Difference between revisions of "Talk:Thruster"

Revision as of 18:34, 12 February 2016

Thruster values have changed. Based on the data, my hunch is that the reason is to effect a cost/benefit tradeoff between large and small thrusters. In the past, there was no noticeable difference between the two... so the choice was purely aesthetic aside from the ease of positioning numerous smaller thrusters. Since large thrusters cost a significant amount of additional resources as compared to small thrusters, and take up more space... it only makes sense that they should provide a more desirable thrust/weight ratio. Since the changes were made, that is now true... so even given the large size, awkwardness of placing them, and additional resources... for a ship looking to make every kg count, large thrusters are the way to go. I've completed a number of tests and calculations for large-ship thrusters, and will be changing the numbers accordingly. I will try to upload my data at some point, in case anyone wants to verify my numbers. -impyre

Also worth mentioning: I haven't been able to pin down a formula or good estimate for dampening thrusters, still working on it. Also, dampening thrusters provide variable force below a certain velocity AND their force seems to be affected by the number of thrusters or ship mass. More experimentation is need to determine the nature of the relationship, although the data I have suggests that adding more thrusters reduces the force provided by each, but the reduction doesn't scale linearly with the number of thrusters or change in weight. -impyre —The preceeding unsigned comment was added by User:impyre (talk • contribs).

I went by the numbers in the .sbc files. So if the values changed you can compare this Small Thruster and Large Thruster to the cubeblocks.sbc file itself. Also, sign your additions on talk pages with four tilde's (~). --Draygo (talk) 00:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I added info on thruster damage distances. The small ship/small thruster distance of 5 is from my testing with dampeners. All other numbers from this thread. -fungol

XYZ Plane

^^ Not a thing Epic Wink (talk) 04:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I was coming here to ask about that... what is "in a direction parallel to the XYZ plane" supposed to mean? It makes it sound like ramming into another ship takes you out of three-dimensional space, or something. --timrem (talk) 22:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Gravity, thrust and equations

So I've corrected the lift vs engine thrust equations after the graph. The numbers should now all line up.

As for the graph, I'm very interested to know where the data comes from. Are they modelling gravity as constant until you hit 20 km and then it falls off linearly? Is there some data we can quote to support this? Normally gravity will fall off the farther away from the surface you are, according to F=Gmm/r^2. I also have no idea where the data from "Force Available" comes from. Jarod997 (talk) 17:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I see, the Force Available curve is a summary on each of the three Thruster "curves". Jarod997 (talk) 18:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The graph comes from the user AlchemicalAgent. "The graph by itself is misleading since it's based off calculations for a particular ship. As is, it needs a link to the spreadsheet to actually mean anything. I can produce a standalone graph for each thruster type sometime tomorrow but won't have time today." - Is the last conversation I had with the user. I haven't had time to double check the numbers, if they're still off, the graph may need to be replaced at some point with slightly more accuracy, or a model that can be presented here on the wiki. --Sapphire (talk) 03:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Thrust, Fuel and Efficiency values

When talking about Thrust kN is probably the best unit to use. And in terms of electricity usage, kW is again likely the best. But if we're talking hydrogen thrusters, then kl is probably preferable to keep our units in line. Otherwise we end up talking about kilonewtons per litre of hydrogen, which while it's correct in its use of units has a more difficult time in it's comparison between kilowatts.

As an example, Small Ship - Small Hydrogen Thruster has a value (on the page) of 0.0597 kN/H. If we convert this to kN/kl then the number becomes ... oh hold on. The title of the column says "Fuel to Thrust" and then the ratio is given in thrust to fuel. THAT's why the numbers look screwed up. Ya, the the number becomes 0.000 059 7 (if we group the digits in 3's). Which SEEMS worse, but if you flip it the right way around, so fuel is on top, we get 16,750 kN/kl. I'm going to clean up the table a bit, but for the moment, I'll leave values as-is (no converting to kl). If there's some consensus, the I'll change the numbers to use kl.

BTW, I'm assuming that "H" stands for some volumetric measurement of gaseous Hydrogen - which again I'm assuming is in litres. Jarod997 (talk) 18:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)