Nerdy Analysis For Fun (NAFF)

[Cholmondely]

Just came across this:

Scale is always a problem, the big problem in Behemoths is that the behemoths are relatively small ships, cause when you think in terms of modern sea ships, aircraft carriers are massive, some 100's of times larger than the aircraft they carry, while a behemoth is only about 10x larger than a cobra... Perhaps I should make a super-behemoth, that's 10x larger than the current behemoths

True a destroyer is a relatively small warship, although it's still larger than the frigates we already see on fleet duty. Escort duty would be more likely undertaken by frigate or corvette class ships.

Given it's intermediate size maybe some variant of "cruiser" might be an appropriate term?

Again another scale problem, the Long-Range-Cruiser in my Bulk-Haulers OXP is something like 4x the size of a behemoth, and was considering retrofitting one of them for military use hehe.

[Redspear]

Been readying an update for the oxp based on my thoughts here after making a few tweaks to my size formula.

(Quick recap...) Based on inference from primary sources it's not too dificult to postulate that 1TC = 1 crew in terms of space requirements and perhaps that 1 missile would account for similar and that 1 escape pod indeed does.

Engine size might appear logical if they're to generate enough force to push x mass at speed y (potentially within and without gravity); or at least 'logical' enough not to appear out of place within Oolite's flight model.

However, two things in particular appear difficult for different reasons: the hyperdrive and the cargo bay extension(/expansion).


Cargo Bay Extension

The only canonical one I'm aware of is for the Cobra 3, granting an extra 15TC of space at seemingly no cost beyond the financial.

Extra cargo space may be acquired by extending the cargo bay, which does not affect maneuverability.

Despite the fact that it's extremely cheap given it's potential for return of investment.

It's interesting that the word 'maneuverability' is used, especially when 'speed' is so much easier to spell
Now the two words aren't typically referring to the same thing and I expect the difference wasn't lost on mathematics graduate Ian Bell.

We know in game of course (i.e. elite) that there was neither speed nor maneuverability penalty but then we also know that there were a number of in game oddities that were contrary to other primary sources. For example, the cobra mk III was, at least occasionally bigger than a 100TC python but smaller than a 0TC worm. So it's very difficult not to disagree with any given primary source when they so often appear to disagree with each other.

Also, I don't wish to disagree with anything 'Oolite' for the sake of it (believe it or not); after all Giles tweaked a few things to try to have them make more 'sense' or at least be more playable. So what if the oolite speed value of the cobra 3 (0.35LM) required that the cargo bay not be extended? Perhaps the same space that were optimised for cargo could just as easily be optimised for engines, or (if you prefer) installing the extended capaity taxed the engines more heavily?

We I now have an(other) excuse for (at least) two speed values for the same ship and an encouragement to slow down player progression rather than game speed.

If I use the 0.28 value (from the C64 stats) as the one that makes the most sense to me (between cobra 1 and fdl) and minus it from the oolite value of 0.35 then I get 0.07. Slowest core ship is the shuttle at 0.08, so even it could take a 0.07 hit to speed and still be mobile... just.

This could also explain why the mamba is relatively slow despite it's racing heritage:

Fighter which grew out of custom-built primarily designed for racing purposes but adopted and armed by pirates due to its high speed and maneuverability. Cargo space was added later when Raddlett and Rayburn Shipyards (based at Reorte) standardized the variences and began manufacturing the craft in large numbers.

Assume it has its cargo expanded by default and it's no longer limited to 0.32LM but could make it up to 0.39LM. Pirates likely wouldn't bother with that as they need the TCs but a racer might see things differently. The asp on the other hand is already at 0.4LM with no cargo capacity (therefore already at top speed) and although slightly faster than the racing mamba just doesn't have the same maneuverability.

Currently, extra cargo space is assumed to be fully optimised and less influential with regards ship size than is standard cargo space.


Hyperdrives

I've already suggested this up thread in an attempt to explain the asp but having a hyperdrive could be at the expense of maneurability. It already matches fairly well with the curve factor values in the manual and if it were simply an engine option (superior manevrability or hyperdrive) then there'd be no need to account for extra space. There's still be the fuel tank of course but then injectors as well as hyperdrives can exploit those.

Speed vs Capacity
Hyperdrive vs Maneurability

That's 4 variants/fittings for each ship type and not without at least some evidence in support.

Next up, energy banks/recharge vs er... pylons? Maybe not as crazy as it sounds (or maybe it is, I need to think some more).

[Cholmondely]

If you want to try it, I'm more than happy to give it a run-through!

Cholmondeley

[Redspear]

Next up, energy banks/recharge vs er... pylons? Maybe not as crazy as it sounds (or maybe it is, I need to think some more).

On second thoughts, scratch that, it's not needed and adds little.

If you want to try it, I'm more than happy to give it a run-through!

Nearly there. Thanks

Certainly not wiki ready, more hypothesising


Of course, it being me, the below will likely change



That said, incorporating data from here (partially mirrored here on the wiki) along with my hyperdrive and cargo extension ideas, and the odd tweak, here's the latest.There's size data in the first of those links but as mentioned previously it appears nonsensical and contrary to other primary sources.


Size Categories
The above name categories are fluff of course but their borders are set by an at least arguably sensible doubling: 1-2, 3-4, 5-8, 9-16 etc
Size exceeds payload (almost always) because of cargo bay extension (which would enable a greater payload of course) along with hull strength (shields if you prefer) and engine power. There's a case for some miniaturisation with later inservice date but I'm not sure it's worth it or should even be particulary noticable. Tech simply reflects higher proportional speeds etc.

LCB
Making the cargo extension equal half of the (sans extension) payload seemed to work well (the adder gets an extra 1TC, luxury! ) and in some cases better enabled me to reflect oolite as well as elite.

Top Speed
This may appear to list some strange values in there but here it reflects speed without installing the LCB (which is at a cost of 0.07LM). The assumption of convenience is that the non-player ship would typically have the LCB option rather than the speed, with which to better trade, mine or pirate but as every player soon knows, speed is very valuable.

Firepower? Hull?
From the tables linked above but useful to think of as relative laser and shield allocations as sometimes described for the various ships.
The latter is used as multiplier and so it's value has been made 100 times smaller here.

So???
Yeah well, nothing to see here for most but this all has knock on effects for at least two of my oxps and the table may interest some.

[phkb]

Interesting!

it reflects speed without installing the LCB (which is at a cost of 0.07LM)

Personally, I think a uniform 0.07 speed reduction for the LCB doesn't make sense - a sliding scale from 0.01 to 0.07 would be better, based on the size of the extension.

[Redspear]

Personally, I think a uniform 0.07 speed reduction for the LCB doesn't make sense - a sliding scale from 0.01 to 0.07 would be better, based on the size of the extension.

I thought about that but, paradoxically, I don't think it needs to.

The fomula already requires bigger engines in order to move more mass and the LCB is proportional to that mass.
So firstly, it's important to recognise that payload isn't quite the same as size, rather payload and speed will both help to determine size.

It might be easier to imagine if the LCB is already installed (so the ship is 0.07LM slower than the listed top speed).
Want to gain 0.07LM? if you're flying an anaconda then to make that kind of difference you'll need to lose about a hundred TCs, in a Krait only 4, both represent about a third of the max possible payload.

So it's proportional to size but speed isn't? As long as speed is a multiplier for payload then it's effectively a multiplier for LCB (given that LCB is detrmined from payload alone).

So, to sum up, if one scales (LCB) and the other doesn't (speed) then the modification (to LCB or not to LCB) is proportional to the ship being modified.
If both scale then they are proportional to each other but not the size of the ship (hull multiplier missing).

Should the anaconda get a bigger bonus for losing the 102TC than the Krait should for losing 4TC or a smaller one? They're both losing about a third of their payload but that payload represents more of the anacondas volume than it does of the krait's. Krait is more proportioanlly engine heavy (and so would become even more so) yet anaconda is the much slower and so proprtionally could gain more speed.

Given that smaller ships tend to be faster I'd say it works quite well. Yep, it throws up a few quirks but they can be fun. If I see something that doen't look right then I'll think again. After all, that's what got me started on this in the first place.

[Slartibartfast]

Hi

a sliding scale from 0.01 to 0.07 would be better, based on the size of the extension.

hmmm
it looks like
LCB / Payload is ~0,5 for all ships
-- so a fixed factor can be used
-- or ... x*(LCB/Payload) -- to fix small differences ( x should be defined )
-- or ... x* ((LCB + y* LCB)/Payload ) # to make big bays slower -- x,y to be defined

cheers
matthias

[Redspear]

hmmm
it looks like
LCB / Payload is ~0,5 for all ships
-- so a fixed factor can be used

Hi, Matthias.
Great avatar name by the way...

As for the fixed factor, I'd recommend 0.07

I'll likely post the formula soon/eventually but it's actually quite simple.

[Redspear]

It may help to clarify that in the absence of the LCB it is assumed that the extra space is being allocated to additional engine power, not merely innefficient design.

Formula used for the above table

Payload = missiles + firepower + cargo + crew
LCB = payload/2 (rounded down instead of up)
Size = payload + lcb + (payload x hull x speed)

Payload + LCB is the minimum value for size without some Tardis like effects going on.

Hull and Speed are required to shield and propel the payload, so the higher the payload, the more they cost.
Of course hull and speed are both required to do the same for LCB but then LCB is a fraction of payload and so doesn't need to appear a second time in the formula such that, for example, payload x hull x top speed = (payload+lcb) / 1.5 x hull x speed

Adding LCB to the muliplier section isn't necessary but adjusting the strength of the said section is an option.

As I said, not set in stone rather current thinking.

[Redspear]

Personally, I think a uniform 0.07 speed reduction for the LCB doesn't make sense - a sliding scale from 0.01 to 0.07 would be better, based on the size of the extension.

I thought about that but, paradoxically, I don't think it needs to.

And to further illustrate my point we can try using the above formula to test it...

Size = payload + lcb + (payload x hull x speed)

2 extreme cases : Worm and Anaconda

Worm
Moving the 1 of LCB to Cargo (meaning it will become part of payload and therefore to the multiplier with hull and speed)
Setting LCB to 0 (as it's now absorbed in Cargo)
Reducing speed by 0.07LM to 0.16
Old Size = 4
New Size = 4

Anaconda
Moving the 102 of LCB to Cargo (same reasoning as above but total cargo is 252 times greater than that of the worm)
Setting LCB to 0
Reducing speed by 0.07LM t0 0.14 (original elite value)
Old Size = 414
New Size = 414

I didn't know it would work out like this, it just does!

Two points however:

• There is the odd exception but even the shuttle (with its speed reduced to 1/8 of top speed: 0.08 to 0.01) comes out with a new size of 106 rather than 102; which would be likely imperceptible within the game itself
• There is a case for saying that extra engines would require extra shielding no less than the extended cargo bay but then the latter are more internalised
  • If you completely shield the engines with hull plates then the engine can't function
  • that more engine power requires more size is already reflected in the formula