[IDEA] Dynamic top speed

Star_Kindler ●

I really like this idea, however I do see one problem with a detail of this suggestion. If grid maximum speed is based on the acceleration in the direction of travel, then if you rotate your ship while at max speed, you'd suddenly lose a lot of velocity even if not firing any thrusters, as your maximum speed is now lower than the speed you were going at previously.

I can think of a couple of ways to fix this.

Firstly, the simple solution, maximum velocity could be dependent on your maximum acceleration achievable, regardless of which direction you are facing. This way, you could turn around without your maximum speed changing.

Secondly, it could be implemented like the Relative Top Speed mod from SE1, with the mass-based speed limit part omitted (which is what I do in SE1). This way, there would be two maximum speeds, a "soft" aka "cruise" max speed, and a "hard" aka "hard burn" max speed. The soft/cruise max speed would be the same for all grids, say for example 250 m/s. However, the hard/hard burn max speed would be dependent on the acceleration which you are actively under, gaining another, for example, 2 m/s per m/s^2 acceleration you are "pushing into the speed limit" with. If you disengage your acceleration, you slowly move back to your cruise max speed.

An example of the second one would be a ship with 20 m/s^2 of acceleration. It accelerates up to 250 m/s, like any ship can. However, if it tries to accelerate further, it is able to push up to 250 + (20)(2) = 290 m/s, while under thrust. This allows bypassing the maximum speed to an extent at the cost of constant fuel usage. This way, the ship with a higher acceleration will be able to outrun a ship with a slower acceleration, even at max speed, if under a constant hard burn. After it got away, it could stop accelerating to save fuel, drifting back to 250 m/s.

Of course, all numbers I mention, like yours, are just placeholders.

Now, which of these is better? I'm not entirely sure. One one hand, the dual speed system requires a form of "space drag" (I'm sorry for uttering those evil words) to apply only past the soft speed limit. On the other hand, the simple, single speed limit based on maximum acceleration system gives no reason to accelerate after reaching your top speed, so chases would just be accelerating to stop speed, and then coasting at their respective top speeds, which is a lot less exciting than a constant hard burn until out of range. Additionally, the simple solution would cause your maximum speed to be reduced when losing thrusters, as well, even if not thrusting, which is again a bit weird still. So, I think both ideas each have their own pros and cons. I'd love to hear what you think about them.

I really like this idea, however I do see one problem with a detail of this suggestion. If grid maximum speed is based on the acceleration in the direction of travel, then if you rotate your ship while at max speed, you'd suddenly lose a lot of velocity even if not firing any thrusters, as your maximum speed is now lower than the speed you were going at previously.

I can think of a couple of ways to fix this.

Firstly, the simple solution, maximum velocity could be dependent on your maximum acceleration achievable, regardless of which direction you are facing. This way, you could turn around without your maximum speed changing.

Secondly, it could be implemented like the Relative Top Speed mod from SE1, with the mass-based speed limit part omitted (which is what I do in SE1). This way, there would be two maximum speeds, a "soft" aka "cruise" max speed, and a "hard" aka "hard burn" max speed. The soft/cruise max speed would be the same for all grids, say for example 250 m/s. However, the hard/hard burn max speed would be dependent on the acceleration which you are actively under, gaining another, for example, 2 m/s per m/s^2 acceleration you are "pushing into the speed limit" with. If you disengage your acceleration, you slowly move back to your cruise max speed.

An example of the second one would be a ship with 20 m/s^2 of acceleration. It accelerates up to 250 m/s, like any ship can. However, if it tries to accelerate further, it is able to push up to 250 + (20)(2) = 290 m/s, while under thrust. This allows bypassing the maximum speed to an extent at the cost of constant fuel usage. This way, the ship with a higher acceleration will be able to outrun a ship with a slower acceleration, even at max speed, if under a constant hard burn. After it got away, it could stop accelerating to save fuel, drifting back to 250 m/s.

Of course, all numbers I mention, like yours, are just placeholders.

Now, which of these is better? I'm not entirely sure. One one hand, the dual speed system requires a form of "space drag" (I'm sorry for uttering those evil words) to apply only past the soft speed limit. On the other hand, the simple, single speed limit based on maximum acceleration system gives no reason to accelerate after reaching your top speed, so chases would just be accelerating to stop speed, and then coasting at their respective top speeds, which is a lot less exciting than a constant hard burn until out of range. Additionally, the simple solution would cause your maximum speed to be reduced when losing thrusters, as well, even if not thrusting, which is again a bit weird still. So, I think both ideas each have their own pros and cons. I'd love to hear what you think about them.

Reply URL

1

Tael ●

I am of two minds on this one... On one hand it would be nice if small fighters could actually out-pace a larger and slower ship... on the other, the line for fast/slow in mods that do this tends to feel extremely arbitrary, often dropping all but the most agile ships to well below the un-moded cap if not strait in to the mod's minimum cap...

Assuming we were to go with the idea, mods that make use of a "burn-speed" are often quite obnoxious, I'd much rather you hit top-speed and be aloud to coast at that speed. If you want to run in a strait line from an attacker without without wasting speed to engage in evasive maneuvers while they shoot at you, then I see no reason that can't be its own dramatic moment :)

As for top speed based on thrust... I'd think it best if it was based on the thrust in the direction of acceleration, with any loss to that amount of thrust not applying a breaking-force, but preventing you from reaching that speed again once you decelerate until you regain the thrust.

URL

2

4Peace ●

@Star_Kindler

I like both approaches—maybe they can be combined into one system.

Below a certain speed, say 150 m/s, you accelerate normally based on your available thrust.

Above that, acceleration gradually decreases, so you need to burn significantly more fuel as it gradually takes more time to reach higher speeds.

A “normal” top speed could be around 280 m/s. Ships with a poor thrust-to-mass ratio would struggle to reach it, but once they do, they can stop accelerating and just coast without burning fuel. If you keep holding the throttle, you might push up to 300 m/s, but as soon as you release it, the ship would quickly drop back to around 280. So technically any ship can reach those higher speeds, but fuel cost becomes the limiting factor. Ships designed with a better thrust-to-mass ratio would naturally perform much better at high speeds.

Scenarios:

Simple early-game hydrogen ship for space travel
Not very massive. With a couple of medium thrusters on the back, you can reach 280 relatively quickly. This makes it easy to travel between stations, asteroid rings, and other points of interest. Fuel consumption will vary depending on how loaded you are, but it remains manageable.
Hydro scout for space
Here efficiency really matters. Fuel consumption is no longer linear, so heavier ships pay a much higher price when going above 150 m/s. If you’re making frequent stops, fuel becomes the main concern. A lightweight scout with a good thrust-to-mass ratio becomes extremely valuable.
Big cargo ship for space
You want as many rear thrusters as possible to offset fuel consumption. Acceleration to 280 m/s will be very slow when fully loaded. This is where space transport economy comes into play—movement itself is simple, but fuel usage becomes the key factor. Planning your stops is important. Advanced flight computers could help calculate optimal burn and flip maneuvers, since doing it manually often leads to wasted fuel. You can also choose to cruise at lower speeds. Reaching 200 m/s is much cheaper than pushing to 250—the extra 50 m/s can cost more than double the fuel.
Small fighter for space
Similar to a scout: low concern for fuel, high speeds, excellent acceleration. Can intercept targets easily and evade threats by rapidly changing direction and speed.
Heavy fighter / bomber
Less agile due to a lower thrust-to-mass ratio, so it can be intercepted by lighter fighters. Still capable of reaching 280 m/s, and occasionally 300 if needed.
Larger warships
Designs can vary a lot depending on their role. Interceptor-type warships (including pirate ships) benefit from higher thrust-to-mass ratios, but this comes at the cost of armor, weapon systems, or lots of fuel tanks—making them more vulnerable. In fleet battles, these differences can create interesting tactical dynamics. In duels, however, diversity is harder to maintain since speed can be more important than anything.

Acceleration rules should apply in all directions. A ship might have strong forward thrust but weaker lateral or reverse thrust, which affects maneuverability. This also ties into combat design—likely favoring closer engagement ranges

Hydrogen thrusters could also have a delay before reaching full thrust, making dodging less trivial. Combat mechanics are a whole topic on their own, but in terms of speed: larger ships are naturally disadvantaged. To compensate, they could have advantages like better heat dissipation (if a thermal system exists), allowing them to mount more weapons or use heavier guns more effectively.

They won’t be able to catch a fleeing ship easily—but they also won’t be able to escape quickly themselves. And those last 20 m/s of top speed would be extremely difficult for massive ships to achieve.

For atmospheric flight, the rules above can be even harder, with the base speed reduced or even more steep acceleration degradation. On the other hand, the ship shape can determine those parameters and even help for lifting if you have certain shape. Reaching the top 300 would be generally harder I guess.

@Star_Kindler

I like both approaches—maybe they can be combined into one system.

Below a certain speed, say 150 m/s, you accelerate normally based on your available thrust.

Above that, acceleration gradually decreases, so you need to burn significantly more fuel as it gradually takes more time to reach higher speeds.

A “normal” top speed could be around 280 m/s. Ships with a poor thrust-to-mass ratio would struggle to reach it, but once they do, they can stop accelerating and just coast without burning fuel. If you keep holding the throttle, you might push up to 300 m/s, but as soon as you release it, the ship would quickly drop back to around 280. So technically any ship can reach those higher speeds, but fuel cost becomes the limiting factor. Ships designed with a better thrust-to-mass ratio would naturally perform much better at high speeds.

Scenarios:

Simple early-game hydrogen ship for space travel
Not very massive. With a couple of medium thrusters on the back, you can reach 280 relatively quickly. This makes it easy to travel between stations, asteroid rings, and other points of interest. Fuel consumption will vary depending on how loaded you are, but it remains manageable.
Hydro scout for space
Here efficiency really matters. Fuel consumption is no longer linear, so heavier ships pay a much higher price when going above 150 m/s. If you’re making frequent stops, fuel becomes the main concern. A lightweight scout with a good thrust-to-mass ratio becomes extremely valuable.
Big cargo ship for space
You want as many rear thrusters as possible to offset fuel consumption. Acceleration to 280 m/s will be very slow when fully loaded. This is where space transport economy comes into play—movement itself is simple, but fuel usage becomes the key factor. Planning your stops is important. Advanced flight computers could help calculate optimal burn and flip maneuvers, since doing it manually often leads to wasted fuel. You can also choose to cruise at lower speeds. Reaching 200 m/s is much cheaper than pushing to 250—the extra 50 m/s can cost more than double the fuel.
Small fighter for space
Similar to a scout: low concern for fuel, high speeds, excellent acceleration. Can intercept targets easily and evade threats by rapidly changing direction and speed.
Heavy fighter / bomber
Less agile due to a lower thrust-to-mass ratio, so it can be intercepted by lighter fighters. Still capable of reaching 280 m/s, and occasionally 300 if needed.
Larger warships
Designs can vary a lot depending on their role. Interceptor-type warships (including pirate ships) benefit from higher thrust-to-mass ratios, but this comes at the cost of armor, weapon systems, or lots of fuel tanks—making them more vulnerable. In fleet battles, these differences can create interesting tactical dynamics. In duels, however, diversity is harder to maintain since speed can be more important than anything.

Acceleration rules should apply in all directions. A ship might have strong forward thrust but weaker lateral or reverse thrust, which affects maneuverability. This also ties into combat design—likely favoring closer engagement ranges

Hydrogen thrusters could also have a delay before reaching full thrust, making dodging less trivial. Combat mechanics are a whole topic on their own, but in terms of speed: larger ships are naturally disadvantaged. To compensate, they could have advantages like better heat dissipation (if a thermal system exists), allowing them to mount more weapons or use heavier guns more effectively.

They won’t be able to catch a fleeing ship easily—but they also won’t be able to escape quickly themselves. And those last 20 m/s of top speed would be extremely difficult for massive ships to achieve.

For atmospheric flight, the rules above can be even harder, with the base speed reduced or even more steep acceleration degradation. On the other hand, the ship shape can determine those parameters and even help for lifting if you have certain shape. Reaching the top 300 would be generally harder I guess.

URL

[IDEA] Dynamic top speed

Replies (1)