There are many threads discussing thrusters but nothing specific to the changes in 9.4, so I thought I would start a discussion. Apologies if this has been posted elsewhere but I haven't seen the changes specifically documented, so here they are. Here's the thruster values for HV and SV in 9.3.1: Here's the updated values for 9.4 (includes the new HV thrusters): Area is the size of the opening, Blocks is the total block size of the thruster (these affect the size of the vessel). I also listed the values so you can see how energy efficient it is, as well as how much thrust you're getting relative to the mass of the thruster itself. HV thrusters have changed a lot, and there are now T2 versions. SV thrusters have been tweaked a bit, mostly in terms of mass and energy efficiency. Discuss!
I like the changes to HV thrusters, however: I'd like a T2 small thruster. It would help when designing small vehicles. Doesn't matter if it looks the same as a T1. I wish the L, L (T2), and M (T2) had slanted and inlaid variants like the M thruster does. In addition to the "slanted" version of the M thruster, I'd like a version that is sticking out of a round slope Can we get the Thruster Jet M for an HV? Same size as for an SV. Would look nice on larger HV's. For the SV thrusters: Still has the problem of SV Thruster Jet S being better than everything after it. 4 small jets offers 1400 kN of thrust while taking up less total space than a medium jet (because they're shorter). Thrust per block should not decrease as engines get bigger. I don't see the point of SV Thruster Jet II variants. They are the same values as SV Thruster Jet versions. If the intent is just to have alternate artwork, then why not make them choices when you right-click? Here's some suggested changes: This adds a T2 HV thruster that is a slight improvement over the old one, giving it an upgrade path. For the SV thrusters, the M and L jet are basically bigger versions of the S jet and should have about the same thrust per unit area, thus their thrust needs to increase a lot. The XL and XXL jets are longer versions of the L jet, and I reasoned this would increase the thrust per unit area, but keep the thrust per block about the same. I still wouldn't mind seeing T2 versions of the S and M thrusters, as well as the new HV Thruster L brought over to the SV. Even though they aren't really needed from a raw power perspective, I don't think that the jet thrusters look all that good when you mount them sideways or downward, and would like the design flexibility of the non-jet thrusters.
Honestly, the HV and SV thruster lists should just be merged. As far as stats go, I'm partial to the following: Thrust = A * L^1.5 * 500 kN Mass = A * L * 10000 kg Power = Thrust * 5 kW/kN Here, A is the area in m^2 and L is the length in m. These relations give a consistent scaling for all thrusters (regardless of block size; any new thrusters would automatically be balanced too), and create a definite progression in TWR and volume efficiency. For example: 0.5m 1x1x1 thruster: 62.5 kN, 1.25 tons (so TWR of 50), 31.2 kW 0.5m 3x3x13 thruster: 26.4 MN, 14.6 tons (so TWR of 180), 132 MW 2m 3x3x6 thruster: 529 MN, 4.32 ktons (so TWR of 122), 2.65 GW SV/HV need additional generator options anyway, and this would provide good motivation for that. Probably CVs could use another tier of generator too (perhaps in the 5 GW range). One other interesting thing to note here is that the longer thrusters have better TWR, meaning that SVs effectively would have an acceleration advantage over CVs. Some might find the TWR a bit on the low side; decreasing the constant in the mass equation (to 5000 kg or 2500 kg) would be the best way to remedy that. EDIT: As far as CPU is concerned, some type of sublinear scaling with thrust might be desirable: CPU = Thrust^0.5/50 A 0.5m 1x1x1 thruster would then require 5 CPU, while the CV XL thruster would require 460 CPU.
100% agreed, but they've shown no inclination to do that. If they aren't going to do that, there's an argument for making HV thrusters more powerful because: (a) it makes more sense to haul cargo in an HV, whereas an SV is more of a fighter (b) the HV can be built out of combat steel and needs more thrust to move it But those are gameplay reasons, not physics reasons. I think that within a group of devices built with the same technology, that a scaling formula like that makes sense. I won't argue for or against your exact formula, I'm just agreeing with the concept. And I think that the crafting ingredients should scale using a similar formula. However, I think that when you get to items made with a better technology (jet vs. non-jet, T2 vs. T1) that it should not be the same formula, but should be better. And that is also when it should start using higher-level ingredients. That is what they already do, I think, they just aren't sharing what the formula is. But the new HV thrusters seem to follow a reasonable pattern.
I still feel hover engines should provide basic thrust for forward, back, left, right movement. And thrusters for extra power when hauling a heavy cargo load or for moving those super heavy tanks.
Unfortunately, true. Fair enough. Adding in a tech-level multiplier to the scaling formula could be a simple way to accomplish that. I'm not convinced that the devs are actually using any kind of consistent scaling relations to set the properties of thrusters (let alone any other device); it really feels like they're just eyeballing values that feel right (without checking to see if they're at all consistent; see: the HV jet thruster for the longest time). The fact that they're now setting the mass of each block shape based on its effective volume gives me hope that they'll be more open to proper scaling laws for device stats in the future.
I've considered the merits of removing thrusters from HVs entirely, if the developers insist on keeping a distinction between them and SVs. That would prevent the relentless confusion of new players wondering why they can't fly with an HV that has more jet thrust than a basic SV. Keeping the thrusters and adding a few tiny adjustments would make a world of difference though, I agree. Have you seen this? It has a new summary at the top: https://empyriononline.com/threads/hv-hover-engine-and-handling-improvements.22132/ As a bonus, we wouldn't need "overpowered" HV thrusters for them to have a cargo hauling advantage. While on hover engine power with sideways acceleration, they would have crazy efficiency. Come to think of it, that means that tanks would be powerful on the ground, but SV-style jets would only be if you wanted to actually fly--they'd be less efficient than hovers on the ground, unless you were footprint-limited. Hm...
I believe that SV thrusters and HV should be separate. SV thrusters should have more power and HV thrusters should be more efficient. SV being air support needs more maneuverability and therefor needs more power, they also do not have terrain to negotiate. HV's are the heavier ground support ,and or tanks. They are slower, have to navigate terrain and take longer to get around planets. They are compensated with the ability to have heavy armor and automatic turrets. The advantage in travel is that they are far cheaper especially in early game to hunt and gather for resources. They should maintain their efficiency to make them competitive later in the game as compared to SV's. Some already say HV's are dead content once you can make an SV. This should not be the motivation of a balanced game. I agree with the thrust to space calculations but SV's should have more thrust and HV's should have an efficiency advantage IMO.
I disagree strongly with this assessment. HVs with their heavy armor and cargo hauling capacity from hover engines will need powerful lateral thrust to have even decent acceleration. Although I guess SVs would need even more strength if SV-HV docking is implemented, that becomes more of an issue of relative size (truly massive SVs would be required to lift your average HV).
Hello Ian, I know this is a very old post, I hope you still get notified or notice my reply. Do you have a way to export the data in your screen shots or did you manually type them into your excel/dB? Thanks, Yiggy
