Aircraft research

[rig99]

Here is some research on aircraft design I've been doing to help me make better design decisions. The importance of each input variable on the charts was derived from the game's internal logic and seem obvious in hindsight. The values in the data tables originated from the debug mode tables.

se_aircraft_final_metrics.png (89.43 KiB) Viewed 510 times

This shows the importance of each input variable by different types of flight metrics.

Here are some immediate things I see:
Distance (based on MaximumDistance and CruiseEfficiency)
-Extra fuel may be worth the added weight
-Keep size small but wingspan large if possible
-Engine Efficiency very important
-Engine Power not important
-Dont bother on planets with high gravity and low air pressure

Fighting (based on DogfightingScore and ManeuverResponsiveness)
-Keep weight down, wingspan large, and aerodynamics up
-Engine Power and low weight of most importance

se_aircraft_metrics_by_role.png (51.59 KiB) Viewed 510 times

This shows the importance of each variable by aircraft role.



Here are some data tables with techs sorted by different efficiency ratios.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... drive_link

In the tables, anytime you see something like chk(226, STAT.505/2,1,5) that means sqrt(STAT505/2)*5. Ignore the 1. STAT.505 in this case means aircraft length so this is saying sqrt(aircraftLength/2)*5.
Likewise dth(4,16) means roll 4 16-sided dice.

If you have any questions or want the full database to dive into yourself let me know.

[Don_Kiyote]

OP, I wrote a nice, full, complete, and thoughtful reply, but the website ate it

So from memory: First, thanks, looks good, and professionally presented.

Next, I don't see how you use the data presented to support your conclusions. For example, "Dont bother on planets with high gravity and low air pressure" is the conclusion, but in your data charts, both of those variable have a positive effect on the stats you've plotted them against, and their magnitude is about the same.

Anyways, not gonna write the whole thing again, but lastly: What I really want to know as a gamer is how the available techs and specific models types stack up against each other on the current planet conditions. So, in the case of 'high-g, low Pascals', do I focus towards rocket engines, or high-efficiency multi-engine aircraft?

peace

[rig99]

For example, "Dont bother on planets with high gravity and low air pressure" is the conclusion, but in your data charts, both of those variable have a positive effect on the stats you've plotted them against, and their magnitude is about the same.

I think what is happening is that the color for aerodynamics color is being confused for gravity. Maximum Distance, for example, shows that high air pressure and aerodynamics are good contributors while high gravity is bad. I can see now that it is especially confusing with the hashmark changing the effective shade of the color.

[Don_Kiyote]

Maximum Distance, for example, shows that high air pressure and aerodynamics are good contributors while high gravity is bad.

Disclaimer: I'm not an engineer. My most relevant schooling on this subject has been lessons on hull planing speed in the context of a sailboat hull, for an instructors course. That and grade 10 Physics. But I prefer to think about what the conditions in this game should be, or should approximate, than just what the game rules offer, regardless of real-world physics.

So in the real world, higher air pressure means more buoyancy, just like how salt water will carry a boat higher out of the water than fresh water, because the salt content increases its density. But an airplane maintains altitude not primarily through buoyancy like a dirigible, but through lift, which depends on the pressure difference between the underside and top side of a wing, just as how a triangular sail generates thrust.

But I haven't mentioned drag yet. Suppose drag increases linearly with the density of the medium, while buoyancy increases with it's square root. I don't believe atmospheric density would affect lift. So a planet with 2Bars of atmospheric pressure at ground level, should require twice the power to move the same distance (p=f x d), to the extent that all force is assumed to be spent overcoming air drag.

Twice the power means twice the fuel to travel an equal distance on this planet versus on earth, or a 1Bar planet (in the same plane). Buoyancy gains would be negligible, a tiny fraction, at 2Bar.

Aerodynamics would be effective at reducing this, but but even halving drag would still only result in a range equal to a 1Bar planet.

So if you are saying high air pressure increases range, In SE, I think that is the wrong way to simulate flight. High air pressure should have a strongly negative effect on range. I would expect it too.

What the appropriate aircraft design for these planets would be is a good question too.

-----

I mean, this is an incredibly challenging area of physics. But I would like to see it captured accurately.

Here's a bit from a related post on r/sailing I whipped up as an example:

[The power requirement] depends on the hull's shape, but generally you can estimate this by taking the power speed relation which states that power is proportionate to velocity cubed.

So, if you can get 5.5 kts on an 50 HP engine, you would need around 400 HP to reach 11 kts.

Disclaimer: this is an estimate as the drag coefficient is often also a function of velocity

u/albowiem at https://www.reddit.com/r/sailing/commen ... t_take_to/