Is "optimal mass" a misnomer in the outfitting screen?

[shrinkshooter]

Sorry your thread got derailed OP (though it's for a good cause!) but, while I'm no expert on the matter, I'll answer any questions you might have about that or other things.

As far as the derail: I don't need to say anymore. My fellow forumites have stolen my thunder, especially Carradin above. So at the risk of sounding narrow-minded, if you think the Cobra is OP, you're just wrong. I'll restrain myself from name calling (seriously though, "noob"? what is this, the fifth grade?) though someone certainly sounds like they might deserve a few.

 

[Altissimus]

(seriously though, "noob"? what is this, the fifth grade?)

I believe "noob" is slang for someone who is new. Say, someone who has been playing a game for only a few weeks, for example.

Um...hang on...

 

[Bambi]

I'd expect that anything below optimal means it runs as best as it can, and anything above deteriorates the performance until you reach max, where it stops working.

Evidently that's not the case.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

I believe "noob" is slang for someone who is new. Say, someone who has been playing a game for only a few weeks, for example.

Um...hang on...

Newbie is the slang, noob is a derogatory variant.

 

[Julio Montega]

Everything below optimal mass will give you advantages to your ship performance,
the bigger the gap between the both values, the bigger your advantage.
Yet it is a relative value and the advantage can be next to not mentionable.

Optimal mass is the value a module has been designed to work with in the first place,
allowing normal system operation.

Everything above optimal mass is exceeding working parameters, thus limiting your performance.

Check the test vid here:
[video=youtube;DNkZn5cpsIQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNkZn5cpsIQ[/video]

 

[[VR] Deggial]

To continue the derailing (sorry, OP!), maybe you are interested in some research I did regarding the agility of the smaller fighters in E: D. Some of the numbers are quite interesting, I think.

 

[Starender]

thanks deggial i was looking for infos, so as we can see the viper and Cobra have approximately the same potential in fights, while the Cobra have a LOT of other functions and no problems like weight punishment or power crippled like the Viper suffer, proving that the Viper has no purpose in existence, except looking nice and making fency engine sounds

 

[J.M.Braehe]

STOP DERAILING. a page and a half of this thread has been about anything but the OP. This thread is not "COBRA VS VIPER". Its about optimal mass. That's all.


Now, to the OP, I agree the term viewed should be "nominal", not "optimal".

 

[Im_Lost]

thanks deggial i was looking for infos, so as we can see the viper and Cobra have approximately the same potential in fights, while the Cobra have a LOT of other functions and no problems like weight punishment or power crippled like the Viper suffer, proving that the Viper has no purpose in existence, except looking nice and making fency engine sounds

Well a Cobra cost a lot more than a Viper and the best equipment is about 3 times the price, so it should have more flexibility. That doesn't change the fact that the Viper is better as a fighter though.

Anyway, the less mass you have the tighter the ship will handle. It's a trade off, light and maneuverable or heavier and tougher with a higher jump range etc.

 

[TeeWee]

Everything below optimal mass will give you advantages to your ship performance,
the bigger the gap between the both values, the bigger your advantage.
Yet it is a relative value and the advantage can be next to not mentionable.

Optimal mass is the value a module has been designed to work with in the first place,
allowing normal system operation.

Everything above optimal mass is exceeding working parameters, thus limiting your performance.

The bolded part is exactly why that value should not be named optimal value. Optimal means that to run the piece of equipment best, the value should be as close to that value as possible, not to have a rated value as big as possible.

"Nominal" (thanks J.M. Braehe!) is indeed a much better name which gives a much more intuitive sense of what the value means relative to the actual mass that your ship has.

 

[rupok]

this ship is OP as hell in everything to the point that there is no need to pilot any other ship till you can get your hands on the next OP ship, the ASP, only blind people can't see it seriously it doesn't even need an explanation

Come fight my viper and ill show you how op the cobra is.

 

[Julio Montega]

The bolded part is exactly why that value should not be named optimal value. Optimal means that to run the piece of equipment best, the value should be as close to that value as possible, not to have a rated value as big as possible.

"Nominal" (thanks J.M. Braehe!) is indeed a much better name which gives a much more intuitive sense of what the value means relative to the actual mass that your ship has.

Agreed on the change in naming it nominal mass,
does make more sense.
Care to do a post in the suggestions?

To derailers,
fancy a little keelhauling?
Stop the derailing please,
there are different threads for that.

 

[DocMoriarty]

Agreed on the change in naming it nominal mass,
does make more sense.
Care to do a post in the suggestions?

To derailers,
fancy a little keelhauling?
Stop the derailing please,
there are different threads for that.

Yes nominal mass (=where FSD has it's advertised jump range) would be more like it.

 

[T.S.F.]

When Call of Duty: MW2 came out the dual weild shotguns in multiplayer could insta-kill any player across the map. Now THAT was OP.

 

[J.M.Braehe]

Could we close this thread please? Its far off-topic, and no longer constructive.