mQNP

[Krsqk]

Of course, you could always just change the tonnage used percentage in an unproportional way. A 500kt engine knocked down to 2% for a frigate and 5% for a light cruiser would result in 60/200=3/10 used for frigates and 150/400=3/8 used for light cruisers (proportional increase would be 2% and 4%).

[Krsqk]

Well you COULD, but that's a bit contrary to the basic premise of QNP (and by extension, mQNP). The basic premise of QNP as I understand it is, you should need a given amount of thrust, per kT of ship, to move at X speed.

Well, since the idea of disproportionate thrust using different EPM came up, I thought I'd just through my $.02 in. I realize the point of QNP is proportional movement, but while we were heading down that road...

[Andrés]

This sounds interesting, I will give it a try.
The main problem with standard QNP is that the maximun thrust is 255, that limits a lot the numbers you can play with doesn´t let you make a good contrast between many ship sizes.
To use real QNP we'd need two changes, 1st increase the maximun thrust to somethijng like 65k and 2nd allow mounts that increase standard movements of engines, to avoid needing to have tens of componensts of different scales.

Right now, mounts should allow a much better controled and a more detailed gradient from biggest to smallest engines.

[Krsqk]

Originally posted by Andr&eacutes Lescano:
To use real QNP...

Real Quasi-... Is that like buying "genuine faux pearls"?

[Suicide Junkie]

The main problem with standard QNP is that the maximun thrust is 255, that limits a lot the numbers you can play with and doesn´t let you make a good contrast between many ship sizes.

That's not really the point.
Ship sizes are just sizes of ship.

The contrast comes in deciding how many engines you put on the ship.
...As well as the balance of weapons and defenses for the remaining space.

Is it a Super-fast scout?
Is it a lumbering assault ship?
Is it a moderate ship of the line?
Is it a quick interceptor?
Is it a slow artillery ship?

The size of the ship is not terribly important to these decisions, though the slow and heavy ones would probably be more effective as larger hulls.

[ January 07, 2003, 18:20: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ]

[Puke]

[quote]Originally posted by Krsqk:

Well, since the idea of disproportionate thrust using different EPM came up, I thought I'd just through my $.02 in. I realize the point of QNP is proportional movement, but while we were heading down that road...

im not suggesting using mQNP for disporportoinate movement scales, just indirectly porportionate movement scales. for example:

standard dogma would have a 200kt hull needing 20kt of engines to move the same distance that a 500kt hull would need 50kt of engines for.

I would advocate that a 200kt hull would need 10kt of engines to move at the same speed that a 500kt hull would require 50kt of engines to move. or something similar.

this is because of the indirect relationship between size and engine efficency, the quasi nutonian properties of inertia, and techno-babble hand-waiving. blah.

[Andrés]

Yes, but the point of QNP is having engines per move proportional to ship sizes.
For example you have many ships with engines per move going from 1 to 255 engines per move. You're right actual tonnage of the ship is irrelevant.

That doesn't sound too bad, but the largest ships using whatever combination of engines to get 255 of thrust will move at 1, any attempt to make it faster will generate an error.

If you want to make the fastest ship have a maximun of 4 movements, you'll need engines per move of 255/4 ~= 64

Then your largest ship can only be 64 times larger than the smallest one, you can't even make the contrast between standard escort and dreadnought, much less add extra sizes.

[Suicide Junkie]

In the latest patch, it won't generate an error, but you still won't go faster.

[Puke]

im not talking about changing engins per move to anything besides 1, im talking about changing the mounts so that..

...nevermind

edit: no. pay attention. its not hard:
(these numbers are arbitrary, and do not reflect game balance or realistic component sizes)
200kt ship. 1 engine per move.

500kt ship. 1 engine per move.

100kt engine.

engine mount for 200kt ship, 2% size. 2kt engine for 1 move.

engine mount for 500kt ship, 5% size. 5kt engine for 1 move.

the above system reflects engines which are DIRECTLY PORPORTIONAL to hull size. that is the standard mQNP system. engines for 1 move are (hull size) / 10

engine mount for 200kt ship, 4% size. 4kt engine for 1 move.

engine mount for 500kt ship, 14% size. 14kt engine for 1 move.

the above system reflects engines which are INDIRECTLY PORPORTIONAL to hull size. this is still mQNP, but is slightly different from how most people use it. engines for 1 move are (hull size)^2 / 10000. this formula does not have to be used exactly, but you get the idea.

this method allows ships of diferent sizes to be different speeds. smaller ships can be significantly faster than larger ships. using the standard mQNP system most people use, all ships will use x% of their space for one engine, meaning that they can all fit the same number of engines in them, if they dont have any other components. sure, if 60% of a big ship is free space, thats more than 60% of a small ship, but the concern is engines rather than available space. bigger ships are faster with a directly porportional system (the kind of mQNP you are used to), if anything, because they can afford to dedicate a greater percentage of their hull space to engines.

an indirectly porportional system fixes that.

[ January 08, 2003, 01:29: Message edited by: Puke ]

[Fyron]

Then your largest ship can only be 64 times larger than the smallest one, you can't even make the contrast between standard escort and dreadnought, much less add extra sizes.

Umm... 1500 / 150 is 10. DN / ES is therefore 10. So, you can very well make the contrast between them.