No!
I'm sorry Professor Chaos, but your fuel suggestion in its entirety. It sounds like too much additional complication, customization, and micromanagement. K-I-S-S.

Also, even if you sold preset ship configurations, simply having the option AVAILABLE would make people try to figure it out ASAP, which would scare away some newbs because of all the little details one could attend to; additionally, it would almost have to either fall in the category of being nearly pointless (if buying preset ship configs worked 95% as well as custom rigs) or into the category of necessary knowledge to adequately compete with other players.

Question, teacher!(Sorry, couldn't resist.)

First, does it take liquid fuel to decelerate? Semantics, I know, but what is one man's acceleration is another man's deceleration.

Secondly, why care about fuel efficiency at all if reactors use hydrogen fuel that last for weeks on end? Most ships I've used don't live longer than a week- and if they do, they live in storage.

Thirdly, can't-change-course is still bad. You do not keep your speed once you warp- it's set for 40m/s out if I remember right. Might be 50m/s. And just how, prithee, doth thine hapless pilot proceed to a ye olde station to refuel if they cannot change course? Once you warp into a sector you are very very very rarely, if ever, set up to drift right into a station dock. Thine hapless pilot would be forever lost in the inky dark of space.

The problem with fuel is the "What happens when you run out?" question. I have yet to see a solution involving it which is at the very least not more annoying than an ion storm.

Now, on the pseudoscience concerning gravitation drives: The drives themselves "latch" onto spacetime and drag themselves around that way- reducing the energy needed to change course(Although limiting the speed of a ship at the same time) and enable ships to do all sorts of crazy maneuvers while still being efficient.

LostCommander: It's all about learning curve, level of involvement, and options. Less experienced players can buy the preset version, which would be equipped adequately to make trading runs with low to mid grade weaponry depending on the license level of the player. To encourage the buying of the preset version, the price would be a bit less than the price of the ship plus its equipment seperately. This is realistic, things are sold this way in real life. Then for those of us who like to tinker with stuff, you can get more into the details and swap stuff out. The interface wouldn't have to be hard. I don't know what kind of computer you use, but something like Apple's website where you have a list of customizeable parts with dropdown menus with the available options listed with the price of adding the part. The only thing difficult about this is getting to know your ship well enough to tell the difference in handling to get the balance you want just right. Escape Velocity sold all its ships preconfigured, and EVNova had multiple presets you could upgrade to, or you could just sell all your stuff and equip whatever you want. It wasn't hard, it just took a few tries to decide what works best.

Scuba: All course changes are acceleration, deceleration is negative acceleration. Accelerating, decelerating, and thrusting to change course, any time the main engine is used it would burn fuel. This would not affect the way flight-assist functions.

Fuel efficiency wouldn't be a huge concern for the reactor, just for the main engine that actually burns fuel (combustion) instead of fusing it. The big factors for the engine would be cost, weight, power output, and size, since not all sizes fit all. I'm not up on my nuclear physics (I just got the name Professor Chaos from South Park), I don't know what's realistic for hydrogen usage in a fusion reactor. It may just be that only a station with a supply of hydrogen (not likely to not be the case) can make and sell a reactor (other materials would also be necessary, of course), and you don't ever need to refuel it. The fuel efficience comes in to play big time with the main engine that maneuvers you around space.

Thanks for the info on speed after warp. It would add to strategy if you kept your speed, I think. You CAN change course, at any time. You misunderstood or I was unclear. You could, with practice, make it so you don't have to change course unless you're headed for a collision. You set out from a station, orient yourself, burn to achieve your desired speed, and you're good to go. No more burn, no more fuel use until you need to change course, at wormholes and your destination. You warp to the wormhole sector, burn to correct your course to head for the wormhole, then use the wormhole. Warping/wormhole draws from battery charge like it does now, as does turbo, since that's not propulsion, just a directional distortion of space/time that shortens the distance between you and your goal*. THAT is when you can't change course, when you're turboing, just like now. You use the wormhole, warp to the next one and burn to get to that one and use it, and then warp to your destination sector. Then you turn your ship around and burn to slow down, and burn to change course to dock.

Here's a cool trick that could work with this system, since it doesn't take burning liquid fuel to warp. If you run out of this fuel, you are naturally at the mercy of whatever your course is at the moment. If you're not headed toward imminent collision with an asteroid, you can hit the warp button when you're at the appropriate distance, and you can still warp around the universe, you're just stuck with your course and speed within that sector. You could use this to get to a less unfriendly sector (can't change course to get to a wormhole) if you need to and call for help. Since players may not help, NPCs can help as I suggested before, your SSS.

*By the way, this would work better if turbo multiplied your non-turbo speed instead of giving you a fixed speed.

I am against using liquid fuel as means of standard intra-sector propellant. It just wouldn't make sense, because then you'd have to make every ship at least ten times as big (okay, that's exaggerating. My point still stands, though). The gravitic pulse drive is actually a very elegant solution.

However, I would welcome a finite fuel supply for turbo, with exceptions (larger craft can hold larger engines, thus making the need for actual boosters obsolete). This has beens suggested many timesas well, and shot down just as often.

I haven't got an idea how much hydrogen per unit of energy/power would be necessary in a fusion reactor, either, and my guess is that there is no reasonable number, due to the fact that there are no large-scale employments of these yet.

Still at least right now and in the middle-term, I say no to finite fuel. Let's let the devs finish the other stuff first.

K.I.S.S.

As much as I realize that's a favourite tidbit of advice for paternal type discussions, I personally don't think it should be taken at face value for gaming experiences. While I agree it might be relevant for fundamental issues such as coding and such, I don't think that K.T.G.S.S. (keeping the gameplay simple stupid ) really makes for a good game. Perhaps it might for some, but I personally would rather have as many options to bring a game as close to realism as possible.

I also disagree with your argument that complexity will scare of new players. Again, using myself as an example, the qualities I look for in a game include the fact that there is a lot to learn, thus providing myself with a long and rich learning curve. While I'm not necessarily arguing for all of PC's ideas, I do think the fundamental idea of a richly diverse system of fuel governace, that reflects the realities of the various ore and gas deposits in each system, along with the dynamic economy that is planned (and would be a necessary first step), would make for a much more rewarding gaming experience.

Basically, I'm trying to refrain from any specific suggestions concerning implementation, given my complete lack of mathematic and analytic imagination, and the abundance of those who do possess this skill. All I am arguing for is the basic concept:

Gameplay. Dynamic economy. Limited Fuel (again, fuel being analogous for whatever RP element one decided upon). Fuel refineries. etc, etc.

Hmm, realism?

Limited Fuel (especially combustible liquid or solid fuel for newtonian propulsion) would require enormous tanks or bunkers.
Not to mention that it would figure into both total ship mass as well as mass distribution (which opens up other fields of discussion).

Why not apply the KISS principle on this one and complexify other areas of the game?

Because I think that this is one of the areas of the game that might benefit from some complexity?

Energy management is an issue in contemporary times, and regardless of what fantastical thinkers believe about the never ending supply of this and that, is going to be an issue in the future. Whether because of natural causes or economic ones.

As I stated previously, I personally believe that the simple fact that one could possibly run out of fuel adds a level to game play that is not there.

I'm not saying it has to be something as annoying as ION storms. I'd be very happy if it was something that most people didn't even think about: recharge, lasts you for a long time, bam. Sort of like once you upgrade in EV.

BUT! for instance: LEts say you are being pursued by a pirate (you being a trader), you can choose to extend your last nit of fuel for some extra intra-system boost, hence allowing you to escape past the 1000m barrier so that said pirate cannot track you.

Alas! You've escaped said pirate thanks to your fuel cell
s extra energy, but your sector jump system is waiting paitently for you to get outside of the required radius from asteroid spheres to jump. Damn, you're safe, but you've got to call for help.....

...sorry for the grammar... slightly durnk...

Professor Chaos, I feel very confident in saying the majority of the player base is quite uninterested in needing to use terminology such as "burns", controlled or otherwise, as those went out of fashion about two millenia ago when that was the only way to get around Terra/Sol I.

Toshiro, you can get "reasonable" realistic numbers for hydrogen-per-energy by using E=MC^2 and the mass differential (which is the basis for nuclear reaction energy potential) and giving our reactor's a % efficiency (I would suggest 80% because I like it). I'll go ahead and get you some numbers in a moment here because I feel like it and am curious.

KISS should be applied to all common facets of gameplay to provide a smooth and non-annoying user experience. For VO, this includes all aspects of flight and cargo management.
MIIS (Make It Interesting) should be applied to areas of character definition/description and character development. This facilitates differentiation among characters and their capabilities, and generally gives players a feeling of satisfaction, seeing their character as "special" - their own.

Why do so many people bring up realism?

http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/index.html

A better discussion of realism in space flight/combat you are not likely to find. You'll also see that hardly anything in VO is realistic.

Why start pretending that it is? If keeping it simple will enhance gameplay, do it. If adding complexity will help gameplay, then do that.
But when you start with something that has very little to do with reality in the first place, using realism as a guidepost isn't necessarily a good idea.

-Killerfurby

Hmm... since english is not my first language, I sometimes encounter difficulties when trying to discuss scientific topics with others. What exactly is the mass differential? The (absolute) difference in mass between hydrogen and helium atom?

Assuming that's what it is, I didn't know the E = m c² actually applies for nuclear fusion. You learn something new every day, I guess.

Please, you do the math, I'm too busy studying thermodynamics... stupid exams.

Other than that, I'm still against forcing players to worry about Fuel. Not even EV made you worry about it, in a way, since they had ramscoops from the beginning. PLUS, EV and all its sequels are single player games, which does make a difference.

Okay, the following is LostCommander's guess for a VO fusion reactor:

It will be using D-T (deuterium-tritium) or D-D fuel-cycle reactions. The former would also require the use of lithium for tritium breeding (fuel would have to be refined before use) and would produce waste (that stations would need to pay to get rid of).
Allowing players to select which fuel they wished to use would give 2 choices -- D-T being radioactive and more refined (more expensive), but more energetic. We could then either assume reactors could use both fuels optimally (follow D-D opt), or that they use a single pressure and volume (follow D-D min), or that there are two reactor types (D-D reactors can only use D-D fuel but follow D-D opt; D-T reactors can use both fuels, but follow D-D min when they try to use D-D fuel).

Using 1 eV = 1.602 176 53 ×10⁻¹⁹ J
D-T = 17.6 MeV = 2.819 830 69 ×10⁻¹² J
D-D opt = 3.65 MeV = 5.847 944 33 ×10⁻¹³ J
D-D min = 0.258 823 53 MeV = 4.146 809 85 ×10⁻¹⁴ J

Using Avogadro's = 6.0221415 ×10²³ :: D = 2.013 553 212 70 u :: T = 3.016 0492 u
D-T fuel = 5.029 602 4127 u
- Energy Production
D-T = 2.819 830 69 ×10⁻¹² J / 5.029 602 4127 u * (1 u / 1.660 538 86 ×10⁻²⁷) kg
= 337.629 459 743 00 ×10¹² J/kg
D-D opt = 5.847 944 33 ×10⁻¹³ J / 4.027 106 4254 u * (1 u / 1.660 538 86 ×10⁻²⁷) kg
= _87.450 254 812 20 ×10¹² J/kg
D-D min = 4.146 809 85 ×10⁻¹⁴ J / 4.027 106 4254 u * (1 u / 1.660 538 86 ×10⁻²⁷) kg
= __6.201 146 207 56 ×10¹² J/kg

Hydrogen has a density of 0.09 kg/m³ at STP.
Deuterium has a density of 0.18 kg/m³ at STP.
Tritium has a density of 0.27 kg/m³ at STP.

This would basically require a redux of how energy works because a Behemoth's engine's 50 energy turbo yields 500N while a Rev-C, um yeah...

[Edit: For comparision
Jet Fuel = 44 ×10³ J/kg
Liquid Hydrogen = 120 ×10³ J/kg
A-50 propellant w/ N₂O₄ oxidizer = 4.9 ×10⁶ J/kg (circa 1997) ]

It would either require adapting the numbers to the ships as they currently are, or introduce a new balance. Regardless of what you do, it's loads of work.

edit: Oh, and: To make super-/ subscripts, use this:

x^ {2} -> x² (leave out the space between circonflexe and curly bracket in the left one)

and

x_ {a} -> x_a (same, leave out space between underscore and bracket).

Toshiro, you're doing fine. The mass differential (which might be the wrong official term) in an exothermic [energy producing] nuclear reaction is the difference between the initial mass of the components and the final mass of the products. The energy released from the reaction is equal to the mass lost in the reaction, which was converted to energy at E=MC^2; M is probably very small, but C^2 is huge.

Yeah, lots of work...

Also you guys forget something. No one burns fuel in space! You just eject a gaz that's all.

Anyhow fuel is a bad idea especially at a present time where you have bout 40 players playing at one time. Calling for help would REALLY suck. What am I supposed to do during the 30 mins that it takes my guilde mate to get from Deneb to Sedina?

Zed1985: "No one burns fuel in space!"
Incorrect! The hotter the ejected gas, the more acceleration you get from it by weight, thus it is CRITICAL to heat the ejectant as high as possible! Also, burning things is only what happens to combustible fuels -- i.e. not fusion. Also, as Snax_28 has tried to point out, this is a discussion of the idea of introducing fuel eventually, with "fuel" defined as any finite limitation on the amount of energy a ship possesses at a single point in time.

Oh, AND gravitic engine technology means that not only do we not burn combustible fuels (like solid or liquid propellents), but we don't *have* to eject anything either.

personally i like the idea of fuel for intera systremn jumps and possably wormehole activation, but not for normal manuvering.

Excuse me if this has been said already exists, I read most of the thread but it seemed more about how fuel works so I just thought i'd post.

If you did implement fuel to make electricity or just electricity as fuel kinda thing it should charge slowly as per solar panels or that kinda thing although I've not noticed and sun's in the game. Also some kind of tractor beam thingie should be introduced for stranded people.

well actually a tractor beam would be fun anyway if its not already introduced as maybe a way to tow more cargo ?

Sorry or thanks whichever applies :D

Tractor beam has been suggested, and I like the idea.

I've been pushing a dual fuel system: A reactor/battery pair (reactor charges battery) that powers everything electronic from weapons to turbo to warping; and combustible liquid fuel for moving around in-system. The reactor would rarely need fuel, and would use refined hydrogen. The liquid fuel would need to be refilled more often, and use a combination of chemicals such as liquid oxygen.

LostCommander is right about burning fuel, the hotter the particles the more energy they have, and the more thrust they produce. Terminology such as "burns" would not be a problem, VO terminology will evolve naturally.

You should never wait 30 minutes for in-flight refueling. If you run out of fuel, and your guild-mate is too far, message the nearest station and they'll send an NPC to give you fuel (for a price a bit above normal fuel cost). Or, and this is quite likely depending on where you run out of fuel, you will be destroyed by bots or enemy players before you can call for help, since the likely reason you ran out was because of excessive maneuvers during battle. And if you ran out of fuel, you probably didn't finish the other guy off, so now you're toast. Don't worry that it will be boring to run out of fuel.

As far as I can see fuel will just add something extra to worry about with no rewards what so ever. So why do it?

Also what I said about fuel being simply an exected gas comes from the way space ship fly right now in space.

But don't forget we don't have Neutonian Engine! Our ships ARE NOT ejecting anything (even if they look like they have huge reactors...). Furthermore I have no idea what type of energy the ships use, but the explanation that a fuel cell is just a reactor+capacitor suits me perfectly. You got a fusion reactor (with say a gallon of heavy water, which would last you at least a couple of... hundred of years in you car), that has a constant output (say 50e/sec) to that you add a capacitor to store the energy for when you need it (say 250e) and voila you get the FC fuel cell. I really don't see the problem with it.

The payoff is that there's something new to plan around, plus realism, which is important to me. Tactics would include fuel considerations. You could try to use momentum to your advantage, and try to force your opponent to change course more than he wants to, using too much fuel. Also, we're talking about using a lot more energy than a hydrogen car would need, so I assume the gallon of heavy water would not last nearly as long. It's not the reactor hydrogen that would cause any fuel worries, but the combustible liquid fuel for maneuvering.