Let's play a game

[FZD]

The name of the game is, guess the ship with the lowest combined acceleration of the maneuvering thrusters.
You could check SC Ships Performances Viewer for the correct answer, but please do it only after guessing.
Or go to Erkul and tally up the Gs for all the maneuvering thrusters yourself.

EDIT: It's been a week, so here's the correct answer:

Spoiler: Answer

Rather surprising, isn't it?

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

I'm too lazy to go look it up when will the answer be revealed?

 

[FZD]

I'm too lazy to go look it up when will the answer be revealed?

I was thinking of revealing it in 7 days, so people got a week to guess.

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

I was thinking of revealing it in 7 days, so people got a week to guess.

*whispers*

Seven days.

 

[Dirtbag_Leader]

I think we need a better definition of 'lowest combined acceleration.' I think you might mean the lowest sum of a given ship's starboard, port, dorsal, and ventral maximum translational rates of acceleration, but excluding fore and aft direction translational acceleration, correct? Or are summing up some combination of both translational AND rotational accelerations?

 

[FZD]

I think we need a better definition of 'lowest combined acceleration.' I think you might mean the lowest sum of a given ship's starboard, port, dorsal, and ventral maximum translational rates of acceleration, but excluding fore and aft direction translational acceleration, correct? Or are summing up some combination of both translational AND rotational accelerations?

Well, 'lowest combined acceleration of the maneuvering thrusters.' No need to think about it in such a complex manner.
I literally just mean, take all the maneuvering thrusters (that is, thrusters that are not the main thrusters or retro thrusters.) and sum their G-values, which take into account the ships mass already, together. (I mean, you can take the thrust force values as well and then solve F=ma if you really wanna.)

While the exact positioning of the thrusters (as well as their angling capabilities) of course affect the actual performance, the overall sum should give you a simple easily comparable value for the rough overall ranking of how well (or in the case of the lowest: poorly) different ships can execute maneuvers like zig-zagging while keeping guns aimed at the enemy.

As an example here are the thrusters of M50 interceptor.

So we got 4x 1.25G and 6x 1.24G maneuvering thrusters, for a combined total of 12.44G. Which is pretty great.

 

[Bambooza]

I am honestly surprised by the answer.

 

[Dirtbag_Leader]

Ah, thanks, OK I get it now, vote cast! Though I think it still begs the very Monty Python-esqe question, are we talking laden or unladen swallows here? Could make a big difference for cargo ships, but it's probably fair to assume these are all unladed accelerations.

 

[Sirus7264]

 

[FZD]

Alright, it's been a week, so the correct answer is: Hull A.

I'd forgive you for being sceptical. I was too. It's a freighter, sure, but still, a small ship like Hull A has the absolute worst maneuvering acceleration?
Well, here's Erkul:

0.12*8 + 0.03*4 = 1.08G or about 1.1G.
Alternatively 0.15*8 + 0.03*4 = 1.32 MN.
F = ma so a = F/m = 1.32 MN / 122650 kg = 10.76 m/s^2
Expressed as multiples of G, this is 10.76/9.81 = 1.097 G ~= 1.1G.

Yes, the maneuvering thrusters on Hull A just are that bad. I even tested this out in game, and dear Montoya almighty, if your Hull A happens to have a slight amount of lateral speed (I had 150 m/s), those thrusters will take forever to kill it.

This is a bit ridiculous. Like sure, Hull A isn't meant to zig zag and dodge incoming shots, but... it's still just a small size 2 ship! I mean, a Caterpillar, despite being way larger and around 3x wider, might actually be better at evading shots with it's 6.5G maneuvering acceleration. Well, it'd be highly impractical to try to evade shots with a caterpillar, so it's a bit moot point but theoretically anyhow.

Besides being very bad at evading shots, Hull A is extremely slow to lineup for landing. And this is supposed to be the fastest and most agile of the 5 hulls! If this is anything to go by, a Hull E might just get outmaneuvered by a space station.

 

[Sirus7264]

Alright, it's been a week, so the correct answer is: Hull A.
View attachment 24460

I'd forgive you for being sceptical. I was too. It's a freighter, sure, but still, a small ship like Hull A has the absolute worst maneuvering acceleration?
Well, here's Erkul:
View attachment 24461

0.12*8 + 0.03*4 = 1.08G or about 1.1G.
Alternatively 0.15*8 + 0.03*4 = 1.32 MN.
F = ma so a = F/m = 1.32 MN / 122650 kg = 10.76 m/s^2
Expressed as multiples of G, this is 10.76/9.81 = 1.097 G ~= 1.1G.

Yes, the maneuvering thrusters on Hull A just are that bad. I even tested this out in game, and dear Montoya almighty, if your Hull A happens to have a slight amount of lateral speed (I had 150 m/s), those thrusters will take forever to kill it.

This is a bit ridiculous. Like sure, Hull A isn't meant to zig zag and dodge incoming shots, but... it's still just a small size 2 ship! I mean, a Caterpillar, despite being way larger and around 3x wider, might actually be better at evading shots with it's 6.5G maneuvering acceleration. Well, it'd be highly impractical to try to evade shots with a caterpillar, so it's a bit moot point but theoretically anyhow.

Besides being very bad at evading shots, Hull A is extremely slow to lineup for landing. And this is supposed to be the fastest and most agile of the 5 hulls! If this is anything to go by, a Hull E might just get outmaneuvered by a space station.

nice whats my prize!

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

When they finally get mass effects in game this may cripple a fully loaded Hull... Unless it's got some kind of diesel logic and it has massive torque but not much speed...?

 

[Bambooza]

I remember there was a post a few years ago that said most of the cargo ships where flying as if they where fully loaded

 

[Lorddarthvik]

After clicking the wrong answer without a moments hesitation I actually thought about it and realized my error. It does make sense that huge ships with tons of mass make more G. What doesn't make sense is that I had a hull A and it felt slow but fine, nowhere near as bad as the numbers would suggest. I upped it to that Crusader transport thingy that isn't the MSR.