.....torque...has.....nothing...to...do...with..velocity...

*gasps and dies from the bad physics in this thread*

==sigh== without even using any equations or what not, let me ask you this phaser:
"do you agree that it is easier to turn while moving slowly than it is going fast?"
a simple yes or no will do.

your arguments on V6,V8 and gears is moot. Engines don't have "gears" especially these.
And V6 and V8, that would be more relative to the battery and fuel efficiency.

erm... no, not in space.

Edit: I'll put this as simply as possible. Torque effectively means turn rate. Torque is a force. Engines with greater force should have greater torque. Heavy engine should have greater torque than light engine.

I think we have a situation now where medium engines are aggressive and heavy engines are defensize, and some people want the best of both worlds.

I used medium engines extensively even when you could boost tap, because I never tried to write a macro to exploit the engines. Stupid me, I guess.

None of that is to say that the acceleration/deceleration curves that define how well boost tapping works don't necessarily need some tweeking, but the situation doesn't seem to warrant a radical change. Most people who need the heavy engine (ei the ship is heavy) are still using the heavy engine and are still basically getting the performance that they had before hand because they hadn't worked out how to exploit boost tapping to its fullest. Generally speaking, most people aren't holding down boost enough during combat that they are experiencing significant power problems, except for a few that switched to medium/fast charge because they thought it would be optimal and are miffed that it isn't. Except for a few macro abusers and people who continually boost tapped to effectively boost continually, I doupt many people are seeing significant changes in game play.

But again, that doesn't mean I think this is a best final solution, and there is a post around here to that effect.

There's really no need for this. The medium engine is a better trade route engine and the heavy engine is a better combat engine. And people shouldn't be able to have infinite turbo just by tapping tab.

slightly off topic but engine based...

Get a bus, add a fast charge battery in said bus & boost with NO LOSS AT ALL :/

is this supposed to happen?

pixelmasochist: Most likely, the same effect can be achieved with the Fast Charge/Efficient combo in any ship. With boost tapping gone it's my choice for trading.

for trading, i use a centaur equipped with a medium engine and a fast charge battery. for combat, i use a valk equipped with a heavy engine and a heavy battery. one is good for one thing, the other is good for the other.

And to add to the discussion...

I'm not 100% sure where I stand on this. I think i'm fence sitting ;)

The heavy engine is great for combat speeds with a high boost/drain tradeoff, the med engine works for trading as 9/10 times you'll make it to the wormholes without letting go of tab (even with the measaly 250 a fast batt provides).

I think what needs to be done is more to adress the craft issues. Build craft that handle trade very well but are worthless in combat (more towards speed and manouverability than weapons). The maud can be used as a combat vessle, it can do the tri S/F thing (nasty!). I feel a locking engine/ship system would prove useful like silly fast engines that can only be fitted to cents and bigger trade ships. Also missile pylons could be used instad of weapon ports. This way we could try to keep r/ramming to craft like the vult (attatch the pylons to the wings see;)

Perhaps there could be a way to limit the rockets/missiles to hornets & vultures only. Hornets (despite the update) don't handle too well and vultures would probably issuse on splash damage due to the small h/p...

Sorry, we were talking engines, got side tracked

pheed