Supercruise: can we fix this?

[Lacika2000]

SC works as it’s supposed to.

Basically it’s all scalar fields in SC, not vector fields. Roughly speaking every point in space has a local maximum SC speed, which is 2,001c(1/(1+g)), where g is the gravitational field strength at the point. SC however uses a modified g where the fall off is at a higher power than the standard r^2.

As you move into parts of space with a lower g, the local SC maximum speed is higher, and you can go faster. In parts of space where g is higher, the local SC maximum speed is lower and you go slower.

What most people count as acceleration isn’t acceleration as such, it’s the increase in the local maximum speed as you move away from a gravitating body.

There’s a bit more to it, but that’ll do for the basic ‘Space’ layer of things.

Functionally it’s equivalent to space having a limit on its capacity to be warped, and the ships drive only being able to use the capacity left over from the warping that’s already there due to gravity. (I’m not saying that’s what the lore explanation is, I hasten to add, just what the model is functionally equivalent to.)

OK, this is something I can work with, that you for sharing. Let's test the claim and calculate the corresponding values from our data and actual speed measurements in Kamadhenu.

Since F = ma = mg and, at the same time, F = GMm/r², g can be easily calculated as g = F/m = GM/r².

When leaving the star starting at a starting 3.70 Ls away from Kamadhenu's single central star, g = 86.40, which results in a maximum speed in supercruise using the formula above:

v_max_star = 2001c*(1/(1+g)) = 22.9c

This is clearly not the limit of the supercruise max speed at the star, as we need to move away from the star for 19 seconds long at the local maximum speed to actually reach 5c.

But, and more importantly, as this was the original focus of the post: in the vicinity of planet Kamadhenu 1, when leaving Shajn Market spacestation, with the distance of 0.15 Ls to the planet, the g = 0.43, which gives a maximum supercruise speed according to the formula is:

v_max_planet = 2001c*(1/1+g)) = 1,404c

This is even more clearly not the case for the supercruise limit, as we need 54 seconds at max supercruise speed moving away from the planet (in the direction of the star) to reach 5c.

In general the problems with any of the explanation given so far trying to explain the actual experimental measurements is that these explanations all proportionally scale with mass. What I mean by this is that in the vicinity of the star (having a larger mass), they will always predict a lower maximum supercruise speed, vs. in the vicinity of the planet.

This is where the actual observation is contradicting the expectations: in almost all systems, it is easier to reach higher supercruise speeds when moving away from the star than when moving away from the close vicinity of any of the planets in the system.

In other words: I am not asking for changing the mechanism of supercruise speed, provided it would be consistent with the expectations based on the mass difference between a star and the planets around it. In the current state, following any of the explanations given so far, the way the game is calculating these supercruise speed limit values seems to be inconsistent with the available system data on the masses of celestial objects.

If anyone reading this has found a system where the actual measurement would support the claimed supercruise mechanics relying on the mass of objects in the system, please let me know.

 

[Para Handy]

I don't know why one would want to go into so much detail. It takes longer to accelerate when nearer the star (or other mass) than when further away - that is all that one needs to take into consideration. Take my video above, it took the game running at max throttle some 58(ish) minutes to reach the 2001c limit. Subsequently from a standing start at that place it took 30seconds to reach the limit. (I didn't post that video but I can if anyone wants evidence.)

All the rest is just OCD madness, it is a game with handwavium for gameplay purposes.

Here is that video after all:

 

[NyanTurian]

I don't know why one would want to go into so much detail. It takes longer to accelerate when nearer the star (or other mass) than when further away - that is all that one needs to take into consideration. Take my video above, it took the game running at max throttle some 58(ish) minutes to reach the 2001c limit. Subsequently from a standing start at that place it took 30seconds to reach the limit. (I didn't post that video but I can if anyone wants evidence.)

All the rest is just OCD madness, it is a game with handwavium for gameplay purposes.

Here is that video after all:

That is not at all what was implied. There is an obvious trend of accelerating to a certain speed (5c was chosen) taking much longer near planets than near a star, despite the enormous mass difference.

 

[Para Handy]

That is not at all what was implied. There is an obvious trend of accelerating to a certain speed (5c was chosen) taking much longer near planets than near a star, despite the enormous mass difference.

... and I repeat - it is all handwavium for gameplay - who cares? Just go play the game, it isn't a research supercomputer modelling real physics - it is a game.

 

[NyanTurian]

... and I repeat - it is all handwavium for gameplay - who cares? Just go play the game, it isn't a research supercomputer modelling real physics - it is a game.

It's not about supercomputers or high precision. It was about presenting an argument about how confusing Supercruise is, which is especially relevant to the game, considering the average time spent in Supercruise. Here you were, trying to claim in another thread how you can't change the physics of the game by modifying how Supercruise operates. Does this no longer seem important? There was also reference to a link you considered a bible...

EDIT: Here it is https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threa...ing-to-supercruise-assist.584824/post-9397120

 

[bangermsuk]

Being new to the forum, I am trying to thread lightly...

I am not sure if my experience is unique, but it is repeatable:

After arriving at a star and supercruising to a station will take substantially less time than starting from the station and supercruising to the star. First I thought "it is gravity, stupid!", but the calculations don't seem to hold that view.

Example: Kamadhenu system
The star Kamadhenu is 0.8008 solar mass, which is 1.59279*10^(30) kg. You arrive around 3.70 Ls away from the star. This gives on a Python (let's assume 350 t, so 350,000 kg) approximately 30,241 kN force of pulling.

Having the star behind the ship and facing the closest station (Shajn Market), and hitting full throttle, I can reach 5.0 c speed in around 19 s.

This means that the ship has enough power to overcome the 30+ MN gravitational pull and add continuously to the speed (i.e., accelerate) to reach 5 c in less than 20 seconds.

After arriving at the station, I position the ship so that the planet, Kamadhenu 1, having a 2.1624 Earth mass, so around 1.29139*10^(25) kg, exerting a gravitational pulling force of 149 kN on the Python at 0.15 Ls distance to the planet, is behind the ship, and hit full throttle again. I can accelerate to 5.0 c speed in around 54 s (!!!).

This means that suddenly the same ship does not have enough power to overcome a considerably smaller gravitational pull and cannot accelerate to 5 c in 20 seconds, it needs more than twice that time. Note that the planet's gravitational pull is a mere 0.49% of that of the star at the above mentioned starting distances, but nevertheless the ship struggles to accelerate, it can't even achieve what it could 'easily' when moving away from the star.

Just to be clear, even though I am closer to the planet than the star, the large difference in mass between planet and star results in a much smaller gravitational pull in the case of the planet, but still, I cannot accelerate to 5 c quicker than in the case of the same trip starting from the star. This is even more strange that during the trip from the station to the star, the star is actually pulling the ship with around 2 N force in the beginning of the trip, away from the planet and towards the star.

Furthermore, if gravity was taken into account (and with the traditional way of calculating forces acting on the ship), than moving away from the star from the starting position of 3.7 Ls distance to around 37 Ls would mean that the ship has already overcome around 99% of the total gravitational pull of this star. In other words, its power can be used almost fully (99%) to increasing its speed.

Which is clearly not that case in supercruise, as it will limit the speed increase substantially when reaching the first 10-15% of the distance to be covered, compared to the original acceleration from the star (where you have the highest gravity pull in this system).

Something is clearly broken... maybe my calculations? Did someone made similar tests and calculations in other systems? (preferably single star, so you don't need to take into account multiple heavy celestial objects pulling on the ship...) Please let me know, especially if you have test data (flight time needed to reach 5 c) in other systems. I am willing to do the calculation, if needed.

[EDIT: I have made a mistake on converting the Python mass to kg at first, but now I have updated the calculated values for the gravitational pull forces to the correct ones.]

i have a headache.

 

[CMDR Rabbit]

....(if you check in external camera, your thrusters don't work in supercruise)....

While you're right that thrusters don't seem to be an active component in SC flight, go into your modules panel and disable your thrusters while in supercruise, see what happens

 

[Para Handy]

It's not about supercomputers or high precision. It was about presenting an argument about how confusing Supercruise is, which is especially relevant to the game, considering the average time spent in Supercruise. Here you were, trying to claim in another thread how you can't change the physics of the game by modifying how Supercruise operates. Does this no longer seem important? There was also reference to a link you considered a bible...

EDIT: Here it is https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threa...ing-to-supercruise-assist.584824/post-9397120

Supercruise isn't confusing - you press a key, your ship goes fast - who gives a monkey's about its consistency, it is a game. My remark about "not changing the laws of physics" is just that the game's travel mechanics are constructed around a "kind-of" physics (not real physics) and seeking to change how that works in all these whiney "supercruise is boring" threads would have an enormous effect on the game,

I linked to the original "Science in Elite" thread (with quotes around the word "bible") since it is held as a good resource.

I am seriously bored with this so I'm off to play a game rather than wear out my keys on pedants.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

Supercruise has non-linear behaviour around stars for very solid gameplay reasons: a star can't reduce your maximum allowed speed below 0.33c, so that you can get closer for scooping and further away for the purposes of doing anything else in a reasonable timescale.

Let's work backwards:

v_max_star = 2001c*(1/(1+g)) = 22.9c
v_max_planet = 2001c*(1/1+g)) = 1,404c

So, v_max_planet - to allow docking at the stations, and reasonable control of supercruise behaviour when approaching orbital flight, probably needs to be at most 0.05c and probably somewhat less.

Scale that down with a purely gravitational calculation, and therefore v_max_star is going to be around 0.001c (at most, might need to be less) - and at 300km/s it's going to take you a very long time to get away from it.

Conclusion: supercruise is affected not just by gravity, but also by the density of the luminiferous aether, which is lower when very close to stars because it's dispersed by the stellar radiation pressure.

 

[Thatchinho]

OK, this is something I can work with, that you for sharing. Let's test the claim and calculate the corresponding values from our data and actual speed measurements in Kamadhenu.

Since F = ma = mg and, at the same time, F = GMm/r², g can be easily calculated as g = F/m = GM/r².

When leaving the star starting at a starting 3.70 Ls away from Kamadhenu's single central star, g = 86.40, which results in a maximum speed in supercruise using the formula above:

v_max_star = 2001c*(1/(1+g)) = 22.9c

This is clearly not the limit of the supercruise max speed at the star, as we need to move away from the star for 19 seconds long at the local maximum speed to actually reach 5c.

But, and more importantly, as this was the original focus of the post: in the vicinity of planet Kamadhenu 1, when leaving Shajn Market spacestation, with the distance of 0.15 Ls to the planet, the g = 0.43, which gives a maximum supercruise speed according to the formula is:

v_max_planet = 2001c*(1/1+g)) = 1,404c

This is even more clearly not the case for the supercruise limit, as we need 54 seconds at max supercruise speed moving away from the planet (in the direction of the star) to reach 5c.

In general the problems with any of the explanation given so far trying to explain the actual experimental measurements is that these explanations all linearly scale with mass. What I mean by this is that in the vicinity of the star (having a larger mass), they will always predict a lower maximum supercruise speed, vs. in the vicinity of the planet.

This is where the actual observation is contradicting the expectations: in almost all systems, it is easier to reach higher supercruise speeds when moving away from the star than when moving away from the close vicinity of any of the planets in the system.

In other words: I am not asking for changing the mechanism of supercruise speed, provided it would be consistent with the expectations based on the mass difference between a star and the planets around it. In the current state, following any of the explanations given so far, the way the game is calculating these supercruise speed limit values seems to be inconsistent with the available system data on the masses of celestial objects.

If anyone reading this has found a system where the actual measurement would support the claimed supercruise mechanics relying on the mass of objects in the system, please let me know.

Yeah, the key word was ‘roughly’ in my previous post.

I don’t know the exact formula, just a form that’ll do for illustrative purposes. (A first approximation, essentially.)

The g part is one of the problems. Like I say, it’s a modified form where it’s a different power of r than r^2. I don’t know what the power actually used is though.

There may well be an extra term (or terms) thrown into the calculation somewhere as well.

As far as I’m aware, that altered form of g in Supercruise is for all bodies, but it’s always possible that it was just done for stars.

As a note, I'd always been of the understanding that it was Σg rather than just g so in the vicinity of a planet, it'd be the g from the planet plus the g from the star (treating it as scalar addition, not vector addition). I can't recall an actual source for that though, so that may just be an assumption on my part.

 

[Thatchinho]

It's not about supercomputers or high precision. It was about presenting an argument about how confusing Supercruise is, which is especially relevant to the game, considering the average time spent in Supercruise. Here you were, trying to claim in another thread how you can't change the physics of the game by modifying how Supercruise operates. Does this no longer seem important? There was also reference to a link you considered a bible...

EDIT: Here it is https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threa...ing-to-supercruise-assist.584824/post-9397120

I don't really see how Supercruise is confusing. All you need to understand is some simple general principles and apply them and then it's fine.

I'd equate it to sailing - you don't need to know the explicit details of aerodynamics and hydrodynamics to sail well. (And it's much easier than sailing in some senses as the fields are essentially static in SC, as opposed to dynamic and chaotic for sailing.)

 

[NyanTurian]

I don't really see how Supercruise is confusing. All you need to understand is some simple general principles and apply them and then it's fine.

I'd equate it to sailing - you don't need to know the explicit details of aerodynamics and hydrodynamics to sail well. (And it's much easier than sailing in some senses as the fields are essentially static in SC, as opposed to dynamic and chaotic for sailing.)

I suppose confusing was the wrong word, I understand how Supercruise currently works, yet it is hardly comparable to something like aerodynamics or hydrodynamics, both are sciences. This is purely arbitrary and a matter of personal choice.

 

[NyanTurian]

Supercruise isn't confusing - you press a key, your ship goes fast - who gives a monkey's about its consistency, it is a game. My remark about "not changing the laws of physics" is just that the game's travel mechanics are constructed around a "kind-of" physics (not real physics) and seeking to change how that works in all these whiney "supercruise is boring" threads would have an enormous effect on the game,

I linked to the original "Science in Elite" thread (with quotes around the word "bible") since it is held as a good resource.

I am seriously bored with this so I'm off to play a game rather than wear out my keys on pedants.

Alright, let's ignore about how Supercruise works for a moment. Why are threads about changing Supercruise whiney? How much time have you spent flying in Elite? I have over a thousand hours. Can you really say you like that mechanic? Spending 20 minutes getting somewhere, idling or alt-tabbed, then only doing the task for 5 minutes? Of course, it would have an enormous effect on the game! Do you think everyone has that much time or wants to spend it that way?

 

[Thatchinho]

I suppose confusing was the wrong word, I understand how Supercruise currently works, yet it is hardly comparable to something like aerodynamics or hydrodynamics, both are sciences. This is purely arbitrary and a matter of personal choice.

I never said supercruise was comparable to them. The point was about the need to know the details of the workings to be able to use something.

Not quite sure what you're second point is about. Supercruise isn't really arbitrary or a matter of personal choice, except to the extent it's just a game mechanic. Did you mean something else?

 

[Galactic Fork]

OK, this is something I can work with, that you for sharing. Let's test the claim and calculate the corresponding values from our data and actual speed measurements in Kamadhenu.

Since F = ma = mg and, at the same time, F = GMm/r², g can be easily calculated as g = F/m = GM/r².

When leaving the star starting at a starting 3.70 Ls away from Kamadhenu's single central star, g = 86.40, which results in a maximum speed in supercruise using the formula above:

v_max_star = 2001c*(1/(1+g)) = 22.9c

This is clearly not the limit of the supercruise max speed at the star, as we need to move away from the star for 19 seconds long at the local maximum speed to actually reach 5c.

But, and more importantly, as this was the original focus of the post: in the vicinity of planet Kamadhenu 1, when leaving Shajn Market spacestation, with the distance of 0.15 Ls to the planet, the g = 0.43, which gives a maximum supercruise speed according to the formula is:

v_max_planet = 2001c*(1/1+g)) = 1,404c

This is even more clearly not the case for the supercruise limit, as we need 54 seconds at max supercruise speed moving away from the planet (in the direction of the star) to reach 5c.

In general the problems with any of the explanation given so far trying to explain the actual experimental measurements is that these explanations all proportionally scale with mass. What I mean by this is that in the vicinity of the star (having a larger mass), they will always predict a lower maximum supercruise speed, vs. in the vicinity of the planet.

This is where the actual observation is contradicting the expectations: in almost all systems, it is easier to reach higher supercruise speeds when moving away from the star than when moving away from the close vicinity of any of the planets in the system.

In other words: I am not asking for changing the mechanism of supercruise speed, provided it would be consistent with the expectations based on the mass difference between a star and the planets around it. In the current state, following any of the explanations given so far, the way the game is calculating these supercruise speed limit values seems to be inconsistent with the available system data on the masses of celestial objects.

If anyone reading this has found a system where the actual measurement would support the claimed supercruise mechanics relying on the mass of objects in the system, please let me know.

Keep in mind, you're .15 ls from the planet. and 3.7 from the star. How long does it take to reach 5 c when you're 3.7 light seconds from the planet?

 

[NyanTurian]

I never said supercruise was comparable to them. The point was about the need to know the details of the workings to be able to use something.

Not quite sure what you're second point is about. Supercruise isn't really arbitrary or a matter of personal choice, except to the extent it's just a game mechanic. Did you mean something else?

I only meant that Supercruise is fictional, and how arbitrary speed/acceleration seems in the game. I agree with you, I understand how to fly in Supercruise well enough without complex theory. However, the flight experience is not what it could be.

EDIT: Now, I should say after all of this complaining, I will respect whatever Frontier decides.

 

[Para Handy]

... Spending 20 minutes getting somewhere, idling or alt-tabbed, then only doing the task for 5 minutes? ........

You see I don't identify with that issue. I have functioning brain cells so can decide not to undertake such stupidly long journeys.

Nobody forces you to have to undertake long trips, it is a choice you subject yourself to. You either don't take the mission or if it is one of those that you find your murder victim is a very long way away when you arrive in-system - abandon the mission.

Complaining about long supercruise travel times is puerile.

 

[NyanTurian]

You see I don't identify with that issue. I have functioning brain cells so can decide not to undertake such stupidly long journeys.

Nobody forces you to have to undertake long trips, it is a choice you subject yourself to. You either don't take the mission or if it is one of those that you find your murder victim is a very long way away when you arrive in-system - abandon the mission.

Complaining about long supercruise travel times is puerile.

That's a great joke, hah. I love it. Have you explored at all any length or traveled around a system for a few hours, running errands?

Edit: How about engineering a ship?

 

[Para Handy]

That's a great joke, hah. I love it. Have you explore at all any length or traveled around a system for a few hours, running errands?

Edit: How about engineering a ship?

Now you are being daft. Where are you forced to undertake long trips in those situations? Map, don't map - your choice. Then you seek to imply that lots of short trips are onerous. Purlease ....

I'm out .. got a laptop to prise all the bloatware out of - that is actually more appealing than this thread! Enjoy finding someone else to bait... bye

 

[NyanTurian]

Now you are being daft. Where are you forced to undertake long trips in those situations? Map, don't map - your choice. Then you seek to imply that lots of short trips are onerous. Purlease ....

I'm out .. got a laptop to prise all the bloatware out of - that is actually more appealing than this thread! Enjoy finding someone else to bait... bye

Alright, thank you! Have a good time.