Previous Post just below. For updated info, check after the edit.
---
Edit
Updates! More data on AFMUs (1E through 1A) and Thrusters (Turn rates included).
Auto Field-Maintenance Units (AFMUs)
Thrusters (and Power Distributors)
TL;DR
Higher-rated AFMUs repair more module health and do so more quickly than a lower-rated one. Therefore, A > B > C > D > E both in terms of health repaired and in time taken to do so.
Thrusters have a hidden Minimum Mass (equal to 50% of Optimum Mass) below which no benefits are gained in terms of speed or turn rate by reducing mass.
Higher rated (and presumably class) Power Distributors don't affect your ship's speed or turn rate directly, only indirectly through mass and by allowing for more boosts in the same time.
Further Reading
Jackie Silver has made some interesting observations regarding top speeds at Minimum Mass with a number of ships. Check them out here and here!
Additional testing done in regards to how Thruster Ratings affect Top Speed whilst at Minimum, Optimum and Maximum Mass can be found here.
Additional testing done in regard to how Mass affects Top Speed can be found here and here.
I believe this should cover some of the questions about AFMUs and Thrusters. Hope this helps you in your future endeavours, Commanders.
Greetings Commanders. After conducting some brief (more or less) scientific tests on both AFMUs and Thrusters, I'd like to share my results with you. TL;DR version provided at the bottom.
Auto Field-Maintenance Units (AFMUs)
Thrusters (and Power Distributors)
TL;DR
A-rated AFMUs repair more quickly and more total module health than B-rated AFMUs of the same class despite having less ammo.
Reducing a ship's mass below 50% of its thrusters' Optimal Mass provides no further benefits in regards to speed (and presumably maneuverability).
Higher rated (and presumably class) Power Distributors don't affect your ship's top speed directly, only indirectly through mass and by allowing for more boosts in the same time.
Hope this may help some people out there when kitting out their ships for future endeavours - and possibly inspire some more test. For Science!
Auto Field-Maintenance Units (AFMUs)
After making a brief exploration journey out into the unknown recently, I headed back to inhabited space - but underway, I began wondering about my choice of AFMU rating. I had chosen some B-rated AFMUs because they had more ammo, assuming that their lower repair capacity meant that they simply repaired more slowly but more module health in total thanks to their larger ammo pool. And seeing as repair speed really isn't much of an issue so far from any would-be attackers, B-rated AFMUs seemed the way to go.
But are they really? After arriving back, I decided to put this to a simple test: I bought myself a Viper, equipped it with one E1 and one D1 AFMU before heading straight for the nearest sun (smacking repeatedly into a station wall didn't damage my modules very much, unfortunately). Once there, I cranked the heat up to get my modules damaged and waited for something to break completely - the first thing to do so being the powered-down Cargo Hatch. Using one AFMU to repair the other (though not quite to 100%, unfortunately - hope this does't have much of an effect on them), I then set the second one to repair the Cargo hatch, noting the health it restored the Cargo Hatch to and how long this took (approximately - a stop watch and human error would probably allow for maybe 1-2 seconds of error either way). I then headed back to the nearest station, fully repaired my Viper, refilled my AFMUs and headed back out to test the AFMUs with their roles reversed.
Here are the results:
The E1 AFMU repaired the Cargo Hatch from 0% to 60% health over the course of approximately 110 seconds (1:50).
The D1 AFMU repaired the Cargo Hatch from 0% to 71% health over the course of approximately 88 seconds (1:28).
Comparing these two, we see that the D1 AFMU repaired 11% more health, which is (relatively speaking) 18.33% more than the E1 AFMU. Remember that the AFMUs weren't at 100% health, possibly reducing their maximum repairiness (yes, that's a word now).
Furthermore, to do so took the D1 AFMU approximately 22 seconds less time, which is 20% less than the E1 AFMU. Again, remember these values may be off by a second or two.
For quick reference, here are the stats of the AFMUs:
A E1 AFMU has 1000 ammunition and a repair capacity of 12.000.
A D1 AFMU has 900 ammunition and a repair capacity of 14.400.
So what does this mean? Well, as far as AFMUs are concerned, the only stat that actually matters seems to be repair capacity for which more = better. Therefore, if you can afford the power draw (while active, as they can just be turned off as needed) A-rated AFMUs really are better than B-rated AFMUs both in terms of repair speed and total possible repairs. Which should be relevant information for all explorers out there.
Well, actually only those not out there - not much you can do about your loadout a few ten thousand light years from home after all.
But are they really? After arriving back, I decided to put this to a simple test: I bought myself a Viper, equipped it with one E1 and one D1 AFMU before heading straight for the nearest sun (smacking repeatedly into a station wall didn't damage my modules very much, unfortunately). Once there, I cranked the heat up to get my modules damaged and waited for something to break completely - the first thing to do so being the powered-down Cargo Hatch. Using one AFMU to repair the other (though not quite to 100%, unfortunately - hope this does't have much of an effect on them), I then set the second one to repair the Cargo hatch, noting the health it restored the Cargo Hatch to and how long this took (approximately - a stop watch and human error would probably allow for maybe 1-2 seconds of error either way). I then headed back to the nearest station, fully repaired my Viper, refilled my AFMUs and headed back out to test the AFMUs with their roles reversed.
Here are the results:
The E1 AFMU repaired the Cargo Hatch from 0% to 60% health over the course of approximately 110 seconds (1:50).
The D1 AFMU repaired the Cargo Hatch from 0% to 71% health over the course of approximately 88 seconds (1:28).
Comparing these two, we see that the D1 AFMU repaired 11% more health, which is (relatively speaking) 18.33% more than the E1 AFMU. Remember that the AFMUs weren't at 100% health, possibly reducing their maximum repairiness (yes, that's a word now).
Furthermore, to do so took the D1 AFMU approximately 22 seconds less time, which is 20% less than the E1 AFMU. Again, remember these values may be off by a second or two.
For quick reference, here are the stats of the AFMUs:
A E1 AFMU has 1000 ammunition and a repair capacity of 12.000.
A D1 AFMU has 900 ammunition and a repair capacity of 14.400.
So what does this mean? Well, as far as AFMUs are concerned, the only stat that actually matters seems to be repair capacity for which more = better. Therefore, if you can afford the power draw (while active, as they can just be turned off as needed) A-rated AFMUs really are better than B-rated AFMUs both in terms of repair speed and total possible repairs. Which should be relevant information for all explorers out there.
Well, actually only those not out there - not much you can do about your loadout a few ten thousand light years from home after all.
Thrusters (and Power Distributors)
Having gotten into the taste of testing, I decided to follow my urges to do some more. Specifically, thrusters. Even more specifically, something I had suspected for a while: Thrusters actually have a minimum mass below which any further mass reductions have no positive effect whatsoever. To test this, I bought myself a Sidewinder, stripped it of any unnecessary weight and equipped D-rated modules as well as some A2 thrusters on it. The result was a Sidewinder with 33.0T mass, an Optimal Mass of 72.0T and a Maximum Mass of 108.0T (36.0T or 50% more than Optimal Mass). Unfortunately, I could only test top speeds - frame-accurate measurements of varius pitches, rolls and whatnot are beyond my scope of testing. However, I believe that a ship's maneuverability is affected in the same manner as the top speed.
So, with my Sidewinder thusly equipped, I headed out of the station and recorded the top speed I could reach in a straight line with various pips to engines, both normal and boosted. I then repeated this test for a number of masses, specifically 36.0T (36.0T less than Optimal Mass and what I presumed to be Minimum Mass), 37.0T, 38.0T, 39.0T and finally 72.0T (Optimal Mass). Note that the boosted speed was the highest value seen when boosting in a straight line from unboosted top speed and may be off by 1-2 m/s due to human error, so take those values with a grain of salt.
The results are ordered by Mass and ENG pips, the values being unboosted / boosted top speeds in m/s as they appeared on the HUD (again, boosted speeds may be off by 1-2 m/s).
Note the values for both 33.0T (3.0T under Minimum Mass) and 36.0T (exactly at Minimum Mass). Looking at these results, I believe I can confirm: Thrusters do indeed have a Minimum Mass below which is to be had for further mass reductions. Furthermore, at least with this Sidewinder's A2 thruster, each ENG pip above 0.0 linearly increases the unboosted top speed by 30% (15% per half pip). Edit: This is just a coincidence. The increase in speed due to ENG Pips depends on the ship and is not always exactly 15% per half pip. See Jackie Silver's post here for more info on this!
As a small bonus test: Whilst maintaining a 36.0T Minimum Mass, I tried out both the D1 Power Distributor and the B1 Power Distributor. This had no effect on the maximum speeds - I can therefore also confirm that Power Distributors don't directly affect your ship's top speed (and presumably maneuverability), only indirectly through their mass and the availability of power for boosting. It stands to reason that this is also true in regards to the Power Distributor's class.
So what does this mean? Well, simple: Going below 50% of your thrusters' Optimal Mass means going below a hidden Minimum Mass and has no further benefits. This could be useful if you're trying to design a racing ship or whether you should slap on some military grade composite armor on your Vulture.
So, with my Sidewinder thusly equipped, I headed out of the station and recorded the top speed I could reach in a straight line with various pips to engines, both normal and boosted. I then repeated this test for a number of masses, specifically 36.0T (36.0T less than Optimal Mass and what I presumed to be Minimum Mass), 37.0T, 38.0T, 39.0T and finally 72.0T (Optimal Mass). Note that the boosted speed was the highest value seen when boosting in a straight line from unboosted top speed and may be off by 1-2 m/s due to human error, so take those values with a grain of salt.
The results are ordered by Mass and ENG pips, the values being unboosted / boosted top speeds in m/s as they appeared on the HUD (again, boosted speeds may be off by 1-2 m/s).
| Sidewinder Mass | 33.0T | 36.0T | 37.0T | 38.0T | 39.0T | 72.0T |
| 0.0 ENG Pips | 116 / 338 | 116 / 339 | 115 / 336 | 115 / 335 | 114 / 333 | 100 / 292 |
| 0.5 ENG Pips | 133 / 341 | 133 / 341 | 133 / 339 | 132 / 337 | 131 / 336 | 115 / 294 |
| 1.0 ENG Pips | 151 / 343 | 151 / 343 | 150 / 342 | 149 / 339 | 148 / 338 | 130 / 296 |
| 1.5 ENG Pips | 168 / 345 | 168 / 346 | 167 / 344 | 166 / 342 | 165 / 340 | 145 / 298 |
| 2.0 ENG Pips | 186 / 348 | 186 / 347 | 185 / 346 | 184 / 344 | 183 / 342 | 160 / 300 |
| 2.5 ENG Pips | 203 / 349 | 203 / 349 | 202 / 347 | 201 / 346 | 200 / 344 | 175 / 301 |
| 3.0 ENG Pips | 220 / 351 | 220 / 351 | 219 / 349 | 218 / 347 | 217 / 345 | 190 / 303 |
| 3.5 ENG Pips | 238 / 353 | 238 / 353 | 236 / 352 | 235 / 349 | 234 / 347 | 205 / 304 |
| 4.0 ENG Pips | 255 / 355 | 255 / 355 | 254 / 353 | 252 / 352 | 251 / 350 | 220 / 306 |
Note the values for both 33.0T (3.0T under Minimum Mass) and 36.0T (exactly at Minimum Mass). Looking at these results, I believe I can confirm: Thrusters do indeed have a Minimum Mass below which is to be had for further mass reductions. Furthermore, at least with this Sidewinder's A2 thruster, each ENG pip above 0.0 linearly increases the unboosted top speed by 30% (15% per half pip). Edit: This is just a coincidence. The increase in speed due to ENG Pips depends on the ship and is not always exactly 15% per half pip. See Jackie Silver's post here for more info on this!
As a small bonus test: Whilst maintaining a 36.0T Minimum Mass, I tried out both the D1 Power Distributor and the B1 Power Distributor. This had no effect on the maximum speeds - I can therefore also confirm that Power Distributors don't directly affect your ship's top speed (and presumably maneuverability), only indirectly through their mass and the availability of power for boosting. It stands to reason that this is also true in regards to the Power Distributor's class.
So what does this mean? Well, simple: Going below 50% of your thrusters' Optimal Mass means going below a hidden Minimum Mass and has no further benefits. This could be useful if you're trying to design a racing ship or whether you should slap on some military grade composite armor on your Vulture.
TL;DR
A-rated AFMUs repair more quickly and more total module health than B-rated AFMUs of the same class despite having less ammo.
Reducing a ship's mass below 50% of its thrusters' Optimal Mass provides no further benefits in regards to speed (and presumably maneuverability).
Higher rated (and presumably class) Power Distributors don't affect your ship's top speed directly, only indirectly through mass and by allowing for more boosts in the same time.
Hope this may help some people out there when kitting out their ships for future endeavours - and possibly inspire some more test. For Science!
Edit
Updates! More data on AFMUs (1E through 1A) and Thrusters (Turn rates included).
Auto Field-Maintenance Units (AFMUs)
After the rather basic tests on just the E1 and D1 modules, I jumped around until I found a station which offered all of them. Using a trusty Sidewinder (I call it Testwinder by now), I high-fived the nearest sun in order to get my Cargo Hatch down to 0%. Using some other AFMUs, I repaired the to-be-tested AFMU to 100% before setting about repairing the Cargo Hatch and repeated the process for each rating whilst recording. Here are the results:
Note: All health values refer to a Sidewinder's Cargo Hatch.
Time taken refers to the 60 fps frame-accurate time between activating the AFMU and either the time its ammo reaches 0 or the Cargo Hatch reached 100% health.
So, seeing these results, I can fully confirm: Higher rated AFMUs repair more health and repair the same amount of health in a lower amount of time as compared to lower-rated ones.
Also, all (Class 1) AFMUs consume 10 ammo per second while repairing.
Also note that repair capacity seems to be the stat that matters in terms of how much health an AFMU can repair.
| AFMU | 1E | 1D | 1C | 1B | 1A |
| Ammo total | 1000 | 900 | 1000 | 1200 | 1100 |
| Repair capacity | 12.0 | 14.4 | 20.0 | 27.6 | 30.8 |
| Health repaired | 60% | 72% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
| Ammo used | 1000 (100%) | 900 (100%) | 1000 (100%) | 870 (72.5%) | 715 (65%) |
| Ammo left | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 330 (27.5%) | 385 (35%) |
| Time taken | 99.867s | 89.884s | 100.034s | 86.936s | 71.384s |
| Health/second | 0.60% | 0.80% | 1.00% | 1.15% | 1.40% |
| Health/ammo | 0.060% | 0.080% | 0.100% | 0.115% | 0.140% |
| Total healing | 60.00% | 72.00% | 100.00% | 137.93% | 153.85% |
Time taken refers to the 60 fps frame-accurate time between activating the AFMU and either the time its ammo reaches 0 or the Cargo Hatch reached 100% health.
So, seeing these results, I can fully confirm: Higher rated AFMUs repair more health and repair the same amount of health in a lower amount of time as compared to lower-rated ones.
Also, all (Class 1) AFMUs consume 10 ammo per second while repairing.
Also note that repair capacity seems to be the stat that matters in terms of how much health an AFMU can repair.
Thrusters (and Power Distributors)
To reiterate, here it the table on how mass relates to top speed both normal and boosted with various ENG pips settings. New data beneath that.
Note: Sidewinder with A2 Thrusters (72.0T Optimum Mass).
All values in m/s as they appeared on the HUD.
The boosted values may be off by 1-2 m/s due to human error.
Higher-rated Power Distributors have no beneficial effect and only affect speed indirectly due to mass and availability of boost energy.
As we can see, going below 50% of your Thruster's Optimum Mass yields no further benefits. But how does mass affect turning? To test this, I took the same Sidewinder and completed two full loops (continuous upward pitching via holding a key with zero roll/yaw) whilst at 50% thrust (and thereby within the blue optimum turning speed) with all ENG pip settings and recorded the time taken for the second loop (meaning no possible time loss for having to first accelerate the turn) to complete a full 360 degree. This was repeated for all the mass values already tested above.
Note that these times are frame-accurate to 60fps and may therefore be off by up to 16.66 milliseconds or 0.016 seconds in either direction. The values given are in seconds and refer to the time taken to complete one full loop. Here are the results:
Note: Avg. add. Time refers to the average additional time it takes to perform each full turn versus the previous, lighter column in milliseconds (0.001 seconds).
Gain 0P refers to how much faster the turn is compared to 0 ENG Pips (using the 72.0T column).
Gain prev. refers to how much faster the turn is compared to using the previous row, i.e. 0.5 ENG Pips less (using the 72.0T column). Avg. add. Time row refers to average increase in turn speed.
So looking at these numbers, Minimum Mass affects both top speed and turn rate, meaning that from 0% to 50% of your Thrusters' Optimum Mass, your normal space flying characteristics will be exactly the same. The minor differences between 33.0T and 36.0T are easily within the margin of error (and stray into both positive and negative); especially when one compares this 3.0T difference to how the numbers increase for a mere 1.0T difference between 36.0T and 37.0T.
Therefore I can confirm: Minimum Mass is a thing, it's equal to 50% of Optimum Mass and going below it has zero benefits both for top speed and turn rate.
Additionally, a higher-rated Power Distributor, like with top speed, did not affect the turn rate, assuming mass and ENG Pips remained the same.
| Sidewinder Mass | 33.0T | 36.0T | 37.0T | 38.0T | 39.0T | 72.0T |
| 0.0 ENG Pips | 116 / 338 | 116 / 339 | 115 / 336 | 115 / 335 | 114 / 333 | 100 / 292 |
| 0.5 ENG Pips | 133 / 341 | 133 / 341 | 133 / 339 | 132 / 337 | 131 / 336 | 115 / 294 |
| 1.0 ENG Pips | 151 / 343 | 151 / 343 | 150 / 342 | 149 / 339 | 148 / 338 | 130 / 296 |
| 1.5 ENG Pips | 168 / 345 | 168 / 346 | 167 / 344 | 166 / 342 | 165 / 340 | 145/ 298 |
| 2.0 ENG Pips | 186 / 348 | 186 / 347 | 185 / 346 | 184 / 344 | 183 / 342 | 160 / 300 |
| 2.5 ENG Pips | 203 / 349 | 203 / 349 | 202 / 347 | 201 / 346 | 200 / 344 | 175 / 301 |
| 3.0 ENG Pips | 220 / 351 | 220 / 351 | 219 / 349 | 218 / 347 | 217 / 345 | 190 / 303 |
| 3.5 ENG Pips | 238 / 353 | 238 / 353 | 236 / 352 | 235 / 349 | 234 /347 | 205 / 304 |
| 4.0 ENG Pips | 255 / 355 | 255 / 355 | 254 / 353 | 252 / 352 | 251 / 350 | 220 / 306 |
All values in m/s as they appeared on the HUD.
The boosted values may be off by 1-2 m/s due to human error.
Higher-rated Power Distributors have no beneficial effect and only affect speed indirectly due to mass and availability of boost energy.
As we can see, going below 50% of your Thruster's Optimum Mass yields no further benefits. But how does mass affect turning? To test this, I took the same Sidewinder and completed two full loops (continuous upward pitching via holding a key with zero roll/yaw) whilst at 50% thrust (and thereby within the blue optimum turning speed) with all ENG pip settings and recorded the time taken for the second loop (meaning no possible time loss for having to first accelerate the turn) to complete a full 360 degree. This was repeated for all the mass values already tested above.
Note that these times are frame-accurate to 60fps and may therefore be off by up to 16.66 milliseconds or 0.016 seconds in either direction. The values given are in seconds and refer to the time taken to complete one full loop. Here are the results:
| Sidewinder Mass | 33.0T | 36.0T | 37.0T | 38.0T | 39.0T | 72.0T | Gain 0P | Gain prev. |
| 0.0 ENG Pips | 9.260s | 9.250s | 9.268s | 9.327s | 9.400s | 10.683s | +0.000% | +0.000% |
| 0.5 ENG Pips | 8.984s | 8.983s | 9.033s | 9.083s | 9.133s | 10.384s | +2.879% | +2.879% |
| 1.0 ENG Pips | 8.752s | 8.750s | 8.800s | 8.851s | 8.901s | 10.132s | +5.438% | +2.487% |
| 1.5 ENG Pips | 8.517s | 8.534s | 8.567s | 8.617s | 8.648s | 9.832s | +8.655% | +3.051% |
| 2.0 ENG Pips | 8.313s | 8.300s | 8.350s | 8.417s | 8.433s | 9.611s | +11.154% | +2.299% |
| 2.5 ENG Pips | 8.118s | 8.116s | 8.159s | 8.200s | 8.246s | 9.350s | +14.257% | +2.791% |
| 3.0 ENG Pips | 7.898s | 7.917s | 7.964s | 8.001s | 8.033s | 9.136s | +16.933% | +2.342% |
| 3.5 ENG Pips | 7.750s | 7.733s | 7.750s | 7.802s | 7.867s | 8.918s | +19.791% | +2.444% |
| 4.0 ENG Pips | 7.567s | 7.550s | 7.611s | 7.650s | 7.685 | 8.710s | +22.652% | +2.388% |
| Avg. add. Time | +0.00ms | +2.88ms | +35.44ms | +49.44ms | +44.22ms | +1156.66ms | N/A | +2.585% |
Gain 0P refers to how much faster the turn is compared to 0 ENG Pips (using the 72.0T column).
Gain prev. refers to how much faster the turn is compared to using the previous row, i.e. 0.5 ENG Pips less (using the 72.0T column). Avg. add. Time row refers to average increase in turn speed.
So looking at these numbers, Minimum Mass affects both top speed and turn rate, meaning that from 0% to 50% of your Thrusters' Optimum Mass, your normal space flying characteristics will be exactly the same. The minor differences between 33.0T and 36.0T are easily within the margin of error (and stray into both positive and negative); especially when one compares this 3.0T difference to how the numbers increase for a mere 1.0T difference between 36.0T and 37.0T.
Therefore I can confirm: Minimum Mass is a thing, it's equal to 50% of Optimum Mass and going below it has zero benefits both for top speed and turn rate.
Additionally, a higher-rated Power Distributor, like with top speed, did not affect the turn rate, assuming mass and ENG Pips remained the same.
TL;DR
Higher-rated AFMUs repair more module health and do so more quickly than a lower-rated one. Therefore, A > B > C > D > E both in terms of health repaired and in time taken to do so.
Thrusters have a hidden Minimum Mass (equal to 50% of Optimum Mass) below which no benefits are gained in terms of speed or turn rate by reducing mass.
Higher rated (and presumably class) Power Distributors don't affect your ship's speed or turn rate directly, only indirectly through mass and by allowing for more boosts in the same time.
Further Reading
Jackie Silver has made some interesting observations regarding top speeds at Minimum Mass with a number of ships. Check them out here and here!
Additional testing done in regards to how Thruster Ratings affect Top Speed whilst at Minimum, Optimum and Maximum Mass can be found here.
Additional testing done in regard to how Mass affects Top Speed can be found here and here.
I believe this should cover some of the questions about AFMUs and Thrusters. Hope this helps you in your future endeavours, Commanders.
Last edited:
