Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 4:17 pm
I agree with Drew and have been working on a database of ship characteristics looking for patterns hoping to concoct a simple formula to avoid uberness, even if only for my own personal use. In light of the fact that there is no reference for mass, I have used volume figures that I derived from accurate models in a professional 3D CAE program and assume that all of the ships have a similar average density.
A Cobra mkIII displaces 79040m^3. It has a cargo capacity (normal) of 4600m^3 leaving 74440m^3 for equipment.
A Worm displaces 6613m^3. It has a cargo capacity of 460m^3 leaving 6163m^3 for for equpiment. Presumably though it is much lower priced than a Cobra and it has the ability to make planetfall which may require some equipment that the Cobra does not have.
A good comparison of Elite native ships is the Cobra mkIII and the Python.
A standard Python displaces 97333m^3. It has a cargo capacity of 23000m^3 leaving 74733m^3 for equipment (very similar to the equipment space of the Cobra mkIII)
So equipment-wise the Cobra clearly trades some points from it's energy rating to gain more top speed. Actually it trades about 195 points of energy for .150 in top speed. Factoring out the 30% increase in size of the Python though the Python trades .09 in top speed for 195 points of energy.
The price also increases 25% for the 30% larger Python.
The difference in manuevrability is very minimal on these two ships. One thing that is interesting to note is that the Python is twice a long as it is wide, giving it a longer moment of intertia in pitch than the Cobra which it much wider than it is long. The stats reflect this to some degree the Python has a lower pitch rating.
Quantifying any of this though is very difficult, especially considering most OXP writers may lack the tools for calculating an accurate volume for their new craft.
Another comparison to see how things hold up is in the big cargo movers.
The Anaconda displaces 219966m^3 and has a cargo capacity of 172500m^3 leaving just 47466m^3 for equipment.
The Boa displaces 118686m^3 and has a cargo capacity of 27850m^3 leaving 89936m^3 for equipment.
So the Anaconda is 85% larger but leaves only 53% as much space for equipment. The result is a ship that has a 58% slower top speed, pitches 40% and rolls 27% as well as the Boa, and has a similar energy rating.
The price goes up about 44% for the 85% increase in size.
The numbers don't work out quite so neatly on this one...
Anyway, it's a start. I think that volume - cargo volume and then a point system for the remaining volume is the most rational way to start defining uberness - if people are so inclined.
A Cobra mkIII displaces 79040m^3. It has a cargo capacity (normal) of 4600m^3 leaving 74440m^3 for equipment.
A Worm displaces 6613m^3. It has a cargo capacity of 460m^3 leaving 6163m^3 for for equpiment. Presumably though it is much lower priced than a Cobra and it has the ability to make planetfall which may require some equipment that the Cobra does not have.
A good comparison of Elite native ships is the Cobra mkIII and the Python.
A standard Python displaces 97333m^3. It has a cargo capacity of 23000m^3 leaving 74733m^3 for equipment (very similar to the equipment space of the Cobra mkIII)
So equipment-wise the Cobra clearly trades some points from it's energy rating to gain more top speed. Actually it trades about 195 points of energy for .150 in top speed. Factoring out the 30% increase in size of the Python though the Python trades .09 in top speed for 195 points of energy.
The price also increases 25% for the 30% larger Python.
The difference in manuevrability is very minimal on these two ships. One thing that is interesting to note is that the Python is twice a long as it is wide, giving it a longer moment of intertia in pitch than the Cobra which it much wider than it is long. The stats reflect this to some degree the Python has a lower pitch rating.
Quantifying any of this though is very difficult, especially considering most OXP writers may lack the tools for calculating an accurate volume for their new craft.
Another comparison to see how things hold up is in the big cargo movers.
The Anaconda displaces 219966m^3 and has a cargo capacity of 172500m^3 leaving just 47466m^3 for equipment.
The Boa displaces 118686m^3 and has a cargo capacity of 27850m^3 leaving 89936m^3 for equipment.
So the Anaconda is 85% larger but leaves only 53% as much space for equipment. The result is a ship that has a 58% slower top speed, pitches 40% and rolls 27% as well as the Boa, and has a similar energy rating.
The price goes up about 44% for the 85% increase in size.
The numbers don't work out quite so neatly on this one...
Anyway, it's a start. I think that volume - cargo volume and then a point system for the remaining volume is the most rational way to start defining uberness - if people are so inclined.
