Pilot Archive

Waiting is advisable, as 77.7/77.8 is the 1.4 mod gate. It's probably 77.7, as 71.7 is the 1.3 gate.

Takes a 74.0 or 74.1 engine to get it.

All I know is that number DOES mean something.

Fly a 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and POSSIBLY 1.5 engine on frames that'll take them (strip a fighter down to just an engine and reactor, if you have to), and TELL me you don't notice a MARKED difference between them.

A friend of mine strapped my 82.8 yaw to an RGI, and the thing turned so tight that in third person view, the ship actually left the periphery of the screen.

Message Edited by KaylBreinhar on 08-03-2005 05:13 PM

---

KaylBreinhar wrote:
All I know is that number DOES mean something.

Fly a 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and POSSIBLY 1.5 engine on frames that'll take them (strip a fighter down to just an engine and reactor, if you have to), and TELL me you don't notice a MARKED difference between them.

A friend of mine strapped my 82.8 yaw to an RGI, and the thing turned so tight that in third person view, the ship actually left the periphery of the screen.

Message Edited by KaylBreinhar on 08-03-2005 05:13 PM

---

I'm not saying there's not a difference. What I'm saying though, is that we don't actually know if all engines that list as 1.3 when loaded perform the same. For example, if there's rounding going on, an engine that converts to 1.250000 would display as 1.3, while at the same time an engine that converts to 1.349999 would also display as 1.3, even though the true difference between the two engines is almost the same as the difference between a true 1.3 and a true 1.4 engine. The point I'm trying to make is that all 1.3 engines might not be the same. If the number is being rounded for display purposes, then there could be high 1.3s and low 1.3s, and by that token, a very high 1.3 could end up being nearly indistinguishable in performance from a very low 1.4. I guess the best way to test it would be to take two engines... One that you know just barely makes it to 1.3, and one that is only a hair short of making it to 1.4, and then see if there's a difference in their performance, even though both list as being 1.3.

---

Imaridril wrote:

---

KaylBreinhar wrote:
All I know is that number DOES mean something.

Fly a 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and POSSIBLY 1.5 engine on frames that'll take them (strip a fighter down to just an engine and reactor, if you have to), and TELL me you don't notice a MARKED difference between them.

A friend of mine strapped my 82.8 yaw to an RGI, and the thing turned so tight that in third person view, the ship actually left the periphery of the screen.

Message Edited by KaylBreinhar on 08-03-2005 05:13 PM

---

I'm not saying there's not a difference. What I'm saying though, is that we don't actually know if all engines that list as 1.3 when loaded perform the same. For example, if there's rounding going on, an engine that converts to 1.250000 would display as 1.3, while at the same time an engine that converts to 1.349999 would also display as 1.3, even though the true difference between the two engines is almost the same as the difference between a true 1.3 and a true 1.4 engine. The point I'm trying to make is that all 1.3 engines might not be the same. If the number is being rounded for display purposes, then there could be high 1.3s and low 1.3s, and by that token, a very high 1.3 could end up being nearly indistinguishable in performance from a very low 1.4. I guess the best way to test it would be to take two engines... One that you know just barely makes it to 1.3, and one that is only a hair short of making it to 1.4, and then see if there's a difference in their performance, even though both list as being 1.3.

---

anyone got a link to the equation that give's you the 1.3, 1.4?

---

IL-Vec wrote:

---

Imaridril wrote:

---

KaylBreinhar wrote:
All I know is that number DOES mean something.

Fly a 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and POSSIBLY 1.5 engine on frames that'll take them (strip a fighter down to just an engine and reactor, if you have to), and TELL me you don't notice a MARKED difference between them.

A friend of mine strapped my 82.8 yaw to an RGI, and the thing turned so tight that in third person view, the ship actually left the periphery of the screen.

Message Edited by KaylBreinhar on 08-03-2005 05:13 PM

---

I'm not saying there's not a difference. What I'm saying though, is that we don't actually know if all engines that list as 1.3 when loaded perform the same. For example, if there's rounding going on, an engine that converts to 1.250000 would display as 1.3, while at the same time an engine that converts to 1.349999 would also display as 1.3, even though the true difference between the two engines is almost the same as the difference between a true 1.3 and a true 1.4 engine. The point I'm trying to make is that all 1.3 engines might not be the same. If the number is being rounded for display purposes, then there could be high 1.3s and low 1.3s, and by that token, a very high 1.3 could end up being nearly indistinguishable in performance from a very low 1.4. I guess the best way to test it would be to take two engines... One that you know just barely makes it to 1.3, and one that is only a hair short of making it to 1.4, and then see if there's a difference in their performance, even though both list as being 1.3.

---

anyone got a link to the equation that give's you the 1.3, 1.4?

---

All I know are the triggers.

71.7 gave 1.3 whereas 71.6 gave 1.2. 77.8 gave 1.4, whereas 77.0 gave 1.3. People claim 77.4 gives the mod, but it doesn't quite gel with the possible patterns.

Pie? Aww damn...I have no ice cream. Eating pie without ice cream is kinda like a simulated roller coaster.

Then again, I don't like pie much unless it's one of those "pie-in-the-sense-of-a-name" pies. Like "French Silk Pie" or "Peanut Butter Pie."

Then again, you were talking about the neverending geometric sequence of numbers discovered by the Greeks.