Here's some ideas for new, unique thrusters.
1. High speed thruster, with output proportional to current speed relative to thruster orientation.
0% force when stationary/rewerse, 100% at max speed (150m/s).
Around 50-75m/s it should have better thrust to weight ratio than triangle thruster.
Pros: you fly faster
Cons: you need different thrusters to start, structural stress grows with speed, you can't use them to turn around and break, after tight turn you regain speed much slower.
Why? To distinguish between agile (high acceleration) and fast (high top speed) ships. Right now if your agile, you're fast.
2. Low speed thruster. Opposite of 1.
Has 0% force at 150m/s, 100% at 0m/s and 200% when used as break at 150m/s.
Under 25m/s it's better than triangle.
Pros: can start, stop, turn and strafe quickly.
Cons: can't be used to fly fast.
I'd shape them to have very big exhaust surface area, but rather flat.
3. Wing-thruster.
It's flat and large. i.e. 24x240x168.It has corrosive trail exhaust going into two directions, parallel to provided force. (blue-> force. red-> trail, mirrored on the under side).
Pros: better thrust to weight ratio than rear-mounted thrusters.
Cons: require large unprotected area (wing), impossible to armour.
Why? To make wings useful, thus increase number of ships that use them.
To make fighter combat more diverse - as you can't armour them, spray low cal and fragmentation weapons are more effective than against armoured box/triangle thrusters.
Initially I thought about using that shape for high-speed thrusters. But those can be two separate types as well.
4. Modular thrusters. Can be made as long as you want.
Made of single nozzle module and additional burn chambers. Each of them close to the limit of what endo can lift. i.e. octagon 192x192x144.
With one burn chamber it should be 50% less mass efficient than box, but also 100% more fuel efficient.
Each additional burn chamber adds 90% thrust of the previous one at 80% fuel cost. So the longer it is, the less mass efficient and more fuel efficient.
Pros: can use more inside volume for thrust, more fuel efficient, more thrust for the same rear surface, easier to armour
Cons: worse thrust to mass ratio, disabling any module makes entire thruster inoperational
Why?
To allow large ships to use more of it's mass on thrust.
To further distinguish between short range and long range ships.
To please people who like to build big.
All the numbers are just examples to show the general idea, and are subject to further balance.
1. High speed thruster, with output proportional to current speed relative to thruster orientation.
0% force when stationary/rewerse, 100% at max speed (150m/s).
Around 50-75m/s it should have better thrust to weight ratio than triangle thruster.
Pros: you fly faster
Cons: you need different thrusters to start, structural stress grows with speed, you can't use them to turn around and break, after tight turn you regain speed much slower.
Why? To distinguish between agile (high acceleration) and fast (high top speed) ships. Right now if your agile, you're fast.
2. Low speed thruster. Opposite of 1.
Has 0% force at 150m/s, 100% at 0m/s and 200% when used as break at 150m/s.
Under 25m/s it's better than triangle.
Pros: can start, stop, turn and strafe quickly.
Cons: can't be used to fly fast.
I'd shape them to have very big exhaust surface area, but rather flat.
3. Wing-thruster.
It's flat and large. i.e. 24x240x168.It has corrosive trail exhaust going into two directions, parallel to provided force. (blue-> force. red-> trail, mirrored on the under side).
Pros: better thrust to weight ratio than rear-mounted thrusters.
Cons: require large unprotected area (wing), impossible to armour.
Why? To make wings useful, thus increase number of ships that use them.
To make fighter combat more diverse - as you can't armour them, spray low cal and fragmentation weapons are more effective than against armoured box/triangle thrusters.
Initially I thought about using that shape for high-speed thrusters. But those can be two separate types as well.
4. Modular thrusters. Can be made as long as you want.
Made of single nozzle module and additional burn chambers. Each of them close to the limit of what endo can lift. i.e. octagon 192x192x144.
With one burn chamber it should be 50% less mass efficient than box, but also 100% more fuel efficient.
Each additional burn chamber adds 90% thrust of the previous one at 80% fuel cost. So the longer it is, the less mass efficient and more fuel efficient.
Pros: can use more inside volume for thrust, more fuel efficient, more thrust for the same rear surface, easier to armour
Cons: worse thrust to mass ratio, disabling any module makes entire thruster inoperational
Why?
To allow large ships to use more of it's mass on thrust.
To further distinguish between short range and long range ships.
To please people who like to build big.
All the numbers are just examples to show the general idea, and are subject to further balance.
