tlb wrote:I am not sure that is true, it appears to me that a reasonable explanation can be made just by the characteristics of the compensator.
We have been told that the wedge could theoretically accelerate a ship to the maximum speed set by particle shielding almost instantaneously; but that it and everything in it would be destroyed, because that would exceed the capability of the compensator. So it is compensator efficiency that sets the maximum acceleration. We know that the compensator efficiency is dependent on the total mass of the ship and its contents; being relatively flat for most of the mass range and then dropping rapidly as some maximum mass is approached. Any ship bigger has to use gravity plates to counter the acceleration, which greatly reduces the maximum permitted acceleration.
So for any ship from a frigate to a super dreadnought and any freighter in this range, the acceleration of an empty ship is essentially the same as that of a loaded ship, because the compensator efficiency is basically flat for normal mass ranges. This might seem counter-intuitive, but remember that the theoretical acceleration of the wedge is much much higher than would be survivable; the limit is set by the compensator, whose efficiency is only slightly mass dependent within normal mass ranges.
You can also think of a ship using gravity plates to counter acceleration, because the same limitation applies: the maximum acceleration is set by the gravity plates, not the mass of the ship.
Doesn't that just mean that it isn't inversely proportional to mass? (IOW MtH wass incorrect)
If you can reduce mass and acceleration doesn't rise then they're not inversely proportional.
Also, it's not all that flat - if it was 100% mass based then an 7.5 mton (loaded) freighter should have the following 80% accel speeds as it ran lighter and lighter.
7.5 mton - 151.2g
7.0 mton - 153.7g (+1.65%)
6.5 mton - 156.4g (+3.44%)
6.0 mton - 159.2g (+5.29%)
5.5 mton - 161.9g (+7.08%)
5.0 mton - 164.7g (+8.93%)
4.5 mton - 165.7g (+9.59%)
4.0 mton - 166.8g (+10.32%)
3.5 mton - 167.8g (+10.98%)
3.0 mton - 168.8g (+11.64%)
A 10% jump in acceleration, just from running with less cargo (or lower mass cargo) is hardly insignificant. And it's unlikely the the ship's cargo mass fraction is as low as just 60%; so it can probably get below 3.0 mton displacement when running empty.
That would probably be worthy of a comment. (And given the more powerful nodes on a warship it would be more dramatic. A Hydra that launched its LACs would be at least 112 x 20,750 tons = 2.32 mton lighter [that's 37.7% of her listed mass]; which with even a 1920 PD compensator should give it an extra 30g (5.48%) of acceleration. Again if mass was 1:1 inverse relationship)
Even if mass was only 1/4 of the contribution to the acceleration drop-off you'd still see a lightly loaded 3.0 mton displacement 7.5 mton freighter running 4.4g quicker, a 2.91% accel increase; or the Hydra running 7.5g quicker, a 1.37% accel increase.
You'd think there would be some mention that as SD(P)s shot themselves dry, or CLACs dropped their birds, that they'd become quicker and more lively. But no, there's nothing.
Making it seem like there is no relationship with mass (at least not normally -- again, extreme overload might be a different matter) and it's all volume. Hence why running lighter doesn't seem to increase acceleration.
---
Still, the accel curve doesn't get properly steep until you're under 1 mton, and especially below 500,000 ton -- and I don't think even any empty larger freighter would displace that little.
