The "Math of ED" Ships

[insaene]

Hey there.
I'm comparing ships for now to show, that FD got it wrong at some point.

Red: Should be heavier
Green: Should be lighter

For now:
Cobra III vs. Cobra IV
and
Eagle vs IEagle

	Standard									Internal									Weapons						Utility		Armor		Hull
		BH	PP	Thr	FSD	LS	PD	Sen	FT
Cobra III		8	4	4	4	3	3	3	4		4	4	4			2	2	2		M	M	S	S			2		216		180T
Cobra IV		8	4	4	4	3	3	3	4		4	4	4	4	3	3	2	2		M	M	S	S	S		2		216		210T
Internal: +4 +3 +3 -2 Weapon: +S = 30T -> Seems okish
Eagle		8	2	3	3	1	2	2	2		3	2	1							S	S	S				1		72		50T
Imperial Eagle		8	3	3	3	1	2	2	2		3	2	1	1						M	S	S				1		108		50T
More armor, bigger Powerplant compartment, Extra 1 Internal, 1 Medium HP instead of S->    ? Same Hull Tonnage?

 

[FutronBob]

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say?

If you're saying something about the ship's hull weight relating to the ship's hardpoints and internal slots, keep in mind that weapons and internals have their OWN weight that is added when you equip them.

But then again, maybe the chart is just messed up on my mobile view and I got it completely wrong.

 

[insaene]

Yeah but that weight doesn't add to the hull. Check Cobra vs. Cobra IV. There are only Internal differences, no armor. But the ship is 30T heavier. So the internals musst add to the hull weight.

Now to the IEagle. The IEagle has everything better, even more armor. But doesn't have more hull? How is this logic?

 

[Edd Jordan]

Maths.

 

[CMDR LACEWING]

The ships don't follow any rules, and it's not just hull mass. It looks like most ships follow some theme, but not precise, and it's thrown over completely for some ships. Another thing that doesn't make sense is shield strenght.

 

[Cynaqq]

Yeah but that weight doesn't add to the hull. Check Cobra vs. Cobra IV. There are only Internal differences, no armor. But the ship is 30T heavier. So the internals musst add to the hull weight.

Now to the IEagle. The IEagle has everything better, even more armor. But doesn't have more hull? How is this logic?

Better materials which are lighter but stronger? Does it say anywhere that they are made from the same exact materials?

Also, it is hull mass. They could have the exact same amount of material in the empty hull but a different architecture so they can fit more into the same hull mass. In other words, it's an everyday process in engineering to redesign things so they can do more with less, or at least more with the same amount.

 

[FutronBob]

Ah, NOW I see what you're saying. (The chart is definitely messed up for me, it doesn't even show any of the cobras' stats. Stupid mobile web browser! )


Honestly, I think it was just a balancing factor. Maybe after they they designed the Cobra mk IV, Frontier thought it might be too powerful for a pre-order exclusive ship, so they just slapped on some extra hull mass to try to balance it out?

Believe me, if the mk IV was even remotely good in any way, there would have been a massive rage fest on the forums for making it exclusive to early Horizons owners.

That's just my guess. I think hull weight is used more as a balancing factor than anything else.

The Anaconda and the iClipper both share a 400 ton hull mass, while the Python is a mere 50 tons less. Yet the Python can carry more cargo than an iClipper, AND land on medium pads to boot.

Then there's the Orca, which is quite a bit smaller than an Anaconda but is 580 tons. It's all probably just for balancing factors.

 

[SheepDip82]

Not this again...

It's not worth diving into. Sometimes it makes sense, sometimes it doesn't, you can speculate and/or hypothesise until you're blue in the face for the reasons why - but you'll never actually know. Sensible speculation is they used maths first, then tinkered for perceived balance.

Don't torture yourself!

 

[Conch]

maybe they create the ships with RNG too?

 

[Wasp0]

Maths.

+1 there is an 'S' on the END!!! Math is Singular. Maths is Plural

And to be really pedantic it's actually Mathematics.



Bored? Me? YES!!

 

[Helfar]

It's all a fudge for "balance".

Back away from the maths, there is nothing to see here

 

[Cynaqq]

Seriously, of course outside of the game, it is just for balance. The ship stats are set and tweaked because the flight model is universal (all the ships are controlled by the same program) so ship stats directly determine how a ship will handle. They don't simply give ships acceleration values for each axis it can move in. They determine the total ship mass, considering outfitting options and it handles like the way it does as a result of the calculations the engine does based on the physical constants of the ship, namely the mass and the parameters that come form it's geometry.

Also a question: Are none of you engineers? It's really common practice in engineering for the newer models having more capacity on a lighter frame for most real life craft. Why wouldn't the same thing true for thousand years in the future? Are their engineers dumb that they can't do something their long dead ancestors did every day?

 

[goemon]

It's really common practice in engineering for the newer models having more capacity on a lighter frame for most real life craft.

i like your way to argue for it, but then i have a look at the anaconda:

- first manufactured in 2856
- hullmass 400 T

and compare it to the DBE

- first manufactured in 3301
- hullmass 300 T

...a ship 15-20 times smaller.

so, there is a serious loss of knowledge ;-)

___

@OP mass is a way to balance jumprange via FSD class, and speed gain via thruster class. through that it is also a way to balance otfitting costs.

if you want some fun, compare the base shieldstrenght of an imperial courier and an imperial clipper...

 

[ForeverN00b]

i like your way to argue for it, but then i have a look at the anaconda:

- first manufactured in 2856
- hullmass 400 T

and compare it to the DBE

- first manufactured in 3301
- hullmass 300 T

...a ship 15-20 times smaller.

so, there is a serious loss of knowledge ;-)

___

@OP mass is a way to balance jumprange via FSD class, and speed gain via thruster class. through that it is also a way to balance otfitting costs.

if you want some fun, compare the base shieldstrenght of an imperial courier and an imperial clipper...

What's sad about the DBX vs Anaconda example is that the Anaconda is a trader, and it makes a better explorer than the Diamondback Explorer (although for a heftier price).
You would think a ship with "Explorer" in the name could at least mount a fuel scoop in equivalent class to the FSD it mounts.....but I digress.

The Courier versus Clipper argument is a little different. The Clipper has so much surface area to cover, even a class 7 shield is going to have a long day at the office covering all that real estate. Meanwhile, the courier is compact and makes great use of any class 3 shield it can mount.

Seriously, if you ever need shade from Betelgeuse on a hot afternoon, the clipper could provide a nice sunset for a medium sized settlement with that shadow.

Edit: But after all that, of course the maths of E are all out of whack. Why do my D grade sensors on my Anaconda weigh 64 tons!? Why can't I just put Eagle sensors in there, they do the same thing!

 

[Cynaqq]

i like your way to argue for it, but then i have a look at the anaconda:

- first manufactured in 2856
- hullmass 400 T

and compare it to the DBE

- first manufactured in 3301
- hullmass 300 T

...a ship 15-20 times smaller.

so, there is a serious loss of knowledge ;-)

___

@OP mass is a way to balance jumprange via FSD class, and speed gain via thruster class. through that it is also a way to balance otfitting costs.

if you want some fun, compare the base shieldstrenght of an imperial courier and an imperial clipper...

Yes, I agree there's something out of whack with the Anaconda's hull mass. I was just talking about a concept in engineering, not trying to explain away all possible inconsistencies concerning ship stats.

I don't think Anaconda's case can be explained by any in game lore. They had to have a swiss-army knife ship that can more or less do everything so they went that route apparently. There is simply no better multipurpose ship than an Anaconda, due to its ridiculously light hull.

 

[goemon]

The Courier versus Clipper argument is a little different. The Clipper has so much surface area to cover, even a class 7 shield is going to have a long day at the office covering all that real estate. Meanwhile, the courier is compact and makes great use of any class 3 shield it can mount.

the surface argument lacks a bit, because a cutter gets 1,7 times MJ shield from an A7 generator, then does a clipper ;-)

 

[ForeverN00b]

the surface argument lacks a bit, because a cutter gets 1,7 times MJ shield from an A7 generator, then does a clipper ;-)

I agree there, especially since shield effectiveness is also driven by mass which doesn't affect the surface area at all.

Base modifiers = balancing, just ask the DBS (and DBX) about the amount of heat it can dissipate versus ships of similar size.

 

[Vorxian]

the cutter is amazing though.

it takes a 1 litre engine, boars out the pistons, adds super charge, adds turbo, adds nos THEN adds three cow-girl bartenders.

I mean, like in real life terms, this baby will get 300mph out of a Fiat Uno engine.

lol

 

[Lucius-Darcia]

Yeah but that weight doesn't add to the hull. Check Cobra vs. Cobra IV. There are only Internal differences, no armor. But the ship is 30T heavier. So the internals musst add to the hull weight.

Now to the IEagle. The IEagle has everything better, even more armor. But doesn't have more hull? How is this logic?

This is possible when you use other sorts of metal and other sorts of alloys.
Same weight but better armor = higher price.

This is always my answer when people complain about hull mass and armor relationship between T-9 and Anaconda.

If in a T-9 the same alloys were used as in an Anaconda, he would cost 2,5 times more than an Anaconda.

Have this in mind when you compare ships!!

 

[ForeverN00b]

This is possible when you use other sorts of metal and other sorts of alloys.
Same weight but better armor = higher price.

This is always my answer when people complain about hull mass and armor relationship between T-9 and Anaconda.

If in a T-9 the same alloys were used as in an Anaconda, he would cost 2,5 times more than an Anaconda.

Have this in mind when you compare ships!!

If the T9 used Anaconda alloys, the T9 might actually be useful.