Ofcourse it does have everything to do with movements in Aurora.
Actually no it doesn't. This is a falisy that many new players fall into because there isn't really a published outline of baseline game concepts, it's left up to the veterans of the board to pass these concepts on. In this case it is that movement is inertialess and reactionless. This results in no acceleration or turn mode concerns like so many other space simulations. This was done to keep the support programming very simple.
The ship is moving faster which we all agree is off great value, to acomplish this while still not burning any more fuel is indeed an increase in efficiency, but that extra efficiency is spent on increasing speed.
You are ignoring the merit and value of this speed gain and the fact that it in practice easilly can be interchanged for a huge increase in fuel efficiency if the designer of the next generation engine chooses to do so.
Actually I'm ignoring nothing. What I've taken issue with is what and how you counter posted Ian's conclusion.
Specifically, you quote Ian's first paragraph
No matter what flavour of engine you use for an identical power output you consume the same amount of fuel per Engine Power Hour. What this means is that a conventional engine is as fuel efficient as a Magneto-plasma drive, just you can generate more power in the same space. There is no improvement in fuel efficiency as your engine tech improves.
and then attempt refute his observation by
That's actually not quite right.
Let's assume you devote 33% of your ships weight to engines. A more advanced engine that can provide the same power output for half the weight will lead to a more fuel efficient design as your ship just got 16.5% lighter without losing anything.
The lighter ship will go faster but consume the same amount of fuel per hour, thus being more fuel efficient. The bigger engines you use in your designs the bigger this effect will be.
Now I will admit that at first blush it appears that Ian is talking about fully developed ship engines and not just the engine drive tech. But, when the entire statement is taken into account it becomes obvious that the subject is engine drive tech to the exclusion of fuel consumption and power modifier tech's. By specifying only drive tech as the subject, variable engine size is no longer factored into the conclusion. This is further reinforced when he specifies "more power in the same space". At this point it is very clear that one underlying tech is the subject and not implementation of the various tech's available for engine design.
At this point if you had stated you understood these limitations and where then expanding to engine design to point out that additional tech changes to fuel consumption were not needed I'd have had no problem. But you instead state that Ian's obeservation/conclusion is in error and go outside the scope he set in making it in the first place.
As many have already pointed out a next gen engine with the same power output, size and same fuel effeciency tech would have significantly better fuel efficiency/fuel economy. In the Aurora the universe this is what matters when we build our ships.
Never said differently. As outlined above it's also off point.
I acknowledge your theoretical point, but what we are trying to say is that it doesn't matter because in practice more advanced engines will let you design more fuel efficient engines without losing anything, both through a design using a lower fuel burn ratio, or through a design using less space. If More advanced engines also gave you a direct bonus to fuel efficiency then that tech line would become even more powerful and overpowered, it already lets you design better engines (in whatever area you choose to improve) for Starships, Fighters, FACs and Missiles, I think it's powerful enough.
It's not theoretical, it's fundimental Aurora mechanics and the rebutals are off point. As a seperate discussion about engine design and tech impact on fuel consumption you would be correct.
