I just did a ship accleration test from 0, measured at 500m away. It returned some weird results:
Valk: 182
vulture: 171
centurion: 163
Maud: 153
warthog: 153
bus: 152
hornet: 148
prom: 145
wraith: 133
atlas: 127
Centaur: 111
Rag: 111
Tested with heavy engine, including the bus. the data might be off by a unit or two or so (hey, it's my eyes).

Hmm... why is centurion 3rd???

I posted in the other thread, hope ya don't mind

Wow, the Atlas is THAT bad? The bus beats out the Hornet with the free engine or heavy engine? What did you use to test these ships? More info!!

of course, this is just the acceleration from 0 to whatever within 500m correct?

Very cool stuff, Kid!
It would also be interesting to run some tests on turn rate with a heavy engine. Also perhaps a 0-60 test?
/me gets out his stopwatch

yes, 0 to w/e in 500m. All tested with heavy engine, including the bus.

Yes, please do a turn rate test for every engine config on each ship. I don't know how you'd do one, because turning mouselook off seems to yield the same exact turn rate for every ship. You'll have to do it with mouselook on to get accurate results. Turning perfectly with the mouselook on is pretty hard, because you'll always move up or down or pivot just a little bit, slowing down or tainting your turn rate results. If you can pull it off successfully it might make for some interesting discussions. Why can't the devs just give us the spec numbers to look at and make suggestions from there? Who knows. It's a conpsiracy!

=b

Turn rate's not the same with mouselook off... If you don't believe me, get a Centurion and a Rag and turn with mouselook off. If it's the same for you, well, that's just plain weird. I only know because my mouse battery keeps dying in the middle of fights. :\

I just said that.

[quote]because turning mouselook off seems to yield the same exact turn rate for every ship.[/quote]

Did you? I said that with mouselook off, it was NOT the same. You said it was.

How about this as an experimental technique.
Use physics. Have a friend wait behind you, target them, and face directly away from them (use radar). Start boosting directly away from them and then look directly at them as you are boosting away.

Start the stopwatch and let go of the boost simultaneously.

The moment the targeting reticle crosses the center of the screen stop the stopwatch.

That's how long it takes to turn 180 degrees.

Edit: For more accurate data repeat the procedure five times and average the results.

No, I said it was the same for EVERY ship throughout (with mouselook off for all of them). NOT the SAME as with mouselook on. Read more carefully.

Anyway, if it's possible maybe someone can write a mouselook on turn left/right bind/script/macro/whatever so you don't have to worry about losing speed while twitching your mouse just a little.

And, Arolte, what I said is that it's NOT the same for every ship. Read more carefully.

But it is. Turn mouselook off. Hit the right or left arrow key. Your camera moves at the same rate as it would for a Centurion or a Ragnarok. The camera view isn't an accurate representation of where the ship is facing with mouselook off, so what I was trying to say was that it would be hard to make any sort of calculations using it.

The camera might turn the same (it didn't when I last used it in 3.2.8), but the ship sure as heck doesn't. If it did, the people with joysticks would have rags with ultra-high maneuverability.

Arlote, the camera turns at the same rate, but try firing your gun as you turn. Your ship still takes time to catch up, you just don't have a handy blue thing to show you.

I... just... said... that!

"Your CAMERA moves at the same rate as it would for a Centurion or a Ragnarok. The CAMERA VIEW ISN'T an accurate representation of WHERE THE SHIP IS FACING with mouselook off, so what I was trying to say was that it would be hard to make any sort of calculations using it."

Relevant words have been put in CAPS so people can learn how to read posts properly.

Your first and seconds posts didn't say that, and I'm pretty sure you edited your third post.

hmmm I made a seperate acceleration test and came out with similar results... I'm posting them in a new thread.