount with the Deep Charge experimental effect.

Using the fuel equation, that maximum fuel per jump is actually what backs your jump range. Your range is the input distance for which the fuel equation output would reach the maximum amount of fuel you can use in one jump.

For you, that means engineering the "optimised mass" to be higher (or using lightweight modules and engineering to make your starship mass lower) will reduce that distance multiplier, which will make more efficient the conversion to fuel cost, which is how the fixed fuel limit per jump then gives you more range per jump.

 

[D3coy Commander]

Great question—actually, that "optimised mass" value is one of the basic properties of the module, from which your hyperspace jump performance is derived (I will get to that in a moment). Jump performance here means both range and fuel efficiency, which you are about to discover are one and the same.

Everything comes down to the Hyperspace Fuel Equation, which is exponential, hence why Economical routing lets you make a longer journey. There are a few quantities involved there:

• That "optimised mass" you saw, which Engineering can improve. This forms a ratio with your starship mass, which is then used as a distance multiplier.
• The result is raised to a power and scaled with a factor, two hidden values depending on your Frame Shift Drive module, and can not be modified.

Thus far, that equation turns distances into fuel costs, referring to an individual hyperspace jump. To get your range, one more value is involved:

• The maximum fuel per jump, which also comes from the Frame Shift Drive module, and can be modified a small amount with the Deep Charge experimental effect.

Using the fuel equation, that maximum fuel per jump is actually what backs your jump range. Your range is the input distance for which the fuel equation output would reach the maximum amount of fuel you can use in one jump.

For you, that means engineering the "optimised mass" to be higher (or using lightweight modules and engineering to make your starship mass lower) will reduce that distance multiplier, which will make more efficient the conversion to fuel cost, which is how the fixed fuel limit per jump then gives you more range per jump.

If I recall correctly though, there is no point going further below "optimized mass" because like the name suggests, anything that mass or below already gives the maximum possible calculation ratio, regardless of if you hit the mass exactly or go 200 tons below.

 

[Aleks Zuno]

If I recall correctly though, there is no point going further below "optimized mass" because like the name suggests, anything that mass or below already gives the maximum possible calculation ratio, regardless of if you hit the mass exactly or go 200 tons below.

You are thinking of Thrusters there and the minimum mass threshold, below which you are indeed as fast as you can ever become in normal flight. For the Frame Shift Drive and its jump performance/efficiency, there is no limit to how small the starship-to-optimised mass ratio can become.

 

[GroG79]

Hence you can jump to BP without a fuel scoop....

 

[GG]

Great question—actually, that "optimised mass" value is one of the basic properties of the module, from which your hyperspace jump performance is derived (I will get to that in a moment). Jump performance here means both range and fuel efficiency, which you are about to discover are one and the same.

Everything comes down to the Hyperspace Fuel Equation, which is exponential, hence why Economical routing lets you make a longer journey. There are a few quantities involved there:

• That "optimised mass" you saw, which Engineering can improve. This forms a ratio with your starship mass, which is then used as a distance multiplier.
• The result is raised to a power and scaled with a factor, two hidden values depending on your Frame Shift Drive module, and can not be modified.

Thus far, that equation turns distances into fuel costs, referring to an individual hyperspace jump. To get your range, one more value is involved:

• The maximum fuel per jump, which also comes from the Frame Shift Drive module, and can be modified a small amount with the Deep Charge experimental effect.

Using the fuel equation, that maximum fuel per jump is actually what backs your jump range. Your range is the input distance for which the fuel equation output would reach the maximum amount of fuel you can use in one jump.

For you, that means engineering the "optimised mass" to be higher (or using lightweight modules and engineering to make your starship mass lower) will reduce that distance multiplier, which will make more efficient the conversion to fuel cost, which is how the fixed fuel limit per jump then gives you more range per jump.

Thank you for the explanation, @Aleks Zuno !

I guess, I need to make it more specific.

I actually want to crack it down to the basic bricks and get a clear understanding of what 'optimized (or 'optimal') mass' exactly means. What differs it from a 'non-optimized mass'? In reference to FSD issue only.

For instance, how does FSD work if the total ship mass (say 400t) is lower than FSD optimized mass (say 1050t) and vice versa - higher (say 1200t vs 1050t)?

Next, it is absolutely clear that the optimized mass basic (non modified by engineers) value directly depends at least on FSD class and rating. The point that FDevs just took some fixed figures from the ceiling seems to me quite doubtful. But I don't get what calculations the optimized mass value is based on.

Any thoughts on these questions?

And thanks again for your time and efforts to explain.

 

[Aleks Zuno]

I actually want to crack it down to the basic bricks and get a clear understanding of what 'optimized (or 'optimal') mass' exactly means. What differs it from a 'non-optimized mass'? In reference to FSD issue only.

Really what it means is that the word "optimised" was a poor choice by Frontier, because it suggests that a lighter starship should be made heavier just to match that number, which is not at all the case given how it works. Your hyperspace efficiency is based simply on the starship mass number divided by that "optimised" mass number, so that lowering the former and raising the latter both will give you more efficiency/range. A much better phrase would have been something like "index mass" or "reference mass".

For instance, how does FSD work if the total ship mass (say 400t) is lower than FSD optimized mass (say 1050t) and vice versa - higher (say 1200t vs 1050t)?

It works by the mass ratio being applied to the distance you are attempting to jump, which in turn changes how much fuel is required. I will start by simplifying the numbers a bit; suppose you are trying to make a 20 Ly jump and your FSD optimised mass is 1000 T:

• If your starship mass is also 1000 T, the fuel cost will be some standard amount for that FSD class/rating to jump 20 Ly.
• If you reduce your starship mass to 500 T, the same fuel will give you a 40 Ly jump, because your mass ratio halves the distance when calculating fuel.
• If you increase your starship mass to 1250 T (5/4 mass), the same fuel will give you a 16 Ly jump (4/5 distance) for the same reason.

In your case, a 400 T starship with a 1050 T optimised mass will have a distance factor of 400/1050 ~ 0.38. That means the distance you want to jump is multiplied with 0.38 before calculating its fuel cost, allowing you to make a longer jump with the same fuel or the same jump with considerably less fuel. If you were 1200 T versus 1050 T = 1200/1050 ~ 1.14, your fuel costs are as if your jump distances are 14% further than the actual distance.

Next, it is absolutely clear that the optimized mass basic (non modified by engineers) value directly depends at least on FSD class and rating. The point that FDevs just took some fixed figures from the ceiling seems to me quite doubtful. But I don't get what calculations the optimized mass value is based on.

The optimised mass, exponent, coefficient and maximum fuel per jump are all simply values assigned by Frontier to each FSD module; some of those follow a pattern at least, but ultimately everything we know about the basic equation and the specific values for each FSD are all the result of extensive experimentation by Commanders to determine how it all works!

 

[metatheurgist]

Pretty sure it's optimal mass in the game....

 

[GG]

Really what it means is that the word "optimised" was a poor choice by Frontier, because it suggests that a lighter starship should be made heavier just to match that number, which is not at all the case given how it works.

Yes. That's in fact the point the whole confusion grows from, when one first approaches the question.

This is the answer I've been seeking for someone to confirm. All other explanations now get in a crystall structure.

Thank you very much, @Aleks Zuno ! Appreciate your time and help!

 

[Aleks Zuno]

Pretty sure it's optimal mass in the game....

Thank you very much, @Aleks Zuno ! Appreciate your time and help!

You are most welcome!

 

[D3coy Commander]

You are thinking of Thrusters there and the minimum mass threshold, below which you are indeed as fast as you can ever become in normal flight. For the Frame Shift Drive and its jump performance/efficiency, there is no limit to how small the starship-to-optimised mass ratio can become.

Dang it, it was worded the same as thrusters so I thought they functioned the same way! Time to remove all the extra fuel tanks I put into my runabout and replace them with fuel scoops instead. Interestingly enough, if what you said it true, which I don't doubt, then light ships would have the most jump range fluctuations because the cargo they carry would be a larger random fraction of the total mass. In fact, come to think of it, the Imperial Courier can actually carry cargo that weighs even more than the ship itself! lol!

 

[Northpin]

In fact, come to think of it, the Imperial Courier can actually carry cargo that weighs even more than the ship itself! lol!

Close, but No
The only ships that can pull more freight that their weight, are the Hauler (14t hull, 26t cargo) and Anaconda (400t hull, 470t cargo)

 

[D3coy Commander]

Close, but No
The only ships that can pull more freight that their weight, are the Hauler (14t hull, 26t cargo) and Anaconda (400t hull, 470t cargo)

Thought it was 35/40 for the Courier, guess I must have remembered wrong.

PS: Is it just for me or does anyone have a problem in that if you did 2 exchanges for manufactured material back to back, the game hangs? I've had to exchange once, exit the trader, then reenter again per transaction or the game locks into a permanent "processing" mode.

 

[Northpin]

PS: Is it just for me or does anyone have a problem in that if you did 2 exchanges for manufactured material back to back, the game hangs? I've had to exchange once, exit the trader, then reenter again per transaction or the game locks into a permanent "processing" mode.

I had it happening if i rush it (not every-time tho, so i cannot easily replicate it)
Also when i switch between the categories and the trade ratio numbers fail to catch-up so you end up with weird trade numbers.