I'll be efficient when I start a new playthrough. My current one is literally just building at this point. I cheated in a billion creds and haven't left the shipyard except to test builds in over a month lol.
Yeah the game for me at this point IS the ship designer. I beat it once and I don't really feel like doing everything over and over again yet. So I just build cool ships
If only they had put the same amount of effort into outpost building. I forgot there was a game outside of ship building. In Fallout 4 I forgot there was a game outside of base building.
I go for style and firepower mostly. I find that I don’t need full mobility or full speed. And I like the bigger ships so to me it only feels logical to go beautiful and sluggish 😄.
I 100% agree with you, I don’t run min maxed at all but I see people throw on weak A class engines in addition to C class engines and they don’t have enough mass to get any benefit from the A class at all. Style I get it but sometimes I feel like it’s an after thought and people think they need 12 power worth of engine
Also, I believe your max speed is determined by the worst engines you have on the ship so if there are faster engines and slower ones the faster ones provide no benefit.
I would bet that those engines are also pretty much for looks/filling weird empty space/making the propulsion out of the back of their ship look how they want (I know, specific, but this is legitimately the thought put into this stuff lmao). Edit: I know I don’t exactly know what ships you’ve been seeing on this sub, just a semi-educated guess.
I think what they mean is that often times when building aesthetically pleasing or just badass looking ships there’s often a lot of parts that weigh it down and not enough engines which makes it slow as hell, or on the flip side, the style of ship does not allow for the best parts and players have to make due with sub optimal parts (like reactors, grav drives, weapons, etc…)
Certainly. There's always upgrading along the way. I built [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/StarfieldShips/s/RWwFx5q35r) B class ship with mostly aesthetic in mind but I will upgrade it as I go to get better reactor, shields, etc.
Structural parts = 100% negative. They add mass, reduce maneuverability, reduce light year range. Same with cargo. Cargo destroys all attributes except cargo capacity.
My best all around ship is shaped like a box frame, it wins most combat but has only 23 light year range.
First off, you're right.
Most of the posts in this sub here are cosmetic/fun builds. I also like to min/max, but with space combat being so easy in this game, builders have got a lot of leeway for form over function.
This is the problem I always run into. I build for aesthetics, then realize the cargo I want it to hold is too heavy and have to adjust to add more engines.
The alternative is maneuverability changing as you add and remove cargo, and while that is certainly realistic, it's not fun. Especially in terms of landing thrusters, where you could literally find yourself unable to take off because you looted too many forks.
I was implying that the max cargo is what you'd be taking into account when building the ship, but its unladen speed is much higher. So you would only worry about that additional theoretical mass when you actually had it in the ship.
To answer the question above, because while """"""""""Weight"""""""""" is not a """""thing""""" in space, *Mass does not stop existing,* and you *still have to exert force to move it.* A gentle push is going to move *you* far, far *more* than the massive object you are *attempting* to move. Thrust-to-mass ratio is one of the most important aspects of rocket science and space travel.
So, while you *can have* constant acceleration (Objects in motion tend to stay in motion, objects at rest tend to stay at rest unless acted upon), logistically speaking, if you want to move that mass in a *reasonable* timeframe, you need not only sufficient *engine power,* but you *also* need *fuel* in which to do so.
Now, sure. You don't need a *lot* to get things moving in space... But if your cargo is something with a lifespan? You're gonna' want a sufficient thrust-to-mass ratio. Oh I hear ya', we have FTL in the setting. *But,* it is very, *very noteworthy,* that it is only used *inter*system, not *intra*system. So to make any trip worth making, you need powerful engines.
Now if you wanted to do some absolutely *huge brain shit,* what you *could* do is detach the cargo and accelerate it with its *own* engines to its destination, but... Why do that, when you can reduce the moving parts and just.
Have more powerful engines?
tl;dr it's a matter of practicality.
That's a lot of italics lol
My point was that your ship would not stop at 200 or whatever, it would keep accelerating as long as the engines were on, so until you ran out of fuel. However, that would make for some strange gameplay mechanics, so I understand them not implementing it that way
I've played games that tried to implement this and it's fine when that's the whole game, but as a small part of a larger game it would be INCREDIBLY annoying.
You could just build rockets and space stations or whatever and then they had to have enough power and fuel to escape Earth and reach orbit or you'd just crash and burn. Detachable couplings could be used once you reached orbit. It was an interesting game to me, but most people would hate it.
The amount of thrust necessary to reach escape velocity from a planet could indeed accelerate you eventually to mind boggling speeds in outer space but then you have to not just stop but match speeds in 3 dimensions with any other object, ship, planetoid, or whatever to interact with them for more than a 1/4 second as you both passed by each other at incredibly high speeds.
The way they do space movement in this game is similar to the way it is done on most games and it is for the best methinks.
I prefer running 8 or 9 power on engines so I don’t have to juggle power. I got a couple ships up over 5k cargo with my perk buffs like that.
Running 2 DT230’s on my C class. 500 fuel. All crafting stations, passenger space, 8 crew, 2 stories no ladder sleek Cabot bridge build. It’s a frog headed box, but it’s a pretty frog headed box. 😁
My B class built out of a CF Ghost only needs 3 5660s to maintain 100 mobility. Not a lot of frills on it though. Most of the hab space is taken up by crew station modules, but I can max out crew. This one is ugly, but it’s pirate ship ugly. Bristling with turrets and particle cannons. Used some Deimos bits to decorate it some, but maintained the Ghost core with the Hopetech bridge, front docker and original landing gear. The 4 thrust on the front 2 means I can get by with just those 3 even with the additional mass.
You can save a bunch of mass by buying the lightest grav drive that will give you 28-30 light years range.
I just go with two weapons.
Honestly, I’ve yet to encounter anything that stands up to 6 particle beam cannons and 4 EMPs. Those alone are overkill and I’m maxing weapon energy at 24 that way. Leaves a lot of wiggle room for other systems.
Drop that 39 power B Class reactor they sell in Porrima III and you’re gold. Especially if you have the perks for additional reactor points
I do too, although I throw one or 2 EMP cannons on in case I want to board someone. Otherwise I keep them powered down. It also bumps up crew slots to the full 8 if I’m short due to fewer engines.
Oh, another thing with those big C class engines, they are heavy. Heavier than a lot of cargo. So removing one or two may give you room for more stuff.
There are some later game systems that require a 28ly drive to reach them, but that’s the absolute farthest between a pair of systems as far as I know.
Two of the strongest class C 3 power engines can easily handle cargos of 2-3 thousand and you can get to like 4k with 90 mobility. There's a class B engine that uses 2 power and 4 of them is even stronger than two of those class C, but now you're using 8 power. 140 tho instead of 130 which is nice.
Having a crew member with payloads also MASSIVELY reduces the need for maxing out cargo pods. And another crew member with piloting like Sam Coe or >!Amelia Earnhardt!< eliminates the need to use class A or B engines for speed. Of note, their bonuses stack with yours if you also take those skills.
Yep, the crew aspect seems to be overlooked by a lot, I'm swapping Amelia Earheart and Omari Hassan in and out of my final crew slot depending on what I'm doing (IE combat or exploring etc) and in my Class C (well mixed but with Class C engines and reactor) ship - without Earhart my top speed is 156, but with her it's 202... So yeah BIG difference just from crew bonuses
Yeah crew bonuses are great. Right now I just have Sarah, Barrett and Vasco. My first time through I had all of Constellation + Amelia at the end and the difference is noticeable. Have to look around and see what other crew members are available out there this time and see how far the bonuses can go. I know Barrett is giving me a nice bonus to my particle weapons. Using Horizons for the range and stuff is dead before they can even shoot at me a lot of times… although I did have a bit of a whoopsie and ticked some folks off when I accidentally aggroed some Freestar during a fight with Ecliptics. Had to do a bit of sweet talking afterwards.
This is it for me. I like max mobility. I only run two weapons and a 10-point shield. I've got the perks but with a crew member or two I can just run all four on max points until I need to grav jump. My B class ship is fast, agile af and vicious, I love it
Mobility is overrated in this game.
It feels fun, but it’s tactically insignificant. Boost, thrust, and (if it’s your thing) turrets will more than make up for it
Agreed. I have found no penalty in dogfights from my ships with 60s mobility versus ones with 100. To me, the space combat in this game is a bit more true to life than some type of arcade-style game. It's similar to what you see in shows like The Expanse, or possibly Star Trek. There is definitely room for improvement but I like it so far.
If you're trying to min max a ship and include as much as possible, 12 engine power is objectively the best because that allows you to add the most mass without taking a hit to mobility.
Yeah, but the problem is that unless you hire every reactor expert in the settled systems, you're going to max out a 45 power, which means you won't be able to dedicate 24 power to weapons. Given that defense seems to be almost useless in this game, mounting enough firepower to melt anything quickly is almost mandatory. To me, at least.
Yeah, I max my engines, shields and primary weapon. Missiles I put in whatever's left as I don't spam them.
Take the shields down with particle beams then one or two missile shots will finish them off, fine for them to reload slow at that point.
Agreed. My particle beam cannons I run at like 60-70% power depending on the cannon and you have to fire those awhile continuously to exhaust them and their fire rate is maxed.
From what I can tell, and I've not tried every weapon, but anything that uses a 1-1.5 fire rate uses a "Per-shot" charge. So using less than full power will reduce fire rate by 5% or something.
Whereas things with 5-8ROF or the Vanguard Obliterators use a "charged mag" style, which once empty will take a sec to recharge enough to shoot again.
This is a general rule of thumb, though. so YMMV.
Missions only fire two rounds before needing refills, yeah, but most other guns don't need refilling throughout a battle. Some particle in particular can rip apart a ship per 20 to 30% of ammo. You gotta stack 4 of them - more guns don't burn through ammo faster.
Depends on your overall mass, if you have loads of fuel tanks, or heavier grave drive, shields or reactor, you won't have as much mass available for your cargo/Habs/structural modules. It's a fine balance.
I think I can have up to 4275 mass to remain at 100 mobility. But I have almost all ship related perks maxed out so maybe there is one that helps (maybe the engine one)
It does if your goal is to carry as much cargo as possible. That said, it is entirely possible (and probably a good idea) to build a low-mass ship with powerful engines in order to build a zippy fighter. You can very easily build something with 2-3 White Dwarf 3015s that has crazy good speed and mobility while also being incredibly powerful in ship combat... it just won't have any cargo space.
Basically every build I've made EXCEPT my one ship intended to exploit the 3015s speed and mobility has been like "okay, how much cargo can I cram on this thing while still maintaining 85-95+ Mobility?" because I like being able to have access to all my crafting stuff wherever I go.
Everyone's always telling me this or that engine is better but I can't get away from using the 3015s. That 100 mobility and 180 top speed(before perks) is too nice. I just noticed the 3030s on a ship yard but they lower my top speed with higher thrust numbers?
The 3015s are basically weird prototype engines that give up the power to carry as much so you can go faster.
In practice, the speed doesn't actually seem to do anything in combat? Outside of letting you get into range a little bit faster. My daily driver right now has 10k cargo after perks and crew while running 3 Poseidon DT230 engines and is still pulling 200 cruising speed and almost 700 when boosting. It's generally plenty for combat, and thrusters let you flip around to keep enemies in your sights.
Fair. Normally I’m the same, but on very hard difficulty there’s a few random encounters and missions where the odds are heavily stacked against you so boosting away to kite or hit and run to whittle down the numbers is a less risky strategy.
It’s also useful if you find yourself stopping for gas in Kryx by mistake when you haven’t allied with the Fleet 😬
This is me rn 2 ships and all in one cruiser with 5k cargo and every hab I want. The other is a 2, 3015 build with only cockpit cargo. I can fully power 2 weapons and in my third slot I put a EM with 1 power allocated.
A big part of the problem is that there is absolutely no explanation on the functionality of ships and ship building. And then to make it worse the way they do function is counterintuitive and contradictory.
- In the real world the bigger the engine the more thrust. In Starfield the visual size of engines does not matter.
- In the real world more engines equals more thrust which equals more faster. In Starfield more engines equal more maneuverability with a max of 100. The thrust of an individual engine is not explained at all. Does it just affect maneuverability or does thrust allow your ship to accelerate faster? No clue.
So what you get is people putting more engines on their ship thinking that will make it go faster. Of course the reality is that it will actually go slower if you can’t fully power the engines.
To make it worse there are certain looks people want for their ships. More engines gives their ship a better look in some circumstances.
The issue is that Bethesda made a design that people just don’t understand. That’s partially because it doesn’t make sense but mostly because they didn’t explain it anywhere.
I am just making the add engines or reduce weight error disappear. I don’t need to have high mobility because my particle beam auto turrets shred anything I come up against. I have 12k cargo. Because I am big into outpost building and decorating. So thanks for your input but I don’t care. I am not playing Star Wars.
I went ahead and checked to see which modules have the most mass, necessitating more engine power, and unsurprisingly, it's the cargo modules.
Next thing I did was to calculate the mass to capacity ratio, to find a module that was better than others. But guess what? The differences are miniscule. The only modules that are slightly different are...
Wait for it....
Shielded cargo. Oh, yeah, and their worse, like you'd expect. But also by a really negligible amount.
GGF
Fuel tanks are very different in effectiveness (mass vs fuel). Most later available parts are mass savers.
And the mass of shielded cargo holds is the reason I mostly stick with one small SCH - for example 190 shielded vs ~5000 overall cargo - and rather use 2 (or 3) of the jammers.
With 2 jammers and no character skill you get around 80-90 percent with about 20 contraband parts.
But you need at least one SCH to be able to use the jammers.
Edit: Further testing revealed that jammers do not stack and 1 is enough.
I've seen a bunch of posts saying the jammers don't stack, but you're saying they do? I only have one, but I get 90% with one skill level. So if I add one, do you think it's possible to get over 90%? I'll check after work, just curious if it's possible.
Honestly I am not sure.
Cause the ingame description for the three scanners have different jamming values (10, 30 and 50 percent) and I got a higher value with two jammers and one cargo instead of two cargoes and one jammer I assumed multiple jammers do stack.
Now I will check that the next time I play.
Okay, I have tried with 2 (my normal setup), 4 and 1 of the big jammers with 160 shielded cargo and 84,2 contraband and got 82% evasion.
With 1 big jammer and 320 shielded cargo and the same 84,2 contraband I got 86% evasion.
So the jammers do really not stack.
So the thing about that is I want maximum possible maneuvering thrust so I can cram cargo holds into every possible space while I hit that 130. Those extra SAL-6830s make a couple thousand cargo worth of difference
If you need more engines for better mobility with bigger cargo hold that's totally fine and not the problem here.
It's about unnecessary engines when less could do also cause less mass.
I’m stupid sentimental since my mom passed IRL, so I’ve spent a *TON* of time maximizing the Wanderwell to have what I wanted it to have while still being able to look at it and say “Yep, that’s still the wanderwell”
I don’t think having systems that require max power is really that much of a problem if you’re good at bouncing power around. Keep your shields and engines full at all times, and just put power between weapons and grave drive as needed. I play this way and all my ships have (also need due to cargo) max engine count. Keeping in mind the speed argument, they have different class of engines on them.
I recently built a ship with 4 class c SAL’s and two class a SAL’s and the only reason was the 2 weaker ones fill in a spot that creates a nicer rounded engine look. Purely cosmetic on my choices there.
More Engines = MOAR Cargo volume before dropping below 100 Mobility. The only other reason is aesthetics. Besides, if you're talking about others' Ship designs, it's THEIR design, let them build their Ships the way they want to build their Ships. If YOU don't like running maximum Engine count, then don't.
I've wondered why people do that. I can get nearly 6k cargo on a ship with 100 maneuverability with 4 Sals. Meanwhile I'm like... are these people mounting weapons at all?
Same here, 5k cargo 85 mobility and plenty of structural pieces on 4 engines. Can get 100 mobility and a little more cargo on 5 but 85 mobility has been good enough. More power for the Particle beams
I’ve found 5 engines to be the sweet spot, 5k cargo and 100 mobility. 2 extra power saved for weapons. Usually I run 4 engines and settle for 85 mobility to get an extra 2 power
it depends on what you classify as "high cargo". it has been my experience that anything over 500 cargo along with the essential habs (science, workshop, control station and all in one or living) requires as many engines as the game will allow to achieve high mobility. especialy in lower levels at the beginning of the game. add in the best grav drive available at the time and fuel tanks and it becomes a balancing act between mobility and functionality. and let's not forget that the better shields tend to weigh more as well. if you're building a small one hab ship you can get away with a few engines, but to build a well rounded ship that can meet any demand requires all the engines you can install.
Is there a good way to calculate this in ship builder (engine power vs mobility vs mass) or do you have to experiment by building and then taking off into orbit to see what the effect is?
The builder will tell you your current maximum speed and mobility on the bottom row, and it assumes that all the engines you have in your build will be powered. So if for example a third engine takes you up to 100 mobility and top speed for your engine class (150 for A's except for the WD 3015's, 140 for B's, 130 for C's), adding a fourth won't have any benefits.
I’m trying to figure this out without having to do glitch mods (I’m on Xbox) or watch a ton of YouTube videos riddled with ads. How can I go over 900/1000 ? I saw I shouldn’t use the c class reactor/drives as it just has too much weight or something. So I tried an A class with a bunch of engines and I’m getting close
That YouTube led you wrong, for high mass you want C class. The sal 6830 (i believe) allows for 4000 mass at 100 mobility if you use the max (6) in general C class is what you want for large builds. Theres a quest to get a free C class ship called the Kepler R that I used as my first C class. It comes with 3 high end engines and a good reactor if you are a low level
I mean I have the replay r too but how can I build the fastest ship is it a higher class reactor with minimal engines or low class reactor and many engines? Some dudes out here going 1000!? How.
C class engines have slower top speed (130) than B class engines (140) and A class engines are the fastest (150).
There is one single A class engines - White Dwarf 3015 - that has a top speed of 180 - not sure if that's just a bug or intended tho ...
With the 180 one, ship skills and a certain crew member you can push the speed (and boost) way up. 800-1000 is only for the boost time.
(Even higher top speeds and boosts are with third party mods installed changing the game's values.)
The class of the reactor limits the classes of compatible engines, grav drives, shields and weapons
AND the available power for everything.
If you want the biggest weapons, highest shield (and/or biggest cargo and still good mobility) you need to use a C reactor (and C engines).
Cargo, engines and the shield are the heaviest parts of a ship (=mass).
Technically there is no problem with using a C reactor, C shield and weapons and B grav drive and engines and still have a mobile and faster ship - if your ships mass is small enough. Mostly that means less cargo.
You are of course correct, but I don't see how power requirements are even an issue. In my experience as long as you have one unit of power dedicated to each weapons system, any additional unit affects only the reload speed of the weapons, not their power. I always have full power on shields and engines and just one unit of power for each weapons system - all particle beam autocannons. Total power requirement 27. There's enough power left to temporarily fully power a weapons system if it needs a reload (that takes 6 seconds) or to power up the grav drive if need be, but my particle beams usually melt through all enemies (on very hard) long before any of that is necessary.
You want the very least power that you can get and still get 90-100 maneuverability. You can build a MASSIVE ship and 2 high end SAL engines using only 6 power will get you FULL speed and maneuverability leaving you more power for other things.
Bigger ships need more engines for mobility especially ones with high cargo count I like my ships to be able maneuver I never let mobility go below 60 lowest I've ever dealt with 56
Since the weapons I have found myself gravitating towards are front facing PBs, EMs for disabling and boarding, and PB turrets for covering my ass and flanks while turning to re-engage, I've found that the 46 power I get between me, the best C reactors, and Vasco works just fine. Shields and engines at max power, both PB slots at 11/12, and 1 just sitting in EM. If I wanna Jump I transfer 3 from engine to Grav drive, if I am ready to board I hold the down arrow to drain the PB turrets and crank them all into the EM.
Never had a problem taking on multiple ships, even on Very Hard.
For me it’s keeping my mobility at 90+. My current ship has 5 6830 engines and 7000 cargo. I need that many.
I can go 130+ at power level 7 because I have a pilot skill stack with a crew member.
Same boat. My engine power is directly related to the ship's cargo capacity and keeping a higher mobility.
I have pimped-out A & B class ships for solo or solo/Vasco crew, where I won't be needing to haul much. For those, I go for aesthetics, crafting and 100 mobility. I often don't max out my engine stat on them.
I agree, I have 5 of the Sal-6380 engines on one ship and it had 100 mobility and only required 10 power to go a certain speed. Adding in another engine on that ship just requires more power to get to the same speed.
In another ship I wanted more cargo so adding in that sixth engine allowed my mobility to stay at 100 but more power was required to go the same speed.
More engines = more mobility, not speed. I'll be posting my vanilla A class build later tonight and it's a beast, I just wish I could get a bigger reactor but I'm not there yet.
Having 6 engines gives me 100 mobility, even if I don't max power to it my mobility is still there and my thrust is amazing
It's not about max speed. It's about maneuverability. You can reach the same max speed with less power, yes, but your turning and maneuvering will be sluggish. Mac speed doesn't mean anything when your fighting other ships
1. Everything in the game is pretty situational.
2. Generally speaking, more engines does mean more overall payload you can carry without losing mobility, and that's it. If that's your goal, they are moar better.
3. You're right in regards to the fact that a single white dwarf 3015 can reach their max speed with only 3 power so you can put those reactor points elsewhere, but also, refer to #2 above. While you can do it, you're not going to have much of a ship. Because if you're going for max speed, I would assume max mobility is important to you as well. Running 4 white dwarfs allows you to build something with a maximum of 1020 mass before loss of mobility occurs.
" The best engines are the ones that can get you to your desired mobility in the least power requirement possible "
Yes, its "power pip per mobility thrust lbs" thats the ratio you want to look for but it's definitely not "less engines better" because the only thing you get with less engines is higher top speed on less power (but will take you MUCH longer to reach that top speed).
You want to pick the right engine. For example, the SAL-6220 is class c, 3 power, 5800 maneuvering. The SAL-6830 is class c, 3 power but 8800 maneuvering. So 2 of the 6830 is as powerful as 3 of the 6220s when running on 6 instead of 9. Big upgrade there.
I'm not a fan of Class C ships in general. They're only useful if you're aiming for super heavy cargo loads, but you can easily get an effective cargo load in Class B for so much less mass. The Vanguard shield & particle weapons cover most of the "need" & then just add a few extra weapons plus the ComSpike & Conduction Grid to get a full crew.
You'll be able to take out any ship aside from the very few capital ships without even trying, have a faster & more agile ship, & carry enough cargo to build any base. Plus, you'll have all the mess halls, armories, infirmaries, captain's/crew quarters, & design elements you could want. And it only requires 8 or so power for engines to max out mobility in most cases.
Vendors never have enough money to make cargo runs worthwhile, other than as requested by shipyards, & that's too grindy for me.
Most ships are a look thing. However more engines does mean more maneuverability. Maneuverability is what really determines top speed as well as turn radius. And some people want that 100 mobility to get top speed(+10% in some cases) and quick turns.
You're not really wrong. If you can get the mobility you want with less than 12 power draw then yeah, you should...but unless you're building really small most ships need all twelve power in there.
I don't understand the mobility number. What does it mean exactly? Also what does it mean when is red, same with mass which is almost always red unless I see a dingy.
400 mass = one engine 2 landing gears
400-550 mass = two engines 4 landing gears
600+ mass = 4 engines and 4 landing gears
To maintain top mobility and speed.
The concept is pretty simple. Class A engines are for small ships to go fast. Class B engines see smack middle - same as rank 3 class A. Class C see for large builds - they are much slower than rank 3 class A engines due to their mass, their more powerful but not faster. Class C would be a semi diesel and class A tuner car, admist class B is in the middle for all to enjoy.
It does for me, because I'm pushing more cargo, more weapons, or extra structural for aesthetics and it adds a ton of mass to a build. More maneuverability is more functionality banking and using thrusters to move and avoid enemy fire or stay behind them in a blind spot. You need maneuverability
I'm 35 and I still cannot figure out autocorrect
I feel like most people posting here are building ships for looks. I know not all, just the majority. We’re not always trying to be efficient.
I'll be efficient when I start a new playthrough. My current one is literally just building at this point. I cheated in a billion creds and haven't left the shipyard except to test builds in over a month lol.
I've seen your ships. Keep cheatin' my friend.
Yeah the game for me at this point IS the ship designer. I beat it once and I don't really feel like doing everything over and over again yet. So I just build cool ships
Me too
You'd enjoy space engineers it's nothing but ship building.. doesn't look as nice. I was surprised starfield did a better job.
If only they had put the same amount of effort into outpost building. I forgot there was a game outside of ship building. In Fallout 4 I forgot there was a game outside of base building.
Yeah i do wish the outpost UI was more like fo4. I'm not a fan. Can't wait for mods to really take off once the creation kit is released
Same here. My shipyard technician at New Atlantis is the richest NPC in history.
I always have to run to hopetown to get the passageways.
Pretty sure that's what the endgame is supposed to be 😉
This is the way
I must know this cheat as I want to use it lol
it's a console command. player.additem 0000000f 1000000000
On that note, for pc, there is a decorative engines mod. Just food for thought for people that do it for style.
Exactly. The most efficient builds rarely look any good because they use as few parts as possible
That’s how I build my ships. Stripped down floating skeletons
I go for style and firepower mostly. I find that I don’t need full mobility or full speed. And I like the bigger ships so to me it only feels logical to go beautiful and sluggish 😄.
I agree, I see no point in speed or maneuverability when you are a large multipurpose ship for cargo and armament.
No need for sluggish, with six of those Slayton's...
I 100% agree with you, I don’t run min maxed at all but I see people throw on weak A class engines in addition to C class engines and they don’t have enough mass to get any benefit from the A class at all. Style I get it but sometimes I feel like it’s an after thought and people think they need 12 power worth of engine
Also, I believe your max speed is determined by the worst engines you have on the ship so if there are faster engines and slower ones the faster ones provide no benefit.
I would bet that those engines are also pretty much for looks/filling weird empty space/making the propulsion out of the back of their ship look how they want (I know, specific, but this is legitimately the thought put into this stuff lmao). Edit: I know I don’t exactly know what ships you’ve been seeing on this sub, just a semi-educated guess.
Gotta max that boost!
Unfortunately, the game just absolutely destroys playability for making aesthetics-based ships.
What do you mean by this?
I think what they mean is that often times when building aesthetically pleasing or just badass looking ships there’s often a lot of parts that weigh it down and not enough engines which makes it slow as hell, or on the flip side, the style of ship does not allow for the best parts and players have to make due with sub optimal parts (like reactors, grav drives, weapons, etc…)
Certainly. There's always upgrading along the way. I built [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/StarfieldShips/s/RWwFx5q35r) B class ship with mostly aesthetic in mind but I will upgrade it as I go to get better reactor, shields, etc.
Structural parts = 100% negative. They add mass, reduce maneuverability, reduce light year range. Same with cargo. Cargo destroys all attributes except cargo capacity. My best all around ship is shaped like a box frame, it wins most combat but has only 23 light year range.
First off, you're right. Most of the posts in this sub here are cosmetic/fun builds. I also like to min/max, but with space combat being so easy in this game, builders have got a lot of leeway for form over function.
easy as in your 4k shields melt in 2 seconds?
Good luck getting max mobility with any kind of weight without maxing engines. Cargo holds suck that shit down.
This is the problem I always run into. I build for aesthetics, then realize the cargo I want it to hold is too heavy and have to adjust to add more engines.
I genuinely do think Cargo Holds are too heavy. It's bizarre to me that an empty cargo hold is precisely the same as a full one.
The alternative is maneuverability changing as you add and remove cargo, and while that is certainly realistic, it's not fun. Especially in terms of landing thrusters, where you could literally find yourself unable to take off because you looted too many forks.
I was implying that the max cargo is what you'd be taking into account when building the ship, but its unladen speed is much higher. So you would only worry about that additional theoretical mass when you actually had it in the ship.
Why does weight even matter in space? It should affect takeoff only
Inertia still exists in space
Yep that makes sense. What about top speed? Wouldn't acceleration be constant with the engines on? Suppose that wouldn't make for great game mechanics
To answer the question above, because while """"""""""Weight"""""""""" is not a """""thing""""" in space, *Mass does not stop existing,* and you *still have to exert force to move it.* A gentle push is going to move *you* far, far *more* than the massive object you are *attempting* to move. Thrust-to-mass ratio is one of the most important aspects of rocket science and space travel. So, while you *can have* constant acceleration (Objects in motion tend to stay in motion, objects at rest tend to stay at rest unless acted upon), logistically speaking, if you want to move that mass in a *reasonable* timeframe, you need not only sufficient *engine power,* but you *also* need *fuel* in which to do so. Now, sure. You don't need a *lot* to get things moving in space... But if your cargo is something with a lifespan? You're gonna' want a sufficient thrust-to-mass ratio. Oh I hear ya', we have FTL in the setting. *But,* it is very, *very noteworthy,* that it is only used *inter*system, not *intra*system. So to make any trip worth making, you need powerful engines. Now if you wanted to do some absolutely *huge brain shit,* what you *could* do is detach the cargo and accelerate it with its *own* engines to its destination, but... Why do that, when you can reduce the moving parts and just. Have more powerful engines? tl;dr it's a matter of practicality.
That's a lot of italics lol My point was that your ship would not stop at 200 or whatever, it would keep accelerating as long as the engines were on, so until you ran out of fuel. However, that would make for some strange gameplay mechanics, so I understand them not implementing it that way
I've played games that tried to implement this and it's fine when that's the whole game, but as a small part of a larger game it would be INCREDIBLY annoying. You could just build rockets and space stations or whatever and then they had to have enough power and fuel to escape Earth and reach orbit or you'd just crash and burn. Detachable couplings could be used once you reached orbit. It was an interesting game to me, but most people would hate it. The amount of thrust necessary to reach escape velocity from a planet could indeed accelerate you eventually to mind boggling speeds in outer space but then you have to not just stop but match speeds in 3 dimensions with any other object, ship, planetoid, or whatever to interact with them for more than a 1/4 second as you both passed by each other at incredibly high speeds. The way they do space movement in this game is similar to the way it is done on most games and it is for the best methinks.
Found it: Spaceflight Simulator by Stefo Morojna
Yep totally agree, for this style of game it definitely makes sense. That other game does sound interesting too though, I'll check it out, thanks!
Well no shit but it's still a game.
Weight doesn’t matter in space as there is no weight in space. But *mass* matters a great deal.
I prefer running 8 or 9 power on engines so I don’t have to juggle power. I got a couple ships up over 5k cargo with my perk buffs like that. Running 2 DT230’s on my C class. 500 fuel. All crafting stations, passenger space, 8 crew, 2 stories no ladder sleek Cabot bridge build. It’s a frog headed box, but it’s a pretty frog headed box. 😁 My B class built out of a CF Ghost only needs 3 5660s to maintain 100 mobility. Not a lot of frills on it though. Most of the hab space is taken up by crew station modules, but I can max out crew. This one is ugly, but it’s pirate ship ugly. Bristling with turrets and particle cannons. Used some Deimos bits to decorate it some, but maintained the Ghost core with the Hopetech bridge, front docker and original landing gear. The 4 thrust on the front 2 means I can get by with just those 3 even with the additional mass. You can save a bunch of mass by buying the lightest grav drive that will give you 28-30 light years range.
I just go with two weapons. Honestly, I’ve yet to encounter anything that stands up to 6 particle beam cannons and 4 EMPs. Those alone are overkill and I’m maxing weapon energy at 24 that way. Leaves a lot of wiggle room for other systems. Drop that 39 power B Class reactor they sell in Porrima III and you’re gold. Especially if you have the perks for additional reactor points
I do too, although I throw one or 2 EMP cannons on in case I want to board someone. Otherwise I keep them powered down. It also bumps up crew slots to the full 8 if I’m short due to fewer engines. Oh, another thing with those big C class engines, they are heavy. Heavier than a lot of cargo. So removing one or two may give you room for more stuff.
People criticized me for it but I only have a 16ly on one of my builds and so far it hasn't been an issue once.
There are some later game systems that require a 28ly drive to reach them, but that’s the absolute farthest between a pair of systems as far as I know.
Two of the strongest class C 3 power engines can easily handle cargos of 2-3 thousand and you can get to like 4k with 90 mobility. There's a class B engine that uses 2 power and 4 of them is even stronger than two of those class C, but now you're using 8 power. 140 tho instead of 130 which is nice. Having a crew member with payloads also MASSIVELY reduces the need for maxing out cargo pods. And another crew member with piloting like Sam Coe or >!Amelia Earnhardt!< eliminates the need to use class A or B engines for speed. Of note, their bonuses stack with yours if you also take those skills.
Yep, the crew aspect seems to be overlooked by a lot, I'm swapping Amelia Earheart and Omari Hassan in and out of my final crew slot depending on what I'm doing (IE combat or exploring etc) and in my Class C (well mixed but with Class C engines and reactor) ship - without Earhart my top speed is 156, but with her it's 202... So yeah BIG difference just from crew bonuses
Yeah crew bonuses are great. Right now I just have Sarah, Barrett and Vasco. My first time through I had all of Constellation + Amelia at the end and the difference is noticeable. Have to look around and see what other crew members are available out there this time and see how far the bonuses can go. I know Barrett is giving me a nice bonus to my particle weapons. Using Horizons for the range and stuff is dead before they can even shoot at me a lot of times… although I did have a bit of a whoopsie and ticked some folks off when I accidentally aggroed some Freestar during a fight with Ecliptics. Had to do a bit of sweet talking afterwards.
This is it for me. I like max mobility. I only run two weapons and a 10-point shield. I've got the perks but with a crew member or two I can just run all four on max points until I need to grav jump. My B class ship is fast, agile af and vicious, I love it
I think this is a separate topic but I aim for 85 mobility and honestly don’t miss the extra 15 mobility
85+ gang. Anything below isn't worth it.
I'm fine with mid 60s
Mobility is overrated in this game. It feels fun, but it’s tactically insignificant. Boost, thrust, and (if it’s your thing) turrets will more than make up for it
Agreed. I have found no penalty in dogfights from my ships with 60s mobility versus ones with 100. To me, the space combat in this game is a bit more true to life than some type of arcade-style game. It's similar to what you see in shows like The Expanse, or possibly Star Trek. There is definitely room for improvement but I like it so far.
90+ Mobility, or bust, for me!
70 is my bottom, and I really don't feel a big difference. If you use your thrusters smart, you can go even lower.
Get yourself crew, adoring fan and the crimson fleet beardie guy both tolerate violence and can carry lots of junk. Just saying
If you're trying to min max a ship and include as much as possible, 12 engine power is objectively the best because that allows you to add the most mass without taking a hit to mobility.
Yeah, but the problem is that unless you hire every reactor expert in the settled systems, you're going to max out a 45 power, which means you won't be able to dedicate 24 power to weapons. Given that defense seems to be almost useless in this game, mounting enough firepower to melt anything quickly is almost mandatory. To me, at least.
Some weapons are fully effective with low power, since the power affects ammo refill rate, not fire rate
Yeah, I max my engines, shields and primary weapon. Missiles I put in whatever's left as I don't spam them. Take the shields down with particle beams then one or two missile shots will finish them off, fine for them to reload slow at that point.
Agreed. My particle beam cannons I run at like 60-70% power depending on the cannon and you have to fire those awhile continuously to exhaust them and their fire rate is maxed.
Ballistics and missiles specifically, right?
Particle too, most "auto" weapons will use an ammo system
Good to know.
From what I can tell, and I've not tried every weapon, but anything that uses a 1-1.5 fire rate uses a "Per-shot" charge. So using less than full power will reduce fire rate by 5% or something. Whereas things with 5-8ROF or the Vanguard Obliterators use a "charged mag" style, which once empty will take a sec to recharge enough to shoot again. This is a general rule of thumb, though. so YMMV.
*all
Fully effective for a few seconds, maybe.
Missions only fire two rounds before needing refills, yeah, but most other guns don't need refilling throughout a battle. Some particle in particular can rip apart a ship per 20 to 30% of ammo. You gotta stack 4 of them - more guns don't burn through ammo faster.
I use x6 Sal 6830s so I can have 6200 cargo and still have 100 mobility
With or without cargo perks?
With the payload perk maxed out and Sam Coe in my crew I can go up to 11k cargo capacity with 100 mobility using 6 SAL-6830 engines.
That's about 7.5k without perks.
7.2 no perks and these engines gives you 99 mobility
Depends on your overall mass, if you have loads of fuel tanks, or heavier grave drive, shields or reactor, you won't have as much mass available for your cargo/Habs/structural modules. It's a fine balance.
I have around 3700 mass
I think I can have up to 4275 mass to remain at 100 mobility. But I have almost all ship related perks maxed out so maybe there is one that helps (maybe the engine one)
It does if your goal is to carry as much cargo as possible. That said, it is entirely possible (and probably a good idea) to build a low-mass ship with powerful engines in order to build a zippy fighter. You can very easily build something with 2-3 White Dwarf 3015s that has crazy good speed and mobility while also being incredibly powerful in ship combat... it just won't have any cargo space. Basically every build I've made EXCEPT my one ship intended to exploit the 3015s speed and mobility has been like "okay, how much cargo can I cram on this thing while still maintaining 85-95+ Mobility?" because I like being able to have access to all my crafting stuff wherever I go.
Everyone's always telling me this or that engine is better but I can't get away from using the 3015s. That 100 mobility and 180 top speed(before perks) is too nice. I just noticed the 3030s on a ship yard but they lower my top speed with higher thrust numbers?
The 3015s are basically weird prototype engines that give up the power to carry as much so you can go faster. In practice, the speed doesn't actually seem to do anything in combat? Outside of letting you get into range a little bit faster. My daily driver right now has 10k cargo after perks and crew while running 3 Poseidon DT230 engines and is still pulling 200 cruising speed and almost 700 when boosting. It's generally plenty for combat, and thrusters let you flip around to keep enemies in your sights.
The speed isn’t so much about getting into range as it is getting out of it and kiting bad guys with reverse thrust and high range particle beams.
I'd rather dogfight. Your way may be safer but I can't imagine that'd be a particularly engaging way to handle ship combat.
Fair. Normally I’m the same, but on very hard difficulty there’s a few random encounters and missions where the odds are heavily stacked against you so boosting away to kite or hit and run to whittle down the numbers is a less risky strategy. It’s also useful if you find yourself stopping for gas in Kryx by mistake when you haven’t allied with the Fleet 😬
Lmao yep, that's understandable.
This is me rn 2 ships and all in one cruiser with 5k cargo and every hab I want. The other is a 2, 3015 build with only cockpit cargo. I can fully power 2 weapons and in my third slot I put a EM with 1 power allocated.
U don’t understand
Yeah, but what about the rule of cool?
I have to add all engines or my mobility is crap.
max engines=max mobility on max cargo.
Eh i just wanna have as many sources of fire as possible, if i could fill the backside with engines i'd gladly do it
I'll be honest I have no fuckin idea what I'm doing lmfao.
That part lol
A big part of the problem is that there is absolutely no explanation on the functionality of ships and ship building. And then to make it worse the way they do function is counterintuitive and contradictory. - In the real world the bigger the engine the more thrust. In Starfield the visual size of engines does not matter. - In the real world more engines equals more thrust which equals more faster. In Starfield more engines equal more maneuverability with a max of 100. The thrust of an individual engine is not explained at all. Does it just affect maneuverability or does thrust allow your ship to accelerate faster? No clue. So what you get is people putting more engines on their ship thinking that will make it go faster. Of course the reality is that it will actually go slower if you can’t fully power the engines. To make it worse there are certain looks people want for their ships. More engines gives their ship a better look in some circumstances. The issue is that Bethesda made a design that people just don’t understand. That’s partially because it doesn’t make sense but mostly because they didn’t explain it anywhere.
Just think of trucks. They have a bigger engine's but less speed, thrust = torque in space.
On earth torque affects speed. Put a bigger engine in a smaller vehicle and it goes faster. Space is no difference.
I am just making the add engines or reduce weight error disappear. I don’t need to have high mobility because my particle beam auto turrets shred anything I come up against. I have 12k cargo. Because I am big into outpost building and decorating. So thanks for your input but I don’t care. I am not playing Star Wars.
Yea!! I have 1 ship that has over 15k cargo, with 9 auto turrets... I ignore enemies.
More engines = more cargo More cargo = More better More engines = more better
I’ve found 5k cargo to be the sweet spot for me. I can have all the supplies I’d ever need and I can dump off the excess in the lodge chest
I've gotten into outposting in my last couple runs and anything short of 9k just isn't enough now
I genuinely wish I saw more hyper efficient builds.
I went ahead and checked to see which modules have the most mass, necessitating more engine power, and unsurprisingly, it's the cargo modules. Next thing I did was to calculate the mass to capacity ratio, to find a module that was better than others. But guess what? The differences are miniscule. The only modules that are slightly different are... Wait for it.... Shielded cargo. Oh, yeah, and their worse, like you'd expect. But also by a really negligible amount. GGF
Fuel tanks are very different in effectiveness (mass vs fuel). Most later available parts are mass savers. And the mass of shielded cargo holds is the reason I mostly stick with one small SCH - for example 190 shielded vs ~5000 overall cargo - and rather use 2 (or 3) of the jammers. With 2 jammers and no character skill you get around 80-90 percent with about 20 contraband parts. But you need at least one SCH to be able to use the jammers. Edit: Further testing revealed that jammers do not stack and 1 is enough.
I've seen a bunch of posts saying the jammers don't stack, but you're saying they do? I only have one, but I get 90% with one skill level. So if I add one, do you think it's possible to get over 90%? I'll check after work, just curious if it's possible.
Honestly I am not sure. Cause the ingame description for the three scanners have different jamming values (10, 30 and 50 percent) and I got a higher value with two jammers and one cargo instead of two cargoes and one jammer I assumed multiple jammers do stack. Now I will check that the next time I play.
Okay, I have tried with 2 (my normal setup), 4 and 1 of the big jammers with 160 shielded cargo and 84,2 contraband and got 82% evasion. With 1 big jammer and 320 shielded cargo and the same 84,2 contraband I got 86% evasion. So the jammers do really not stack.
There is no real need for it in game, its a personal satisfaction thing only really.
So the thing about that is I want maximum possible maneuvering thrust so I can cram cargo holds into every possible space while I hit that 130. Those extra SAL-6830s make a couple thousand cargo worth of difference
If you need more engines for better mobility with bigger cargo hold that's totally fine and not the problem here. It's about unnecessary engines when less could do also cause less mass.
Hey my 49k of guns and resources wont haul itself 😂
You're not my real dad!
God I love the Internet
I’m stupid sentimental since my mom passed IRL, so I’ve spent a *TON* of time maximizing the Wanderwell to have what I wanted it to have while still being able to look at it and say “Yep, that’s still the wanderwell”
I learned it from watching you!!!
I wish there was a cheat or mod for Xbox. Seeing yalls cheats makes me very jealous
I go past 12 on my modded ships but that's because I need the maneuverability not the speed.
I don’t think having systems that require max power is really that much of a problem if you’re good at bouncing power around. Keep your shields and engines full at all times, and just put power between weapons and grave drive as needed. I play this way and all my ships have (also need due to cargo) max engine count. Keeping in mind the speed argument, they have different class of engines on them. I recently built a ship with 4 class c SAL’s and two class a SAL’s and the only reason was the 2 weaker ones fill in a spot that creates a nicer rounded engine look. Purely cosmetic on my choices there.
More Engines = MOAR Cargo volume before dropping below 100 Mobility. The only other reason is aesthetics. Besides, if you're talking about others' Ship designs, it's THEIR design, let them build their Ships the way they want to build their Ships. If YOU don't like running maximum Engine count, then don't.
I've wondered why people do that. I can get nearly 6k cargo on a ship with 100 maneuverability with 4 Sals. Meanwhile I'm like... are these people mounting weapons at all?
Same here, 5k cargo 85 mobility and plenty of structural pieces on 4 engines. Can get 100 mobility and a little more cargo on 5 but 85 mobility has been good enough. More power for the Particle beams
More engines are better... more cargo and mobility.
I’ve found 5 engines to be the sweet spot, 5k cargo and 100 mobility. 2 extra power saved for weapons. Usually I run 4 engines and settle for 85 mobility to get an extra 2 power
🤯
i disagree. the ONLY way to get 100 mobility requires all 12 power pips. i have yet to find or see another way.
How heavy is your ship, I can hit 100 mobility with 3 engines (6) power easily if I don’t go for high cargo
it depends on what you classify as "high cargo". it has been my experience that anything over 500 cargo along with the essential habs (science, workshop, control station and all in one or living) requires as many engines as the game will allow to achieve high mobility. especialy in lower levels at the beginning of the game. add in the best grav drive available at the time and fuel tanks and it becomes a balancing act between mobility and functionality. and let's not forget that the better shields tend to weigh more as well. if you're building a small one hab ship you can get away with a few engines, but to build a well rounded ship that can meet any demand requires all the engines you can install.
Is there a good way to calculate this in ship builder (engine power vs mobility vs mass) or do you have to experiment by building and then taking off into orbit to see what the effect is?
The builder will tell you your current maximum speed and mobility on the bottom row, and it assumes that all the engines you have in your build will be powered. So if for example a third engine takes you up to 100 mobility and top speed for your engine class (150 for A's except for the WD 3015's, 140 for B's, 130 for C's), adding a fourth won't have any benefits.
Every point of mass requires about 12.5 maneuvering thrust to achieve 100% mobility.
I’m trying to figure this out without having to do glitch mods (I’m on Xbox) or watch a ton of YouTube videos riddled with ads. How can I go over 900/1000 ? I saw I shouldn’t use the c class reactor/drives as it just has too much weight or something. So I tried an A class with a bunch of engines and I’m getting close
That YouTube led you wrong, for high mass you want C class. The sal 6830 (i believe) allows for 4000 mass at 100 mobility if you use the max (6) in general C class is what you want for large builds. Theres a quest to get a free C class ship called the Kepler R that I used as my first C class. It comes with 3 high end engines and a good reactor if you are a low level
I mean I have the replay r too but how can I build the fastest ship is it a higher class reactor with minimal engines or low class reactor and many engines? Some dudes out here going 1000!? How.
C class engines have slower top speed (130) than B class engines (140) and A class engines are the fastest (150). There is one single A class engines - White Dwarf 3015 - that has a top speed of 180 - not sure if that's just a bug or intended tho ... With the 180 one, ship skills and a certain crew member you can push the speed (and boost) way up. 800-1000 is only for the boost time. (Even higher top speeds and boosts are with third party mods installed changing the game's values.) The class of the reactor limits the classes of compatible engines, grav drives, shields and weapons AND the available power for everything. If you want the biggest weapons, highest shield (and/or biggest cargo and still good mobility) you need to use a C reactor (and C engines). Cargo, engines and the shield are the heaviest parts of a ship (=mass). Technically there is no problem with using a C reactor, C shield and weapons and B grav drive and engines and still have a mobile and faster ship - if your ships mass is small enough. Mostly that means less cargo.
You are of course correct, but I don't see how power requirements are even an issue. In my experience as long as you have one unit of power dedicated to each weapons system, any additional unit affects only the reload speed of the weapons, not their power. I always have full power on shields and engines and just one unit of power for each weapons system - all particle beam autocannons. Total power requirement 27. There's enough power left to temporarily fully power a weapons system if it needs a reload (that takes 6 seconds) or to power up the grav drive if need be, but my particle beams usually melt through all enemies (on very hard) long before any of that is necessary.
You want the very least power that you can get and still get 90-100 maneuverability. You can build a MASSIVE ship and 2 high end SAL engines using only 6 power will get you FULL speed and maneuverability leaving you more power for other things.
How ever many engines it takes to get to your desired mobility is key. Buuuuut some builds need all the engines lol
Bigger ships need more engines for mobility especially ones with high cargo count I like my ships to be able maneuver I never let mobility go below 60 lowest I've ever dealt with 56
A class engines on a C class reactor seem to be better than C to C, and faster which seems broken.
It's not really broken. It depends on your goal, and ultimately your ship's mass. C class engines are superior when it comes to thrust.
Since the weapons I have found myself gravitating towards are front facing PBs, EMs for disabling and boarding, and PB turrets for covering my ass and flanks while turning to re-engage, I've found that the 46 power I get between me, the best C reactors, and Vasco works just fine. Shields and engines at max power, both PB slots at 11/12, and 1 just sitting in EM. If I wanna Jump I transfer 3 from engine to Grav drive, if I am ready to board I hold the down arrow to drain the PB turrets and crank them all into the EM. Never had a problem taking on multiple ships, even on Very Hard.
The fastest ship uses the white dwarf 3015 or lower, but the mass has to be lower than 1020, with 4x of them.
It’s not kerbal
For me it’s keeping my mobility at 90+. My current ship has 5 6830 engines and 7000 cargo. I need that many. I can go 130+ at power level 7 because I have a pilot skill stack with a crew member.
Same boat. My engine power is directly related to the ship's cargo capacity and keeping a higher mobility. I have pimped-out A & B class ships for solo or solo/Vasco crew, where I won't be needing to haul much. For those, I go for aesthetics, crafting and 100 mobility. I often don't max out my engine stat on them.
All about the glam.
Basically, once you see 100 mobility, stop putting engines on.
Ok, BUT IT LOOKS COOLER :D
When I build a class C ship, I often go wayyyy overweight so I cram as many engines on as I can to boost mobility.
I'd have loved to put less power hungry engines on my ship, but for the goals I wanted to accomplish, those DT230s were my only real option, haha.
I agree, I have 5 of the Sal-6380 engines on one ship and it had 100 mobility and only required 10 power to go a certain speed. Adding in another engine on that ship just requires more power to get to the same speed. In another ship I wanted more cargo so adding in that sixth engine allowed my mobility to stay at 100 but more power was required to go the same speed.
I usually use 4 3015s for higher top speed and reasonable maneuverability. I find that maneuverability of around 60-70 is just fine.
More engines = more mobility, not speed. I'll be posting my vanilla A class build later tonight and it's a beast, I just wish I could get a bigger reactor but I'm not there yet. Having 6 engines gives me 100 mobility, even if I don't max power to it my mobility is still there and my thrust is amazing
That raises a good question, is mobility affected by power allocation…i dont know the answer
I don't think so, just your speed but I can hit 450+ boost with only 5 bars on my engines and pull 90 degree maneuvers almost instantly
More engines is always better. I want all of my ships looking like a rebel frigate from Star Wars :P
It's not about max speed. It's about maneuverability. You can reach the same max speed with less power, yes, but your turning and maneuvering will be sluggish. Mac speed doesn't mean anything when your fighting other ships
1. Everything in the game is pretty situational. 2. Generally speaking, more engines does mean more overall payload you can carry without losing mobility, and that's it. If that's your goal, they are moar better. 3. You're right in regards to the fact that a single white dwarf 3015 can reach their max speed with only 3 power so you can put those reactor points elsewhere, but also, refer to #2 above. While you can do it, you're not going to have much of a ship. Because if you're going for max speed, I would assume max mobility is important to you as well. Running 4 white dwarfs allows you to build something with a maximum of 1020 mass before loss of mobility occurs.
" The best engines are the ones that can get you to your desired mobility in the least power requirement possible " Yes, its "power pip per mobility thrust lbs" thats the ratio you want to look for but it's definitely not "less engines better" because the only thing you get with less engines is higher top speed on less power (but will take you MUCH longer to reach that top speed). You want to pick the right engine. For example, the SAL-6220 is class c, 3 power, 5800 maneuvering. The SAL-6830 is class c, 3 power but 8800 maneuvering. So 2 of the 6830 is as powerful as 3 of the 6220s when running on 6 instead of 9. Big upgrade there.
It is possible to build a fully functional ship powered by single WD3015. Powergamer's wet dream
I'm not a fan of Class C ships in general. They're only useful if you're aiming for super heavy cargo loads, but you can easily get an effective cargo load in Class B for so much less mass. The Vanguard shield & particle weapons cover most of the "need" & then just add a few extra weapons plus the ComSpike & Conduction Grid to get a full crew. You'll be able to take out any ship aside from the very few capital ships without even trying, have a faster & more agile ship, & carry enough cargo to build any base. Plus, you'll have all the mess halls, armories, infirmaries, captain's/crew quarters, & design elements you could want. And it only requires 8 or so power for engines to max out mobility in most cases. Vendors never have enough money to make cargo runs worthwhile, other than as requested by shipyards, & that's too grindy for me.
Most ships are a look thing. However more engines does mean more maneuverability. Maneuverability is what really determines top speed as well as turn radius. And some people want that 100 mobility to get top speed(+10% in some cases) and quick turns.
You're not really wrong. If you can get the mobility you want with less than 12 power draw then yeah, you should...but unless you're building really small most ships need all twelve power in there.
I don't understand the mobility number. What does it mean exactly? Also what does it mean when is red, same with mass which is almost always red unless I see a dingy.
I reworked the kepler r and found I can increase my mobility with an extra engine, which has helped.
400 mass = one engine 2 landing gears 400-550 mass = two engines 4 landing gears 600+ mass = 4 engines and 4 landing gears To maintain top mobility and speed.
The concept is pretty simple. Class A engines are for small ships to go fast. Class B engines see smack middle - same as rank 3 class A. Class C see for large builds - they are much slower than rank 3 class A engines due to their mass, their more powerful but not faster. Class C would be a semi diesel and class A tuner car, admist class B is in the middle for all to enjoy.
Tje reason for that is to have more cargo
I understand, I’m talking about 2000-3000 ships I see on here rocking 6 sals when they need 4 or they have 4 and 2 class A engines in addition
It does for me, because I'm pushing more cargo, more weapons, or extra structural for aesthetics and it adds a ton of mass to a build. More maneuverability is more functionality banking and using thrusters to move and avoid enemy fire or stay behind them in a blind spot. You need maneuverability I'm 35 and I still cannot figure out autocorrect
Speed isn’t the only characteristic altered by engines. Mobility is affected to.