Measured SCO Fuel/Hour and Speed Rates

[Kira Goto]

Personally, on a Corvette running an overcharged powerplant(too lazy to make an armored one for builds that don’t need the extra power), I found a C rated SCO to work much better than the A rated which just overheated it within a few seconds and before it could really build up good speed.

Low emissions seems to handle A rated totally fine even on a Cutter with its size 7 drive. Saying that, it only has a LE(G2) reactor because I use it as a Thargoid war evac ship and when converting it back to a hauler only swap out the passenger cabins, keeping the weapons off it. Still retains enough shield to hold off whichever bothersome pirates might come at it. So it’s probably not representative of more general use cases.

 

[V'larr]

Great suggestion, thanks. I've updated the sheet with some frozen rows/columns as described. I've included column B too as the FSD rating is tied to the row data.


Thanks for going into more detail V'larr. Yeah I think something like this would be useful in-game too. Where it would really shine (and I think all the other data too) is in ship builder tools like EDSY and Coriolis, giving players an idea of SCO distance and heat stats for their exact build, rather than just a number from a non-functional test loadout. I think a smaller batch of testing with the purpose of producing a way to predict how long heat takes to build up would be a better use of time than just testing every ship and FSD rating again. The heat research is there plus the heat generation rate on the SCO modules. I could probably do some testing but I feel there are much more capable cmdrs out there for this task, especially the EDSY and Coriolis folks. Not sure when I can look at this but hopefully some others can too

If you already have your ships built, you could always take them out for a spin with each FSD rating to get a feel for their heat build up and total distance/time. The working distance tab on the sheet can give you a very rough idea of distance too but you'll need to save your own copy to plug in the actual fuel your carrying.

I went ahead and made a copy and plugged in an Imperial Cutter with A-rated SCO & the default 64 ton fuel tank - the result seems significantly shorter than the distance I can achieve using it in bursts up to 100% heat. I don't really have ideas about how to turn that into a formula, though knowing the 'total SCO duration' I have is at least something!

Amazing how much of a difference 0% throttle makes, kinda wish Fdev would just make that default as it's not the most intuitive.

 

[Jack Winter]

What other difference does the throttle have on the SCO?

 

[Osiliran]

I went ahead and made a copy and plugged in an Imperial Cutter with A-rated SCO & the default 64 ton fuel tank - the result seems significantly shorter than the distance I can achieve using it in bursts up to 100% heat. I don't really have ideas about how to turn that into a formula, though knowing the 'total SCO duration' I have is at least something!

Amazing how much of a difference 0% throttle makes, kinda wish Fdev would just make that default as it's not the most intuitive.

Sounds about right to me if you're gliding off the boost a bit, ends up being more fuel efficient. Yeah, I was surprised at how big some of the differences were too. Good to have it as an option.

What other difference does the throttle have on the SCO?

Besides generating less heat, throttling down to 0% appears to also affect your speed, your fuel/hour rate and, anecdotally, your wobble (control interference). All in all, a smoother, cooler, longer ride, just not as quick.

 

[Osiliran]

Its been a while! I've run the Mandy through its courses and recorded the SCO data in the sheet. It performs very nicely. It appears the ship constant for the Mandy is roughly 0.08. To put that in perspective on how fuel efficient it is compared to the other SCO capable ships, the T8 is 0.19 and the P2 is 0.60. Most other ships are at 1 and guzzle fuel down. The Mandy is still not quite as fuel efficient as the Sidey but only by a small margin.

For a mostly stripped out module loadout, I didn't need a single heatsink for the entire batch of testing. The P2 and T8 under similar loadouts eventually hit 100% heat after some time but the Mandy's didn't seem to climb, even under the FSD E rating. I'm sure a 'real' build won't be as cool. I'll do some additional testing with practical builds soon to get a better feel for heat.

Patch notes indicated that sound effects have been added/corrected for the ships that were missing them which is great news. It was a bit jarring flying some of those ships and not being able to hear the sound effect.

 

[V'larr]

Its been a while! I've run the Mandy through its courses and recorded the SCO data in the sheet. It performs very nicely. It appears the ship constant for the Mandy is roughly 0.08. To put that in perspective on how fuel efficient it is compared to the other SCO capable ships, the T8 is 0.19 and the P2 is 0.60. Most other ships are at 1 and guzzle fuel down. The Mandy is still not quite as fuel efficient as the Sidey but only by a small margin.

For a mostly stripped out module loadout, I didn't need a single heatsink for the entire batch of testing. The P2 and T8 under similar loadouts eventually hit 100% heat after some time but the Mandy's didn't seem to climb, even under the FSD E rating. I'm sure a 'real' build won't be as cool. I'll do some additional testing with practical builds soon to get a better feel for heat.

Patch notes indicated that sound effects have been added/corrected for the ships that were missing them which is great news. It was a bit jarring flying some of those ships and not being able to hear the sound effect.

Any hopes of getting the "SCO buff" stats lined up for easy & direct comparison between the SCO-capable buffs? Would probably also make it an easier task for taleden & Hollowpoint to add the info to edsy & coriolis

 

[Osiliran]

Any hopes of getting the "SCO buff" stats lined up for easy & direct comparison between the SCO-capable buffs? Would probably also make it an easier task for taleden & Hollowpoint to add the info to edsy & coriolis

If you mean the stats I gave in the previous post, they are already listed in the sheet on the ship, FSD DV listing tab. The format of the tab could be improved to make things clearer but it's all there under ship constant driving the fuel rates.

I think there's more 'sco buffs' for heat and speed too but I don't know what they are at this stage.

 

[Neilski]

Came across this thread while hunting for info on maximum speed during SCO.
Seriously nice bit of work, thanks @Osiliran!

A couple of things I noted while exploring the data in the spreadsheet:
In the "SCO Rates" sheet, I note that column J is labelled as "(Fuel/hour)/max speed/total fuel capacity" but it's actually the inverse of this quantity, i.e. "Total fuel capacity/((Fuel/hour)/max speed)".
Furthermore, if you think about what that quantity actually means, you will see that it's just the total range* in light hours. Thus it's basically the same thing that is calculated in the "Working Distance Tab" sheet as "Distance until empty" (but of course that sheet works it out as light seconds, so there's a factor of 3600 between them). I'd therefore be inclined to adjust column J to directly show the range in light seconds.
(*It represents total range if you make the simplifying assumption that the ship instantly reaches its maximum speed.)

Final thought: I think it's interesting to also see the range with just the standard fuel tank (I think this was also suggested by someone else above). When I added this, it was no surprise that the three new ships were ahead of the rest, but I am surprised (and puzzled) that the Mandalay was quite so far ahead of the Type-8 (more than 2x), which in turn was way ahead of the Python Mk 2 (closer to 3x).

Btw, I'm also puzzled that the FSD classes are doing different things than the non-SCO classes (which are kinda "A is best, B is less good, but heavy & high-integrity, D is less good but light... etc"). Didn't spot that at first while building ships cos I just assumed that the SCO drives were all just equally tweaked versions of the non-SCO drives...

 

[Osiliran]

Came across this thread while hunting for info on maximum speed during SCO.
Seriously nice bit of work, thanks @Osiliran!

A couple of things I noted while exploring the data in the spreadsheet:
In the "SCO Rates" sheet, I note that column J is labelled as "(Fuel/hour)/max speed/total fuel capacity" but it's actually the inverse of this quantity, i.e. "Total fuel capacity/((Fuel/hour)/max speed)".
Furthermore, if you think about what that quantity actually means, you will see that it's just the total range* in light hours. Thus it's basically the same thing that is calculated in the "Working Distance Tab" sheet as "Distance until empty" (but of course that sheet works it out as light seconds, so there's a factor of 3600 between them). I'd therefore be inclined to adjust column J to directly show the range in light seconds.
(*It represents total range if you make the simplifying assumption that the ship instantly reaches its maximum speed.)

Final thought: I think it's interesting to also see the range with just the standard fuel tank (I think this was also suggested by someone else above). When I added this, it was no surprise that the three new ships were ahead of the rest, but I am surprised (and puzzled) that the Mandalay was quite so far ahead of the Type-8 (more than 2x), which in turn was way ahead of the Python Mk 2 (closer to 3x).

Btw, I'm also puzzled that the FSD classes are doing different things than the non-SCO classes (which are kinda "A is best, B is less good, but heavy & high-integrity, D is less good but light... etc"). Didn't spot that at first while building ships cos I just assumed that the SCO drives were all just equally tweaked versions of the non-SCO drives...

Thank you Neilski! Greatly appreciate you looking over the data and providing feedback. I've corrected the column description now to "Total fuel capacity/((Fuel/hour)/max speed)". Good points about that column and It's good fuel for thought on what purpose some areas of the spreadsheet are serving. I agree an estimated distance on a full core fuel tank would be more useful.

Yeah, it seems the three new ships are all SCO capable in different ways with heat, speed and fuel usage. So, despite the same FSD size, they all behave differently under SCO.

The SCO difference between FSD ratings are interesting, maybe just something to give players more ship building options. The FSD B offering better fuel efficiency sounds great on paper, but I rarely use it. The FSD A performs just fine for most of the long distance tasks I throw at it. If I don't have enough fuel under an A rating, I probably don't under a B either.

I've added an action points tab so I track some of the discussion points from your post and others I wanted to return to. I'll add some commentary in case anyone is interested in understanding any changes I've made.

 

[Osiliran]

Added the SCO performance data for the Cobra mk V. Its a quick one, that's for sure. Very cold and fuel efficient like the Mandalay as well. Good experience overall in SCO.

I took the feedback from Neilski and others and modified the sheet. Did a general tidy up of data that wasn't driving any real function. The column discussed above with Neilski was modified to reflect total distance in light seconds with a core fuel tank. The working distance tab does the same thing with an estimated time to complete the distance plus now has a separate cell for someone to input their own desired amount of fuel if they wish to test times and distances.

Looking forward to seeing what FDev will cook up next year. Maybe we'll see some SCO capable large ships.

 

[Neilski]

Some great updates there - thanks @Osiliran!

 

[ruifo]

 

[V'larr]

Any ideas about how to test the SCO heat characteristics of ships? It seems like there's chassis modifiers in play here, at least for the new ships.
edit: I should have remembered to read back further, that's on me.

There's also some anecdotal reports I've garnered that the improved SCO handling of the new ships also applies to deceleration out of the SCO effect (especially Cobra V/Mandalay), which naturally must mean there's another hidden chassis modifier for supercruise agility.

 

[anShpan]

Any ideas about how to test the SCO heat characteristics of ships?

At least for Mandalay and CmkV I can assure that it matches pretty good those specified on EDSY for FSD, it stays on that level without creeping up as on older ships.
For Pmk2 it will be not easy to measure since it runs out of fuel too fast.

There's also some anecdotal reports I've garnered that the improved SCO handling of the new ships also applies to deceleration out of the SCO effect

That is definitely there. But possible, that is it correlated to normal space deceleration, since all Pmk2, CmkV and Mandalay are stopping and reversing better then all I've had before.

 

[V'larr]

At least for Mandalay and CmkV I can assure that it matches pretty good those specified on EDSY for FSD, it stays on that level without creeping up as on older ships.
For Pmk2 it will be not easy to measure since it runs out of fuel too fast.

That is definitely there. But possible, that is it correlated to normal space deceleration, since all Pmk2, CmkV and Mandalay are stopping and reversing better then all I've had before.

I believe you're mistaking the FSD THM figure, which is not related - that is for 'FSD charge under maximum thrust', as in, when you are making a jump.

EDSY currently does not include the hidden innate chassis-specific variable I'm referring to - presumably taleden would put it in the list of variables on the right hand panel when you select the base chassis, like for other chassis-specific heat characteristics, if the data for it were available.

 

[anShpan]

I believe you're mistaking the FSD THM figure, which is not related

I'm not saying that those are related, I'm just saying, that for my configuration on CmkV and Mandalay those are numerically similar to those under SCO to -+2-3 %%.
Which is, probably, pretty logical since also depending on PP efficiency and heat from Thrusters.

 

[V'larr]

I'm not saying that those are related, I'm just saying, that for my configuration on CmkV and Mandalay those are numerically similar to those under SCO to -+2-3 %%.
Which is, probably, pretty logical since also depending on PP efficiency and heat from Thrusters.

I'm a little confused... are you saying your heat levels ingame under SCO thrust, with these ships, are very nearly similar to under-thrust FSD charge figures as displayed on EDSY, therefore implying the modifier I'm talking about almost removes the SCO boost heat penalty completely?

 

[anShpan]

I'm a little confused... are you saying your heat levels ingame under SCO thrust, with these ships, are very nearly similar to under-thrust FSD charge figures as displayed on EDSY, therefore implying the modifier I'm talking about almost removes the SCO boost heat penalty completely?

Yes, exactly. CmkV: PP 4A LowEm/Therm.Spread, Thrs. 4A Clean/Drag stays at 51-54%, Mandalay: 3A Armoured/Therm Spread., 4D Dirty/Drag 54-55%.
And it is not creeping up as on non-SCO ships. On Pmk2 it creeps, but it drinks fuel so fast that I've never did long enough run to check.

But again, it is just numerically similar, variable you mentioned is definitely there and non known as formula itself how that heat is calculated.

 

[Osiliran]

Any ideas about how to test the SCO heat characteristics of ships? It seems like there's chassis modifiers in play here, at least for the new ships.
edit: I should have remembered to read back further, that's on me.

There's also some anecdotal reports I've garnered that the improved SCO handling of the new ships also applies to deceleration out of the SCO effect (especially Cobra V/Mandalay), which naturally must mean there's another hidden chassis modifier for supercruise agility.

Hey V'larr, this might give you some ideas. I've been doing some in-game recording with SCO heat and two things structured my testing. Throttle level affects heat which is hard to see with how aggressive heat is in older ships but was clearer in the T8 and P2 when throttling down and noticing two different resting heat % on a SCO FSD C:

The second thing was heat seems to build up like fuel consumption, ramping up until the ship reaches maximum speed which I'll show in the results below. So, all my testing was done with throttle at 100%. I've assumed the heat generation stat on the SCO modules are heat units per second much like heat sinks, FSDs, and thrusters.

In the below table:

• Column 2 is where I reset heat to 0% and when the heat sink wore off, SCO was engaged and I timed the heat climb to 100%.
• Column 3 is where I reached max SCO speed for full effect of heat, reset heat to 0%, then timed the heat climb to 100%.
• Column 4 is where I worked my way backwards from EDSY by plugging in the SCO thermal load stat into the EDSY FSD thermal load to mimic the in-game test conditions. I then compared EDSY's estimated time to 100% from idle % vs the in-game result. The in-game result is also from the same idle % at max SCO speeds.

Ship	0%-100% heat starting at regular supercruise	0%-100% heat at 100% SCO speed	EDSY idle heat %-100% heat at 100% SCO speed
P2 (SCO FSD B)	30s	25s	EDSY 26.0% 4.3s - ingame result 23s
Cobra III (SCO FSD A)	10s	7s	EDSY 28.9% 5.9s - ingame result 6s
Asp X (SCO FSD A)	11s	7s	EDSY 27.8% 4.1s - ingame result 5s

I believe the difference between column 2 and 3 is a good way to show the heat build up effect. In column 4, EDSY does a fairly good job at predicting the results I reckon but need more data points and need them at exact time values instead of whole seconds like I've done. The 23s in-game result from the P2 is expected from its SCO capable nature. In order to get EDSY to estimate 23s, the thermal load stat plugged into the FSD has to be around 50.5 (about half of the SCO B's full heat effect), so we could very loosely say the P2 has a heat modifier of 0.5 but it seriously needs more testing. This is assuming the heat generation stats on the modules are correct. I only say this because the fuel consumption per second stat Fdev added later in-game is inconsistent and on some occasions quite wrong, so I'll make a post in suggestions about this separately.

Here's just a picture of what I described in EDSY:

 

[Neilski]

That's some very interesting work there on the thermals - thanks for sharing it!

The second thing was heat seems to build up like fuel consumption, ramping up until the ship reaches maximum speed

I haven't paid very close attention but I had thought that the fuel consumption went sky-high pretty much instantly, unlike the speed.

I believe the difference between column 2 and 3 is a good way to show the heat build up effect. In column 4, EDSY does a fairly good job at predicting the results I reckon but need more data points and need them at exact time values instead of whole seconds like I've done. The 23s in-game result from the P2 is expected from its SCO capable nature. In order to get EDSY to estimate 23s, the thermal load stat plugged into the FSD has to be around 50.5 (about half of the SCO B's full heat effect), so we could very loosely say the P2 has a heat modifier of 0.5 but it seriously needs more testing. This is assuming the heat generation stats on the modules are correct. I only say this because the fuel consumption per second stat Fdev added later in-game is inconsistent and on some occasions quite wrong, so I'll make a post in suggestions about this separately.

This is really good stuff. In order to eliminate possible differences between the displayed in-game heat generation stats and the actual values used, you could use the same SCO drive on both old and new ships (rather than B vs A). But yeah I guess there must indeed be some kind of special SCO-specific heat coefficients on the new ships.