there is additional heat generated when using thrusters ... this value is even given in the outfitting screen at least with thrusters and can be changed by engineering. more heat is generated when the thrusters are working more heavily (high g, boosting, lateral thruster usage). i could imagine that some ships need more lateral thrusters for a yaw for exampel, depending on thruster placement - but that's just a guess.
[Research] Detailed Heat Mechanics
- Thread starter Frenotx
- Start date
there is additional heat generated when using thrusters ... this value is even given in the outfitting screen at least with thrusters and can be changed by engineering. more heat is generated when the thrusters are working more heavily (high g, boosting, lateral thruster usage). i could imagine that some ships need more lateral thrusters for a yaw for exampel, depending on thruster placement - but that's just a guess.
Yeah, but it seems if you just boost straight in a T7 your heat spikes up a lot more than when you do the same in a Vulture (although I didnt test it now). And just from these numbers I dont really get why... Same mystery for me with the Imp Courier, why does it overheat that badly when scooping? Its capacity isnt that bad. A Cobra or even a Hauler dont have that problem, so why does the Courier receive that much more heat when scooping?
Last edited:
in terms of the courier thats fully down to having a lot of powerhungry moduls running, and a fairly small scoop. many players are outlasting a class 4 powerplant, having scb, etc. pp. my exploration courier has no heat problems what so ever. I'm pretty sure if you would run a similar set up on a cobra mkIII, you'll get the same effect.
I noticed this in my tests as well. Just guessing but I would say that boosting/heat generation in general is affected by a hidden stat that is ship specific. The T7 and FDL have a heat capacity that is 3 points away from eachother, but in SR the FDL can boost 5-6 times while the T7 can only boost 4 times before reaching 100%. In my tests I had all modules except the power distributor and thrusters turned off.
At a guess, the answer is in some way related to the fact that different ships need different amounts of energy to boost.
Since I knew that Coriolis and ED Shipyard included calculations of whether a given ship config could boost or not, I went and had a look through the source files for Coriolis, and managed to find two values for each ship type that aren't normally seen, called boostEnergy and pipSpeed. boostEnergy is definitely the amount of power (in MW) required for a single boost, I haven't worked out exactly what pipSpeed is (it may well be completely irrelevant to this discussion) - but I've copied all the values to my spreadsheet as I hope they will help in working out the link to overheating for boosting for different ships.
I have half an idea what this might be, and a testing method would need to be worked out, but I will leave those until tomorrow
.
Since I knew that Coriolis and ED Shipyard included calculations of whether a given ship config could boost or not, I went and had a look through the source files for Coriolis, and managed to find two values for each ship type that aren't normally seen, called boostEnergy and pipSpeed. boostEnergy is definitely the amount of power (in MW) required for a single boost, I haven't worked out exactly what pipSpeed is (it may well be completely irrelevant to this discussion) - but I've copied all the values to my spreadsheet as I hope they will help in working out the link to overheating for boosting for different ships.
I have half an idea what this might be, and a testing method would need to be worked out, but I will leave those until tomorrow
.
I assume its as others have said that the other thrusters on a type-7 must be firing to stabilize the ship during a boost, as for the FSD heat issue its the same as the Beluga, the FSD is a size up from the power plant and the ships thermal capacity causing it to overheat, this is also made worse if you boost. with the fuel scooping issue that's one the devs have briefly talked about in patch notes during the FDL heat nerf, each ship is given a arbitrary value for how well they can scoop near a star. the FDL used to be able to scoop next to a sun while charging its FSD...
At a guess, the answer is in some way related to the fact that different ships need different amounts of energy to boost.
Since I knew that Coriolis and ED Shipyard included calculations of whether a given ship config could boost or not, I went and had a look through the source files for Coriolis, and managed to find two values for each ship type that aren't normally seen, called boostEnergy and pipSpeed. boostEnergy is definitely the amount of power (in MW) required for a single boost, I haven't worked out exactly what pipSpeed is (it may well be completely irrelevant to this discussion) - but I've copied all the values to my spreadsheet as I hope they will help in working out the link to overheating for boosting for different ships.
I have half an idea what this might be, and a testing method would need to be worked out, but I will leave those until tomorrow
You only have to ask, you know.
Pip Speed refers to the fraction of a ship's speed at 4 ENG pips that is achieved with 0 ENG pips (at least for ED Shipyard, Coriolis may calibrate the number differently but the concept is the same). So for example if a given ship loadout can go 200m/s at 4 ENG pips (based on its base speed, total mass and thruster module), and its "pip speed" is 60%, then it will go 120m/s at 0 ENG pips. In general combat ships have relatively high values (so they're still pretty fast even with lower ENG pip allotments) while trade ships have relatively low values (so they lose a lot of speed with <4 ENG pips).
Great thread, thanks to everyone who researched this stuff
Just out of interest, is it possible there is a different stat or value that affects how quickly a ship heats up from external heat/scooping? I noticed for example, that my dropship (which is rigged for fairly cool running) takes quite a while to heat up in silent running, but overheats quickly when scooping. The opposite is true for My Asp X (also rigged for cool running pretty much) - no problem scooping, but put silent running on and it cooks pretty quick. Could simply be observer error of course, but just curious if anyone had any idea about it.
o7
Just out of interest, is it possible there is a different stat or value that affects how quickly a ship heats up from external heat/scooping? I noticed for example, that my dropship (which is rigged for fairly cool running) takes quite a while to heat up in silent running, but overheats quickly when scooping. The opposite is true for My Asp X (also rigged for cool running pretty much) - no problem scooping, but put silent running on and it cooks pretty quick. Could simply be observer error of course, but just curious if anyone had any idea about it.
o7
So if one wants to minimize detectable signature, should we be using E-rated components (except PP) with the largest PP due to lower power usage or use A-rated components for efficiency? What would be the recommended "Stealth" design meta for any respective build?
Heat signature is a product of ship type, modules, mods and range.
So use a ship with a hard-coded low signature multiplier (eg Viper III) with an A-rated cool running plant, and everything else cool-modded.
But the first point is the most important one - choose a low sig ship (not a low temp ship, different things) for the win.
And control range...
I have a spare Cobra mk3 lying around and was going to toy around with stealth mechanics, but NOT for combat, more of a recon proof-of-concept. Stealthy, Cold, with extreme long-range sensors, etc. Sensors are modded right now for range and reach out to about 12km!
I was figuring low-emissions plant, clean drives, etc. where the mods of choice, but unclear on using E-rated components vs A-rated. (Except power plant, that's a no-brainer A-rated choice.)
Made a publicly available spreadsheet for the heat values on this thread. No idea if there is a more compiled list anywhere, but there you go. Planning to use this information in a DPS calculator that can track overheating, so hoping for some help in testing the remaining ships.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1C4Lf5yYl190KXwVFDebmJvTbdBG5EnUw5lLD-psj2Wk/edit?usp=sharing
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1C4Lf5yYl190KXwVFDebmJvTbdBG5EnUw5lLD-psj2Wk/edit?usp=sharing
FAS also displays some unusual heat behaviour. mine is engineered i must state to start with, but i tried hard not to increase heat at all costs because it has a serious hear problem.
boosting boosts the heat considerably. this makes nav beacons annoying since for some reason many of those i want to scan are within the heat sphere of the primary for no good reason i can see. it makes jumping or entering SC exceedingly hazardous endeavour.
not only that, heat doesnt spike quickly when scooping as it doesn in my asp ex. with asp i fly close, until heat is getting in low 60s and thats max scoop i want to do without damage, if i try that in the FAS the heat keeps building slowly even if i stop (0 throttle actually in SC) at the same temp as the asp. generally it gets to low 70s before i finish scooping. thank god for large scoops. so i have yet to learn what ACTUAL heat i am stopping in when i see the number approaching i want to throttle down at to avoid over heating.
firing my gimballed beams will also slowly raise my heat. into the 70s before i stop on heat warning. im thinking the real issue is insufficient heat venting capacity in the FAS. i have looked on external cams and the vents all deploy as they should but i regularly see steam or smoke rising while scooping. perhaps you might want to research the capacity of the ships to vent heat without hjeatsink launchers, and show which are most efficient and which like the FAS have insufficient heat venting when fully upgraded and/or engineered carelssly without thought of heat effects?
FD: an engineer who can mod the standard things such as the built in heat venting would be nice too. if i can just do slightly it would be easier on my nerves lol. and i cant drop anything for heatsink launcher.
Last edited:
Question remains, E-rated components vs A-rated components? E-rated for minimal power use for example could be useful in lowering heat signature (with obvious exceptions in PP, FSD, etc)
Anaconda Test
Power Plant: 8C
Heat Efficiency: 0.5 (Not Checked Exact Figure at Engineer, Only Outfitting)
Thrusters: 7E
Thermal Load: 1.3/s
Time from 0% to 100% 2:43.68 (give or take .5 a second for user delay)
Power Plant: 8C
Heat Efficiency: 0.5 (Not Checked Exact Figure at Engineer, Only Outfitting)
Thrusters: 7E
Thermal Load: 1.3/s
Time from 0% to 100% 2:43.68 (give or take .5 a second for user delay)
Did some testing with E-rated modules vs A-rated modules (except power plant, that's always A-rated). Seems there's not much of a difference in temps until silent running is enabled. Then the E-rated gear shows its advantage. Ambient temps under various conditions were the same or only 1% difference. Under SR however I was able to get an extra 40 seconds with the E-rated gear (~3:30 vs ~4:10).
In looking at strictly cold running (non-combat) I'm wondering about engineer mods now. Clean drives seems to be the defacto standard for cold running due to lower thermals, but it draws more power. I'm curious about reinforced drives though, as they lower power consumption with no added heat... wonder which is better? did some poking around and seems nobody has tested reinforced mods (everyone either clean or dirty tunes engines)
In looking at strictly cold running (non-combat) I'm wondering about engineer mods now. Clean drives seems to be the defacto standard for cold running due to lower thermals, but it draws more power. I'm curious about reinforced drives though, as they lower power consumption with no added heat... wonder which is better? did some poking around and seems nobody has tested reinforced mods (everyone either clean or dirty tunes engines)
Depends.
Clean drives takes 16% more power and have a 60% reduced waste heat generated while Strrengthened have no increased power usage but have only 50% reduced waste heat generated.
I would say in this case it would depends on what ship and how much the thrusters draw.
A sidewinder with 2E drives goes from 2 to 2.32 power usage with R5 clean tuning compared to the Cobra MkIII 4E drive from 3,28 to 3,81.
The engine waste heat difference for thrusters are a fixed 0.52 vs 0.65 but the actual MW consumed (looking at a standard 0.4 waste heat per MW used) becomes more pronounced with 0,128 wh for the sidewinder and 0,212 for the MkIII at clean tuning 5.
Ok, so we add the clean tuning engine waste heat which is what? MW used by the thrusters?
Clean tuning 5 total Wh = 2,32*0,52 + pp wh 2,32*0,4 = 1,2064 + 0,928 = 2,1344 waste heat per second
Strengthened 5 total Wh = 2 * 0,65 + pp wh 2*0,4 = 1,3 + 0,8 = 2,1 waste heat per second
it seems to be slightly more efficient to use strengthened drives with a saving of 1.64% heat per second.
What about the big boys then?
Anacondas get 7,84 wh with Clean Tuning 5 but only 6,384 wh generated with Reinforced. The main culprit is the 16% additional heat generated for the 6,08mw thruster draw adding 0,97 mw consumed and thus 0,388 wh compared to the strengthened drive that suffer 0,286 more waste heat but it does not "double dip" by adding more power draw (and thus more heat) for the PP like the Clean Tuning does.
It seems like clean tuning is useful as long as you have a low power draw in general since the waste heat for the thruster is using both MW/Consumed + Wh generated per second.
Unless of course I have based my entire calculation on the wrong values.
What exactly is the waste heat on thrusters? I am really confused because it seems that clean drive is simply a lower scaled dirty drive modification. So either thermal load of thrusters works different than I think it does, or clean drive is juts a low variant dirty drive. But then this questions why not simply using
So on big rated thrusters (8A) the dirty 3 is nearly identically to the clean 5. Which questions the effort for the clean 5. So the major difference. is the waste heat also affecting boost drain on the ENG?
However since the Thermal laod on all engien sizes and classes is equal, smaller engines, heatwise all profit a lot from clean drives over dirty drives the smaller and lower rated they get
For people wanting to test OP's numbers as well, the gimballed beam laser class 2 does requires 1.0mW. so it is a bit of a faster way to test your heattreshold in silent running.
Is the thermal laod of wepaons also affected by the PP heat efficiency.
So on big rated thrusters (8A) the dirty 3 is nearly identically to the clean 5. Which questions the effort for the clean 5. So the major difference. is the waste heat also affecting boost drain on the ENG?
However since the Thermal laod on all engien sizes and classes is equal, smaller engines, heatwise all profit a lot from clean drives over dirty drives the smaller and lower rated they get
For people wanting to test OP's numbers as well, the gimballed beam laser class 2 does requires 1.0mW. so it is a bit of a faster way to test your heattreshold in silent running.
Is the thermal laod of wepaons also affected by the PP heat efficiency.
Last edited:
That's a lot of work, but... since I've no interest in burning up someone else's ship, I'm just not sure what good all this data is.
It's always been pretty obvious that some ships heat up faster or cool down faster than others, since they all have heat indicators.
So outside of figuring out how to game the play for maximum heat generation and damage to an enemy I don't have - what can I do with all this?
It's always been pretty obvious that some ships heat up faster or cool down faster than others, since they all have heat indicators.
So outside of figuring out how to game the play for maximum heat generation and damage to an enemy I don't have - what can I do with all this?
use it for proper silent running smuggle builds for example. it also helps building ships for defesne purposes but at lowest specs to increase speed and jump range as much as possible. So what stuff you may engineer towards to without screwing your ship to burn too fast during scooping.