Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
landcollector said:
Ah. You would be wrong then. The Alloy itself was a 0.1 to 0.4 increase while the longer nacelles is a flat 0.6 loss. Best case is a 0.2 net loss, which still sucks for a +1 Cost, worst case is a 0.5 net loss. I'm not seeing the value you are.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yeah extended length feels like more of a loss than a gain.
 
landcollector said:
Ah. You would be wrong then. The Alloy itself was a 0.1 to 0.4 increase while the longer nacelles is a flat 0.6 loss. Best case is a 0.2 net loss, which still sucks for a +1 Cost, worst case is a 0.5 net loss. I'm not seeing the value you are.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The point I was making is that we don't get no gain though. The gain simply transitions to being less of a cost for longer nacelles in terms of maximum warp. We spend +1 cost and get between .1 and .4 maximum warp regardless of what we choose here. We can just choose to get a flat -.6 to maximum warp.

But they sum. We are not replacing the +.1/+.4 with a flat -.6.
 
While the increased efficiency cruise would be very useful for the civilian sector, we are mostly concerned about the maximum cruise speed, as we're not making ships for a company. In military and exploration, efficiency takes a backseat for maximising continuous output.
 
[X] Standard Length

Losing 0.6 of max sprint before reducing it further in potential ship schematics is way too much of a loss imo. The amount of lost sprint in exchange for 0.4 cruise speed is not worthwhile.
 
Kartr_Kana said:
Current minimum: Cruise 5; max 7 means max cruise is (7-5)/2+5=6
Current best case: Cruise 5.2; max 7.4 means best case max cruise would be (7.4-5.2)2+5.2=6.3

Best case: Cruise 5.6; Max: 6.8 means max cruise would be (6.8-5.6)/2+5.6=6.2
Worst case: Cruise 5.4; Max 6.4 means max cruise would be (6.4-5.4)/2+5.4=5.9
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Fouredged Sword said:
Cruise is the speed you spend most of your time in because fuel is more important than speed.

But when speed is important you can sustain maximum cruise until your fuel runs out, and so that's the speed you go when you actually care about speed. Maximum cruise is halfway between efficient cruise and maximum warp.

And the long nacelles actually hurt our maximum cruise. We are slower except when we don't care about going fast.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
For high cruise we're 0.1 warp slower at either extreme... That's very minor, however a higher base cruise means we can get further on the same fuel load and have more left over for high cruise and combat for a given range.
 
Kartr_Kana said:
For high cruise we're 0.1 warp slower at either extreme... That's very minor, however a higher base cruise means we can get further on the same fuel load and have more left over for high cruise and combat for a given range.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This is stretching it.
In a standard situation even military vessels use cruise speed. Using max cruise speed means you are in a crisis situation already.
Moreover 0,1 is pretty significant. We have a logarithmic scale here. Loss of 0,6 max Warp, 6.8 vs 6.2, is a loss of about 30% of speed, for example.

Edit:
I was corrected, we are still in old trek times with an exponential, not logarithmic scale.
This means that 6.8 vs 6.2 is a loss of roughly 20%. This said, the argument still holds.
 
Last edited:
A whole lot of bad and/or badly explained math in this discussion, resulting in nonsensical arguments regardless of the validity (or lack there of) of the point being made.

Still, absent knowing if the final choice will mitigate the downside sufficiently, the extended nacelles seem like a poor trade off. If we knew the final part would kick our high cruise back up at least 0.2, one way or another, ideally more, extended would be a good (or at least viable) choice, but we don't, so it isn't.

[X] Standard Length
 
Last edited:
[X] Standard Length


The downsides are too big. Not only is sprint important for emergencies, we gotta remember that the warp scale isn't linear and so losing .6 to gain .4 is much bigger loss than it is gain.

Maybe if we were designing the nacelles for a dedicated cargo hauler, it'd be one thing, but these are supposed to be the new standard, going on every new ship, and we can't sacrifice that kind of sprint speed, because when sprint matters, it's more important than anything else.
 
Last edited:
Chargone said:
A whole lot of bad and/or badly explained math in this discussion, resulting in nonsensical arguments regardless of the validity of the point being made.

Still, absent knowing if the final choice will mitigate the downside sufficiently, the extended nacelles seem like a poor trade off. If we knew the final part would kick our high cruise back up at least 0.2, one way or another, prefferably more, extended would be a good choice, but we don't.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I think regardless of math, its a choice between Higher sprint or higher cruise.

I think sprint is a little more important for Starfleet ships.
 
tenchifew said:
This is stretching it.
In a standard situation even military vessels use cruise speed. Using max cruise speed means you are in a crisis situation already.
Moreover 0,1 is pretty significant. We have a logarithmic scale here. Loss of 0,6 max Warp, 6.8 vs 6.2, is a loss of about 30% of speed, for example.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Technically we are not in a log scale yet. We are using the old warp numbers and that's an exponential, not logarithmic scale. Warp factor to the third power is speed in lightspeed. Warp 10 is 1000 times the speed of light.

It isn't until later in the timeline that Trek switches to a logarithmic scale.
 
Last edited:
TheShadowDeamon said:
Remember that maximum cruise speed is halfway between efficient cruise and top speed, so because the top speed decreases more than the efficient cruise increases, our maximum cruise speed will actually decrease.
This is why I have gone for standard length nacelles and suggest that during fitting we go for increased cruise configuration
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Our High Cruise speed at either extreme is 0.1 warp lower. However our True Cruise speed is 0.4 warp faster with the extended Nacelles.

Given that's what our vessels will be using most of the time, it seems like a better strategic choice.

landcollector said:
Ah. You would be wrong then. The Alloy itself was a 0.1 to 0.4 increase while the longer nacelles is a flat 0.6 loss. Best case is a 0.2 net loss, which still sucks for a +1 Cost, worst case is a 0.5 net loss. I'm not seeing the value you are.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We currently have a +0.2 to +0.6 maximum warp thanks in part to the fancy material. We currently have a +0.2 to +0.4 for cruise, and could get that to a +0.6 to +0.8 in exchange for a -0.4 to -0.0 to maximum warp. +cruise gets a bigger bump than +max.

Standard:
Cruise: Warp 5 to 5.2
High Cruise: Warp 6 to 6.3
Max: Warp 7 to 7.4

Extended:
Cruise: Warp 5.4 to 5.6
High Cruise: Warp 5.9 to 6.2
Maximum: Warp 6.4 to 6.8

All before configurations come into play. We have Field Stabilizer next where we can probably eke out some more top speed.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top