You want a multi billion credit fuel scoop? Why?
Or are we talking whatever hypothetical price these new scoops have and not the current prices.
Who wouldn’t mind a free Fuel Scoop?
- Thread starter Moriarte
- Start date
-
- Tags
- fuel scoop
Or are we talking whatever hypothetical price these new scoops have and not the current prices.
Pros and cons to everything said in this thread, but in general modules need a balance pass and a certain ammount of granularity added to them. Before taking to the soap box, remember that the effective volume of any class of module is 2 to the power of that module slot class times 2 cubic metres.
As in Class 3 is 2 ^3 = 8 cargo canisters, a cargo canister is a 2m long 1m diameter cylender... square it off its 2 cubic metres a canister, 16 cubic metres for class 3.
So take limpets for example:
A lot of "builds" end up putting a class 5 limpet controller in a class 6 slot. So 64T cargo rack, or a limpet controller capable of 3 times what works in a slot capable of a 2T cargo rack into a slot 32 times larger than the class 1 slot...
And thats before we ask about the other 32 cargo slots --> 64 cubic metres. To put that in perspective, the missing or wasted 32T when fitting a class 5 limpet controller into a class 6 slot is like an articulated truck's payload. When you are allowed out from corona lockdown, look at an atriculated truck, and imagine that carrying 32 IBC's (palletised 1m x 1m x 1m 1000L capacity tank) of water, thats how much space / weight is lost putting a class 5 module in a class 6 slot.
Limpets are a good example, but fuelscoops are even worse:
Every class returns significantly less than double the scoop rate of its predecessor, for ~3+ times the cost.
Frame Shift Drive's scale "properly" in terms of mass doubling with each class, but are similarly 3+ times the cost for each class and offer less than double the optimal mass and or fuel per jump. Exception being the class 3-->4 jump where mass and fuel allowances are greater than double:
Exploring the various sizes of ships modules available in ship outfitting typically shows diminishing performance as class increases, which strongly contrasts with the cost of these larger modules - which is exponentially increasing.
As in Class 3 is 2 ^3 = 8 cargo canisters, a cargo canister is a 2m long 1m diameter cylender... square it off its 2 cubic metres a canister, 16 cubic metres for class 3.
So take limpets for example:
A lot of "builds" end up putting a class 5 limpet controller in a class 6 slot. So 64T cargo rack, or a limpet controller capable of 3 times what works in a slot capable of a 2T cargo rack into a slot 32 times larger than the class 1 slot...
And thats before we ask about the other 32 cargo slots --> 64 cubic metres. To put that in perspective, the missing or wasted 32T when fitting a class 5 limpet controller into a class 6 slot is like an articulated truck's payload. When you are allowed out from corona lockdown, look at an atriculated truck, and imagine that carrying 32 IBC's (palletised 1m x 1m x 1m 1000L capacity tank) of water, thats how much space / weight is lost putting a class 5 module in a class 6 slot.Limpets are a good example, but fuelscoops are even worse:
Every class returns significantly less than double the scoop rate of its predecessor, for ~3+ times the cost.
Frame Shift Drive's scale "properly" in terms of mass doubling with each class, but are similarly 3+ times the cost for each class and offer less than double the optimal mass and or fuel per jump. Exception being the class 3-->4 jump where mass and fuel allowances are greater than double:
Exploring the various sizes of ships modules available in ship outfitting typically shows diminishing performance as class increases, which strongly contrasts with the cost of these larger modules - which is exponentially increasing.
