Question about platform construction and speed

[Jeffreyac]

Hi folks,

Trying my hand at designing another platform... I've read that the largest impact on platform speed comes from width, not weight, so I'm trying to go skinny.

My question: In my latest iteration, I ended up bumping the width by a couple of squares to get the engines to fit like I wanted them. Does it matter how MUCH I have in those rows, or is the fact that I've increased in width all that matters?

Put it simply - right now, the width just increases on the tail end of the ship. Can I just run that increase all the way up the side creating a straight edge (and adding some space for me to work with) without decreasing speed too much, as I've already added the width, or is there an advantage to limiting it?

My logic was, if I'm going to end up with a 14 wide instead of 12 anyway for the engine section, I might as well run it all the way up and make it easier to position things, but I'm not completely certain how the mechanics work - and the internet says width matters, but doesn't really specify if it's an absolute or if it's more of a curve for how much of your ship is at the widest part.

Hope that made some sort of sense!

[PunCrathod]

The game does not do complex aerodynamic simulations. It simple calculates the horizontal component of the furthest point to the right minus the horizontal component of the furthest point to the left.

Also do note that you might be doing premature optimization. That is spending time optimizing something that might not be worth the time spent.

[Hurkyl]

An example to elaborate, your first mobile platforms are very, very likely not one that will be able to run continuously at full speed. And even if you were able to do that right off, you still probably wouldn't actually want that.

So, optimizing for top speed would not really help anything. In fact, it's likely to even be slightly counterproductive.

[Jeffreyac]

Originally posted by Hurkyl:

An example to elaborate, your first mobile platforms are very, very likely not one that will be able to run continuously at full speed. And even if you were able to do that right off, you still probably wouldn't actually want that.

So, optimizing for top speed would not really help anything. In fact, it's likely to even be slightly counterproductive.

Apologies - should have mentioned, not my first platform, just the next one I'm designing. I've been to all inner planets, got about level 10 or 12 kinetic damage increase, plenty of tech researched, etc, etc. The platform in general was a test model to see what rare components (thrusters, crushers, asteroid catchers, etc) could do, plus create a dedicated fast ship to run Gleba science back to Nauvis before too much spoilage happens.

...so, yeah, I'm not a COMPLETE beginner at platforms, just don't completely understand the math on speed and if I can just make a straight edge blade or if I should minimize width in all aspects - i.e. if it's just absolutely the widest point that determines a spacecraft width for speed, or is it averaged meaning thinner parts still help.

(Part of what I'm going to test though is indeed how many turrets I need on a faster ship. Current 2 engine designs have no issues - asteroids don't even come close - but they also only do about 220. So I want to see if a) what kind of speed a 4 engine ship can do and b) what kind of defenses are needed for inner planets at that speed.)

[Fletch]

I think it is the max width (on the widest row of tiles), not an "average" width of rows. Skinny ships do go considerably faster, and they need less turrets (since there are less incoming asteroids to worry about with a skinny ship). Just ensure you cover the mid & rear of the ship with turrets for when parked at a planet (asteroids can come in from any direction when parked).

[CasualGamer]

Post up a screenshot when you're done. I like to see how 'thinkers' build compared to my 'whack away' degign/build attempts.

[PunCrathod]

Originally posted by Fletch:

I think it is the max width (on the widest row of tiles), not an "average" width of rows. Skinny ships do go considerably faster, and they need less turrets (since there are less incoming asteroids to worry about with a skinny ship). Just ensure you cover the mid & rear of the ship with turrets for when parked at a planet (asteroids can come in from any direction when parked).

It does not care about rows at all... It is simply the x coordinate of the furthest tile on the right minus the x coordinate of the furthest tile on the left.

If you make a diagonal ship it will have a lot of drag even tough each row is thin.

[kremlin]

I can't find the particular diagram at the moment but if I'm remembering correctly it showed that there's a sharp fall off in top speed as you cross ~20 tiles width. My newest designs are 16 wide, platform hub with cargo bays on the left and right of it, have to dial back the thrust so the turrets can keep up.

EDIT: https://imgur.com/XEmw7R6

[Jeffreyac]

Originally posted by kremlin:

I can't find the particular diagram at the moment but if I'm remembering correctly it showed that there's a sharp fall off in top speed as you cross ~20 tiles width. My newest designs are 16 wide, platform hub with cargo bays on the left and right of it, have to dial back the thrust so the turrets can keep up.

EDIT: https://imgur.com/XEmw7R6

Oh, heck, I'm working waaaay too hard on this last one then - was trying to keep it to 10 or 12 tiles, and struggling. If I can go out to 20ish, that's going to help a lot!

edit: well, wait... looking at the chart, the slope of that is pretty darn steep in the early portions. Looks to me almost the opposite - the sharpest drop is going from the minimum 8 tile width to 30ish, then the curve flattens out.

Guest my quest for skinniness continues...

[Fletch]

Originally posted by PunCrathod:

It does not care about rows at all... It is simply the x coordinate of the furthest tile on the right minus the x coordinate of the furthest tile on the left.

If you make a diagonal ship it will have a lot of drag even tough each row is thin.

That makes sense