3.0.6 and 3.0.7 patch - slow resource income

[Ozymandias]

posted on June 1st, 2009, 2:24 am

Last edited by Ozymandias on June 1st, 2009, 2:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

Does there atomic weights matter? Surely the capacity of the freighters is determined by the volume of the ore (as Serpicus says), so 600 units of dilithium may have the same volume as 400 units of tritanium. Of course again this is all assuming 1 unit of 1 can be compared to 1 unit of the other. The units are dimensionless so it's no telling whether your freighter carrys 600Kg of dilithium vs 400m^3 of tritanium. Also remember that volume is determined by the structure that the molecules form into not atomic weight.
Add to that as was mentioned above that the ore isn't completely refined and you really have no idea what's going on in a freighter.

Aren't we getting a little off topic though?

As far as I'm concerned FO has always been a bit slow paced, perhaps you should turn your game speed up in the options?

posted on June 1st, 2009, 12:45 pm

And we are forgetting that Tritanium is a metal, and therefore much denser, due to tightly packed metallic "bonds". Dilithium is a crystal and therefore the atoms/molecules are much further apart, and it a lattice.

Atomic Mass won't make any difference, unless it was like 1 and 200, and they both bonded in *exactly* the same way.

posted on June 1st, 2009, 1:37 pm

"Atomic Mass won't make any difference, unless it was like 1 and 200, and they both bonded in *exactly* the same way."

Tell that to Aluminum (13) and Lead (82). Atomic mass makes a huge difference, which is why Helium and Hydrogen were so much the rage (excuse the pun) in relatin to the Hindenberg (it was originally designed to take Helium, but since helium was considered a strategic asset by the U.S., none was sold, and the poor blimp had to take Hydrogen which only filled a quarter or so of the same volume to give the same lift).

Likewise, even if Tritanium were a metal that behaved in exactly the same way as a transition metal, it doesn't necessarily have to exist via metallic bonding: plenty of metallic ores are in lattices due to the impurities. This discussion is more fit for geology, however, than StarTrek.

"Dilithium is a crystal and therefore the atoms/molecules are much further apart, and it a lattice."
This statement however makes NO sense at all if you are comparing it to Tritanium as an element. A crystal is not a type of element: NaCl is a crystal, but obviously consists of two elements (one of which IS an alkali metal). Dilithium and Tritanium therefore could both exist in a crystal lattice for all we know. Both might need to be refined, but Dilithium would stay in a ration of element(s):element (s) while Tritanium would be fully purified.

posted on June 1st, 2009, 1:55 pm

Yeah, my technical terms were a bit out  But a difference of 50 is significant, I was obviously being over zealous and exaggerating. The assumed atomic numbers for tritanium and dilithium and too close for it to make a difference.

I only said Dilithium was a crystal because that is how it is represented in the show. The planets in the Drema system all had deposits of dilithium under their crust, which formed a large lattice.

I assume it is structured in a similar way to carbon(diamond) or silicon. I'm also assuming it is mined in this crystal form as that seems to be how it is portrayed in the show. (Side note: Could the crystal Geordi melts to make super strong icicles to ascend the very inconvenient pit of doom in "The Enemy", be Dilithium?)

The reason I also thought Tritanium behaved like a transition, is because its use is similar to that of transition metals like titanium and iron; used in construction of armour plates and bulkheads etc.. Generally, when something is constructed, new materials being used will be similar to what was used previously, but superior in some way, and generally inferior in a negligible way.

posted on June 1st, 2009, 1:59 pm

well since weight only matters were there is gravity if the holding bay had no gravity then the only thing that matters is the size of the dilithium or tritanium and if 1 unit goes buy dimentions then technically a freighter could hold exactly the same amount of each (in units) altho if the holding bay is has gravity and a unit is measured by its weight then who knows

[Dominus_Noctis]

posted on June 1st, 2009, 3:19 pm

Last edited by Dominus_Noctis on June 1st, 2009, 5:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Weight may not matter Blade (aka your weight on Mars versus the Moon), but mass certainly does--regardless of whether the ship has artificial gravity or not

Yup, I understand Unleash (though my point with H and He was that even a difference of 1 is significant  ). All your assumptions seem reasonable to me, its just that I don't think we ever have known how tritanium is mined per se (it could exist in a crystalline structure, or something similar to a porous hematite ore etc who knows) so I'm not sure how we can definitely say for what reason a freighter harvests 150 dilithium and only 100 tritanium. For all we know, tritanium could exist in tandem with a radioactive element which means that proper containment protocols must be followed. A lot of the time I think we (the collective "we") bicker too much about our perceival of canon and let it affect FO gameplay too much 

EDIT: D'oh, fixed my Cannons

posted on June 1st, 2009, 4:14 pm

Yeah, most people perceive cannons as big black iron tubes, but I see them more as inefficient phasers 

Seriously though, you are right about H and He. But then again they are both gases, so mass is almost completely dictated by RAM in that case, more-so than solids or liquids. Not that it really matters.

And we do discuss quite deeply about how we imagine the ST universe works, mainly because its fun. I for one don't think that it should have any impact on gameplay. It is just so relaxing that it is a star trek mod, so discussing Star Trek goes hand-in-hand here.

[mimesot]

posted on June 1st, 2009, 5:33 pm

Last edited by mimesot on June 1st, 2009, 6:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The atomic weight is almost the same.. and the moons are the same size more or less.

Tritanium atomic weight 323
Tritanium Star Trek Wiki

dilithium atomic weight is 315
Dilithium Star Trek Wiki

What the fuck did I miss here???? The atomic mass is just one variable factor in calculating the mass per volumina. The other one is the packing density, the number of atoms per volumina. So one cannot presume the mass of one m³ material with only knowing the atomic mass.

That depend if you are talkin' weight, or mass, because if I'm not mistaken they can be different.  Something can weigh one gram but have more than one gram of mass.

Weight is not mass, you are right. The weight is the force that pulls a mass down along a gravitational field. This force / weight is directly propotional to the mass of the object ... weight = mass * gacitational acceleration. As the gravitational field is almost constant on a planets surface, weight is a valid measurement for comparison of masses within this planet's surface.

PS: A crystals particle-density may be higher than a metal's, but this is not necessarily the case. Take aluminium (2,7kg/dm³) and diamonds (3,52kg/dm³).

posted on June 1st, 2009, 5:42 pm

wow, I guess because of the title it seems ok to use the f word loosely Still I agree with  Mimesot, and Serpicus. ( and everone else who proved that point.)  Tritinaum either has more mass,  or weighs more, either one would prevent the freighter to carry as much as it can dilithium.

posted on June 1st, 2009, 5:47 pm

Sorry for the f-word, but I was really astonished about the fact, that noone considered the most obvious point for the capacity differences.

now that's interesting. We are comparing dil and tri as equally refined materials.

Well another point, why the cargo capacities differ, but then, as athe moons are not equal, the capacity should be different from moon to moon, and even from load to load, as the moons are most likly not homogenous.

posted on June 1st, 2009, 5:56 pm

Tritinaum either has more mass,  or weighs more, either one would prevent the freighter to carry as much as it can dilithium.

Hold on dear mate!
The weight is of no importance in space, sice there is no gravity, and if there was, pass would be strictly proportional to mass. The propblem with higher mass would be the greater inertia, thus the acceleration of the vessel is lower. Nevertheless we will be able to get from point A to point B with the cargo, even when being slower. The crucial factor is the volume of the cargo. If the packing density of tritanium-atoms is  lower and/or the tritanium-concentration per volumina of ore is lower the space consumed by the space needed is higher than that with dilithium. Thus the load is smaller.

posted on June 1st, 2009, 6:06 pm

I suppose, but it would alter the strain on the ships engines as it tried to counter act the gravitational pull of the moon as it tried to hold a steady orbit.  But I like serpicus's Idea better. Hence the reason why I said I agreed with him and you specifically.

posted on June 1st, 2009, 6:06 pm

PS for ALL:

I know there were many correct things said before, that I repeated. It was not the case that I oversay your posts, but they were incomplete in some iportant points, so exuse me for rewriting your statements.

posted on June 1st, 2009, 6:13 pm

I suppose, but it would alter the strain on the ships engines as it tried to counter act the gravitational pull of the moon as it tried to hold a steady orbit.  But I like serpicus's Idea better. Hence the reason why I said I agreed with him and you specifically.

Haha, an interesting point. However it is mass and thus inertia that strains the engines, not the weight.

As the collectos is even larger than the moon and does not have to fight against the gravitational pull of another miner or wahatever, we can assume the moon to have nearly no gravitation. So weight cannot be taken into account.

We should not start a discussion about the moons horribly small size, I believe. 

Concerning serpicus idea: It is realistic, but it is not the case in FO because then, the freighters capacity would certainly not be constant.

posted on June 1st, 2009, 6:41 pm

I don't really think it matters on the mass as much as Resource rations of the game. Last when I checked most thing use more Dilithium than Tritanuim meaning that Dilithium is of a higher demand, but the research is the other way around. That is what defines the ratio.