9 replies to this topic

[Breoghan]

After 18 months in the game I've finally come to the conclusion I should pay more attention to the speed bumps I have run into from time to time - and the latest of these is fuel consumption. I have discovered just today (in some game advice available to me) that it is quite easy to work out exactly what each jump is going to cost in terms of fuel - or so I thought. When I tested it against actual jumps made by ships and combinations of ships, it would work out fine - but with exceptions! Is it necessary to take the weight of cargo/fuel/other extras into account when working out fuel costs? It is either that, or my calcs are being fed wrong info at times, and my current battle with flu and it's well-known capacity for clearing the mind for weightier thinking isn't helping me figger it out!

I need to know before I start designing fuel auxilliaries to travel along with my under-fuelled older ship designs!

[Jodookus]

Fuel calcs are determined by two multipliers. The first multiplier is the type of warp point. Second is tonnage of the ship. Cargo has no bearing on fuel used.

The WP multipliers are:
A = 1
B = 2
C = 4
D = 9
E = 16
F = 25
G = 36
H = 49
I = 64
J = 81

The multiplier of the ship is the tonnage divided by 1000 (round down). So, a 12,000 ton Pathfinder would use 12 tons of fuel jumping through an A (1 * 12) but would use a whopping 972 tons of fuel going through a J (12 * 81).

[Breoghan]

Jodookus, on Dec 17 2007, 06:26 AM, said:

Fuel calcs are determined by two multipliers. The first multiplier is the type of warp point. Second is tonnage of the ship. Cargo has no bearing on fuel used.

The WP multipliers are:
A = 1
B = 2
C = 4
D = 9
E = 16
F = 25
G = 36
H = 49
I = 64
J = 81

The multiplier of the ship is the tonnage divided by 1000 (round down). So, a 12,000 ton Pathfinder would use 12 tons of fuel jumping through an A (1 * 12) but would use a whopping 972 tons of fuel going through a J (12 * 81).

&^%$^%$&
That means its my records that are wrong!
Thanks for clarifying though, it helped a lot.

[cestvel]

SNFindPath has that that list in it, even up to M (never encountered, so only extrapolated).

You could just have asked it for the route, it spills out the fuel modifier for the trip.
So you only need to multiply it by tonnage/1000 to get the fuel needed.

[Krelnett_of_Kraan]

Jodookus, on Dec 17 2007, 04:26 AM, said:

Fuel calcs are determined by two multipliers. The first multiplier is the type of warp point. Second is tonnage of the ship. Cargo has no bearing on fuel used.

The WP multipliers are:
A = 1
B = 2
C = 4
D = 9
E = 16
F = 25
G = 36
H = 49
I = 64
J = 81

The multiplier of the ship is the tonnage divided by 1000 (round down). So, a 12,000 ton Pathfinder would use 12 tons of fuel jumping through an A (1 * 12) but would use a whopping 972 tons of fuel going through a J (12 * 81).

Nitpickage: It isn't rounded down, it's truncated. A 12999 ton ship uses the same fuel as a Pathfinder, but add one more ton of armor and the multiplier goes to 13.

[TErnest]

Krelnett_of_Kraan, on Dec 18 2007, 10:16 AM, said:

Jodookus, on Dec 17 2007, 04:26 AM, said:

Fuel calcs are determined by two multipliers. The first multiplier is the type of warp point. Second is tonnage of the ship. Cargo has no bearing on fuel used.

The WP multipliers are:
A = 1
B = 2
C = 4
D = 9
E = 16
F = 25
G = 36
H = 49
I = 64
J = 81

The multiplier of the ship is the tonnage divided by 1000 (round down). So, a 12,000 ton Pathfinder would use 12 tons of fuel jumping through an A (1 * 12) but would use a whopping 972 tons of fuel going through a J (12 * 81).

Nitpickage: It isn't rounded down, it's truncated. A 12999 ton ship uses the same fuel as a Pathfinder, but add one more ton of armor and the multiplier goes to 13.

Nitpickage on the nitpickage:
After one divides by 1000, what is the difference in the mathematical result if one "rounds down" or if one "truncates" the digits after the decimal point?


TErnest

[Paradigm]

TErnest, on Dec 18 2007, 08:24 PM, said:

Nitpickage on the nitpickage:
After one divides by 1000, what is the difference in the mathematical result if one "rounds down" or if one "truncates" the digits after the decimal point?


TErnest

Inprecise term. Truncate is precise and also in this case correct.

Actually "rounding down" is the process of not changing a particular digit while dropping what follows it. It doesn't have to be anywhere near the decimal seperator. For example rounding 2.6473 to 2.647 is "rounding down".

Someone may assume that "rounding down" colloquially means if the fractional part is <= .5 drop the fractional part without changing the integral part, else drop the fractional part while increasing the integral part by 1. But it shouldn't really be used like that.

[TErnest]

Paradigm, on Dec 19 2007, 10:57 AM, said:

TErnest, on Dec 18 2007, 08:24 PM, said:

Nitpickage on the nitpickage:
After one divides by 1000, what is the difference in the mathematical result if one "rounds down" or if one "truncates" the digits after the decimal point?


TErnest

Inprecise term. Truncate is precise and also in this case correct.

Actually "rounding down" is the process of not changing a particular digit while dropping what follows it. It doesn't have to be anywhere near the decimal seperator. For example rounding 2.6473 to 2.647 is "rounding down".

Someone may assume that "rounding down" colloquially means if the fractional part is <= .5 drop the fractional part without changing the integral part, else drop the fractional part while increasing the integral part by 1. But it shouldn't really be used like that.

AH! A man after my own heart! Some one who shares my love of pointless debate!

I thought about batting about terms further with you... until I realized that such discussion would, indeed, be truely pointless. Considering that the concept in question (how to calculate fuel usage) has now been defined with more than sufficient precision.

Thanks for making my day!

TErnest

(P.S. If you really want me to subject you to a few paragraphs on whether "truncate" is any more or less precise than "rounding down" feel free to e-mail me privately!)

[Jodookus]

Awww please don't take this useless bickering to a private channel. We like it. Gimme more. Please respond in public. Please?

[Paradigm]

TErnest, on Dec 19 2007, 10:38 PM, said:

I thought about batting about terms further with you... until I realized that such discussion would, indeed, be truely pointless. Considering that the concept in question (how to calculate fuel usage) has now been defined with more than sufficient precision. :D

Thanks for making my day!

TErnest
:santa:
(P.S. If you really want me to subject you to a few paragraphs on whether "truncate" is any more or less precise than "rounding down" feel free to e-mail me privately!)

The man asked a direct question and I gave him the correct answer. There is nothing really to discuss privately. Feel free to talk to a local mathematician if you disagree with the terminology of their science. I am not going to debate it.