Fuel Usage observation

[captainfred]

Ok, haven flown a number of missions, I found that a major issues noted were that:

1. Fighters use up the fuel way to fast. I did a mission whereby I had to navigate 9 nav points on the surface of one of the planets, only to find out the fuel quantity left over was not enough to return back to the carrier. The fuel usage is way too fast.

2. I would've thought that whilst in space when the engines were disengaged that no fuel would be used exept very minimal when translating. However that's not the case. It appears that fuel gets used up when all the systems are operational even if the engines are cut off. I would've thought that the other systems onboard would be run on electric power [&:]

These anomalies need to be looked at and possibly fixed in the next patch.

Otherwise, very enjoyable game [8D]

[Jepep Hepep]

I've always wondered myself why gliding through space with engines on idle uses so much fuel. Other than that I can live with the relatively low amount of fuel onboard, drop tanks would be a great addition, however.

[Kuokkanen]

ORIGINAL: captainfred

1. Fighters use up the fuel way to fast. I did a mission whereby I had to navigate 9 nav points on the surface of one of the planets, only to find out the fuel quantity left over was not enough to return back to the carrier. The fuel usage is way too fast.

Don't use augmenter (afterburner) so much.

[captainfred]

ORIGINAL: Matti Kuokkanen
Don't use augmenter (afterburner) so much.

I didn't but having said that, your engines need to have thrust to fly in the atmosphere unless you wanna crash. The fuel usage rate is way too unrealistic especially when in space. Fuel should not be used up when engines are disengaged. And there's no way that onboard systems consume fuel to operate. Power generators serve that purpose.

[Incendiary Lemon]

If you make use of the "Auto" Function then you'll burn far more fuel than otherwise. You also burn more fuel more quickly with the arcade physics.

[captainfred]

ORIGINAL: Incendiary Lemon

If you make use of the "Auto" Function then you'll burn far more fuel than otherwise. You also burn more fuel more quickly with the arcade physics.

Granted, but that's only when the Auto function catches up to the preset speed. After that, it should not use the fuel when the engines are disengaged. Also I don't use the arcade flight model, I use the Newtonian flight model.

Thanks for all your responses regarding in "what not to do" but having been in real jets myself, I'm telling you that the fuel consumption rate is way off the mark and that fuel does not operate the electrical systems.

[Incendiary Lemon]

Fuel is definitely gamey. I wish that Milo could take a look at the consumption during Auto sequences. If your playing with Newtonian physics then yes you shouldn't be burning much if any.

[Werewolf]

I, too, wondered about where my fuel was going while I was Newtonian, Manual, drifting through space with no engine power applied and no thrusters in use. I just drift there with 4x acceleration and it burns fuel. A lot of fuel.

Captainfred: Um, I thought that on jet planes, fuel operates the turbines, which drive a generator to produce electrical power, no? At least I know I'm switching from external or battery power to the generator when starting up my F16 in F4AF

[captainfred]

ORIGINAL: Werewolf

I, too, wondered about where my fuel was going while I was Newtonian, Manual, drifting through space with no engine power applied and no thrusters in use. I just drift there with 4x acceleration and it burns fuel. A lot of fuel.

Captainfred: Um, I thought that on jet planes, fuel operates the turbines, which drive a generator to produce electrical power, no? At least I know I'm switching from external or battery power to the generator when starting up my F16 in F4AF

Granted but there's battery backup available otherwise you could not restart the turbines if for argument sake your turbines cut out during a jet wash incident. The F16 in F4AF (which I do have myself) is that much more realistic.[;)] In SS, the fuel gets used up no matter what. [:(]

[Werewolf]

That's certainly true about the F16, and I agree that the fuel consumption during drifting in space is way too much for my taste.

[Kuokkanen]

ORIGINAL: captainfred

And there's no way that onboard systems consume fuel to operate. Power generators serve that purpose.

Guess what keeps those generators running? [;)]

having been in real jets myself, I'm telling you that the fuel consumption rate is way off the mark

Jets you say? Jet engines operate only in atmosphere and are totally unusable in space (no air). Better comparison would be done with rocket engines.

[captainfred]

ORIGINAL: Matti Kuokkanen
Guess what keeps those generators running? [;)]

Battery backup when engines are cut off [;)]

ORIGINAL: Matti Kuokkanen
Jets you say? Jet engines operate only in atmosphere and are totally unusable in space (no air). Better comparison would be done with rocket engines.

Same principle applies. You cannot cut off the engines whilst in the atmosphere. The fighter would drop to the surface like a rock therefore you cannot preserve fuel whether it is a jet engine or a rocket engine. Besides I can't see much difference between a jet engine and a rocket engine with the exception that one has more thrust and has a different fuel element.

I don't know why you guys defend the fuel usage ratio, I really can't[&:] You cannot fly to the surface, attack ground targets, then have a fantastic dog fight with incoming enemy fighters, then throw in the afterburners so that you can get back into space as normal engine power does not get you out of the atmosphere, then get back to the carrier with engines cut off only to find that this little bit of fuel you had left is burned up because life support, sensors and any other electrical item needs fuel to keep the fighter flying??? Get real!!!

I don't care if it's a rocket engine or whatever, the fuel usage is a load of bullocks.

[Dragonlead]

One of the nice things about this game is its moddability. Since I also found the fuel consumption thing to be very limiting, all my jets have a 3 hr fuel endurance built in. Since I also hate watching my fighters go drifting off into space with unrepairable damage, I have given my little friends a self-repair capability. This doesn't always save them, but it does help.

V/R

[Incendiary Lemon]

Minor self repair is a cool feature (ala FS2). A few moments hoping no one is paying you mind while you get your engines restarted.

[Sphynx]

It's kind of funny to hear you guys talking about this, because it sounds like a tottaly different experience than what I have had. I haven't run out of fuel yet, and I use the afterburners rather generously.
 
Oh, just one thing that may help, Captain Fred. If you use the autonav feature to acheive orbit, you don't need to use afterburners. That may help preserve some fuel for you.
 
At the same time, I want to post that it's great to have a game where you can worry about decending into an atmosphere, running a ground assault, flying back into space, and having a furball of a dogfight and have to worry about the fuel. I guess it's a blessing and a curse at times.  This wide range of experiences is one of my favorite things about the game.

[Kuokkanen]

ORIGINAL: captainfred

I can't see much difference between a jet engine and a rocket engine with the exception that one has more thrust and has a different fuel element.

Did you forgot something? Like rocket engine eats a lot more fuel? Besides I have nuked airfield while dog fighting enemy fighters (ok, I shot few on runway) and I had no problems with fuel.

it's great to have a game where you can worry about decending into an atmosphere, running a ground assault, flying back into space, and having a furball of a dogfight and have to worry about the fuel. I guess it's a blessing and a curse at times.

Now when you mention it, real mission of real fighters can take several hours but missions in Starshatter are usually less than ½ hour (without time skip). I guess lack of fuel is there to balance this out.

[onegoodman]

How far are you lot actually flying out to use up all the fuel, and whats your flight time?

[wolferz]

The fuel usage is way off the mark and it has nothing to do with how far out we fly.

Running a standard sweep of five 50 km nav points at 250 M/s without autonav and you can watch the fuel running out, even with engines cut off.
It's definitely borked.

[Nigel Strange]

I have noticed that the regular, non-augmented thrust seems way underpowered, so in order to get the kind of thrust you would expect from a small fighter, you tend to use the augmenter a lot. In the air, the waypoints are set to be reached at 750 clicks. That's pretty fast, and if you don't have the augmenter on, even with the max non-augmented thrust, you're still bleeding speed. Seems like the engines ought to be powerful enough to keep you in the air without the augmenter burning all your fuel! It seems that conversion to nukular technology has not done much to make the fuel consumption more efficient...makes one wonder why we didn't stick to old-fashioned rocket fuel.
 
On a side note, I would like to remove the speed cap. In Newtonian flight, there shouldn't be one. If you're foolhardy enough not to take your speed into account when you smack into an atmosphere, that's your own lookout. I'm not a programmer, though, so I wonder if there's a config file somewhere I could tweak that would do the job.

[Kuokkanen]

ORIGINAL: Nigel Strange

makes one wonder why we didn't stick to old-fashioned rocket fuel.

Do you know how space shuttles operate? They go straight up, take orbit and there is most of the fuel spent. After that shuttle has very little fuel to make few corrections on course and return to atmosphere. Back on the atmosphere engines are turned off and only course for shuttle is down towards landing field.

On Starshatter Stormhawk can enter to atmosphere, make fighting where MOST of fuel is spent and use remaining to get back to orbit.

On a side note, I would like to remove the speed cap. In Newtonian flight, there shouldn't be one.

I want it removed too, but milo's opinion is that ships would get too fast and gameplay too difficult. After playing I've Found Her I have no objections.