Passive thermal detection of missiles

[Person012345]

I suspect its a bug, but EP really doesn't effect fuel consumption in the latest:

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/692/96058272.jpg/
The setup for that is 4 ships with 450 tons each, one with a NTE drive, one with an NPE drive, one with an ion drive, and one with a photonic drive, all baseline military, over one day they all consume 48 litres of fuel, except the ion drive which consumes double that for some reason.

likewise the testing I've done with commercial ,FAC, and fighter drives has them stay the same. I'd have reported this as a bug but 5.7 looks like its going to fix it.

Where are you getting that from? Your screenshot shows that one will burn through it's 50,000 litre reserves in 520 days and the other will do it in 833 days. Am I missing something?

Edit: Unless you mean you've done a practical test of one day. In which case, it might be an idea to test how far they can actually go. If they both have the stated range, then they're using fuel correctly. If not then I'm sure it's a bug.

[Theokrat]

Where are you getting that from? Your screenshot shows that one will burn through it's 50,000 litre reserves in 520 days and the other will do it in 833 days. Am I missing something?

Edit: Unless you mean you've done a practical test of one day. In which case, it might be an idea to test how far they can actually go. If they both have the stated range, then they're using fuel correctly. If not then I'm sure it's a bug.

Well the "maintenance" tab seems to indicate that both ships are 48 litres short of their maximum, presumably having both run one day.

The Ark Royal however should use 96 litres a day at top speed and 37 litres at its current speed of 1722 km/s.
The Agincourt should use 60 litres a day at top speed and 54 litres at its current speed of 2500 km/s.

So if both ships ran at their current speeds for one day, starting with full fuel tanks, than they should not both be 48 litres short. Then again all sorts of funny things seem to be going on with the crew and casualties, so I would not know what "should" happen to fuel requirements in that case.

 

[Person012345]

Ok, I tested it, and the two designs do have the correct (and same) range, so fuel consumption must be working properly on a macro level at least.

Edit: Is there a chance that something regarding fuel is calculated on the 5-day increment to "correct" the fuel usage? If he only advanced one day then it wouldn't have shown.

Edit:
Wait, wait, stupid question (but sometimes the stupid things are the ones you don't see), you weren't flying them in the same task group were you?

[Person012345]

It's working correctly for me:

http://puu.sh/X4D7

http://puu.sh/X4DK

1 day increment.

[Charlie Beeler]

I suspect its a bug, but EP really doesn't effect fuel consumption in the latest:

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/692/96058272.jpg/
The setup for that is 4 ships with 450 tons each, one with a NTE drive, one with an NPE drive, one with an ion drive, and one with a photonic drive, all baseline military, over one day they all consume 48 litres of fuel, except the ion drive which consumes double that for some reason.

likewise the testing I've done with commercial ,FAC, and fighter drives has them stay the same. I'd have reported this as a bug but 5.7 looks like its going to fix it.

Take a look at the class design screen.  I suspect that you will find a fraction hull space difference.  The ship display screens show rounded integer values only. 

[Person012345]

Take a look at the class design screen.  I suspect that you will find a fraction hull space difference.  The ship display screens show rounded integer values only. 

That shouldn't matter. If the engines had different fuel usages a one day increment should show a difference in fuel usage. Regardless of size.

My working theory is that perhaps he split off the slower ship and forgot to "max" the faster one's speed, thus they travelled at the same speed (decreasing fuel usage for the faster ship as compared to travelling full speed).

[Nathan_]

My working theory is that perhaps he split off the slower ship and forgot to "max" the faster one's speed, thus they travelled at the same speed (decreasing fuel usage for the faster ship as compared to travelling full speed).

Ah yes, thats it. My mistake everyone, and thanks for helping me clear that up.