The Speedsters of Infinite Space: Comparing the Top Speeds of all Playable Scout Ships (and their relation to MWO)

The Speedsters of Infinite Space: Comparing the Top Speeds of all Playable Scout Ships (and their relation to MWO)

Scouts are the smallest, lightest, and cheapest playable capital ships in the Infinite Space trilogy. However, they get less respect from most players than other ship size classes, mainly due to their limited firepower and armor; as such, much of the player base prefers to trade them in for a larger ship from the same faction as soon as possible. Most scouts have only one (large) hardpoint each (thus allowing for fitment of any weapon, up to and including the infamous Nova Cannon), although the Calatian Destroyer is an exception; although it has four hardpoints (more than any other scout), none of those can accommodate a medium or large weapon (such as the Tachyon Ray Gun or Multi-Missile Launcher, respectively). When you consider that the Plasma and Proton Blasters can, however, be fitted to said hardpoints, the Destroyer has the potential to be a real DPS beast. 

That's not the reason why we're here, though - we're here to compare the top speeds (during combat within a star system. not during interstellar travel) of all five normally playable scouts in Infinite Space III: Sea of Stars. And with the athletics competition of the Paris Olympics about to start in a few days' time, now would be a great time to take a closer look at the primary reason why scout ships must never be underestimated.

Above, from top: All five of the scout ships in the Infinite Space trilogy that are playable in normal gameplay (Calatian, Garthan, Zorg, Terran, and Muktian). Which of these is the fastest when all of them are fully upgraded? Let's find out!

For this test, I spawned all five scouts in a horizontal line at the lower edge of the map, and had them travel in a straight line towards the opposite edge, finishing just past the center. After just one run, the result was clear:

Above: Testing the top speeds (during combat) for the normally playable scouts in the Infinite Space trilogy (including Sea of Stars) revealed that the Garthan scout is the fastest capital ship you can acquire in a regular game. The Calatian destroyer finished second in this sprint test, ahead of the Zorg and Terran scouts, with the Muktian scout being the slowest.

So of all the capital ships you can obtain during a regular game in Sea of Stars, none of them can outrun a Garthan scout when travelling within a star system during combat. Even the Calatian destroyer, which comes closest to its Garthan equivalent in terms of top speed, is a distant second, but its role as the basis for a DPS-focused build makes it as viable as a Garthan scout in normal gameplay (and potentially even more so on a map where the Garthans have a home system not only to defend, but also to deploy from, since you can trade in a Garthan Scout in that case, as long as you have one in your fleet). The other scouts are all slower than these two, with the Muktian scout being the slowest ship of its kind, but at least it's more durable than other playable scouts.

The Garthan Scout (a detailed review of which I've previously posted on this blog) reminds me somewhat of the Flea, a 20-ton light 'Mech from BattleTech - in MechWarrior Online, the FLE-17, FLE-20 and FLE-FA variants are the fastest light 'Mechs when fitted with a 170-rated engine (which should be XL due to mass constraints) and Mk1 MASC, which increases its top speed from an already blistering 137.7 km/h to well over 170 km/h (without Skill Tree upgrades). And like the Garthan scout, the Flea has little capacity for armor, weapons, and other equipment. However, whereas Garthan scouts have room for one big gun, Fleas instead rely on arrays of multiple small, lightweight weapons. The Locust (the only other 20-ton Inner Sphere light 'Mech in MWO) also works best with a similar loadout, but trades MASC compatibility for a larger engine cap, allowing it to maintain a higher normal maximum speed than the Flea.

Above: The Flea may be one of the most lightly armed and armored 'Mechs in MechWarrior Online (and by extension, BattleTech as a whole), but some variants, when fitted with a maxed-out engine and MASC (as is the case on the FLE-17 shown above), have the potential to be the fastest 'Mechs of all, especially with all speed-related skill tree upgrades fitted. Below: The Locust may not be as fast in a sprint as a MASC-equipped Flea, but its usual running speed is even higher - second only to a Commando variant with a 240-rated engine.

The Calatian destroyer, while nowhere near as fast as its Garthan counterpart, is no slouch itself, and as previously stated, has potential for better DPS than other scouts (especially when armed with four Proton Blasters); as such, it reminds me of the Firestarter (especially the FS9-A and FS9-K, which are the only ones to have eight energy hardpoints). In particular, both variants of this 'Mech lend themselves well to (relatively) high-DPS builds with an octet of Small (X-)Pulse Lasers. High-alpha builds armed with nothing but 8 medium lasers are also possible on these variants, but you'll need skilled heat management to make optimum use of those. Even so, the Firestarter in general is one of the best light 'Mechs in MWO, and may well be my all-time favorite 'Mech from that game, period - much like the Calatian destroyer is one of my favorite capital ships from the Infinite Space trilogy.

Above and below: Of all the Firestarter variants, the FS9-K (above) and FS9-A (below) are among the best for high-DPS light 'Mech builds in MWO, since they are the only ones with 8 energy hardpoints - other variants have 7 or fewer. While the K is more easily disarmed due to having more of its hardpoints in its arms, it has a 10% laser duration reduction quirk the FS9-A lacks, and superior arm articulation to boot, making it more useful as a skirmisher or harasser, whereas the FS9-A is more of a brawler.

In short, the scouts of the Infinite Space trilogy may look unassuming, especially with their limited firepower, armor, and internal space, but just like light 'Mechs in MechWarrior Online (and, by extension, BattleTech), they must not be underestimated - a skilled commander will learn to use the scouts' speed (and agility) as armor, and leverage it to ensure that the scouts end up on the winning side.

Confessions of an Automationeer, Part 178: A Warrior's Redemption

Confessions of an Automationeer, Part 178: A Warrior's Redemption

I recently cloned the WM Warrior, engine and all, to see what it would be like if it were built on a platform based mainly on steel instead of aluminum. The result was a revelation: despite weighing more (especially after adding semi-active dampers and active sway bars), it ended up as a more viable proposition overall.

Above: The techpool distribution for the revised WM Warrior, with some points transferred from the engine to the trim and chassis to account for the use of a mainly steel chassis instead of an aluminum-based one, as the original version had.

In particular, the leftover cash from using an AHS steel chassis with partial aluminum bodywork could be used for additional quality points across the board, especially after the techpool was adjusted accordingly. In terms of performance, it was broadly comparable to the all-alloy original, with 20 extra horsepower to offset the weight gain (which was minimized by setting the weight optimization slider to its default setting of 50, thus sacrificing some reliability for more cash to invest elsewhere).

Above, from top: Reforging the WM Warrior in a mostly steel bodyshell (with some aluminum panels in critical locations) made it heavier, and adding fancier suspension components compromised its reliability somewhat, but this was an acceptable trade-off considering that the end result was objectively superior, and at the same price to boot.

The Beam cam fixtures have been retained, but they are now transparent; also, the wheels are regular cast-alloy items measuring 19 inches in diameter to save costs. Even so, after some fiddling with the engine, gearbox, brakes, and suspension, as well as reshaping the taillight clusters, I am more proud of the Warrior than before.

Update (30/07/24, 10:50pm UTC+7): After scaling back the amount of quality points, and upgrading to a full-on luxury interior and satnav, here are the new stats for the WM Warrior SE:

The stats for the revised WM Warrior SE after upgrading to a luxury interior and satnav. It has lost very little in sportiness or outright performance (even after reduced use of positive quality points), but gained a sizable amount of prestige and comfort.

Considering that the revised Warrior was meant to be a grand tourer, it makes perfect sense to double down on comfort and prestige for this build. The only aesthetic changes are a different set of interior door handles and wheel fixtures, and woodgrain trim in some areas that were originally covered in aluminum or Alcantara, for a more luxurious ambiance.

Above: Aesthetic revisions to the WM Warrior were minimal, being limited to a different set of door release and wheel rim fixtures, and some parts of various interior fixtures now having woodgrain trim.

In short, the Warrior may have grown up on the outside, but it's still a sports car on the inside - and one that still excites when given an opportunity to cut loose, with a robust feel to boot (as far as luxurious grand tourers go).

Confessions of an Automationeer, Part 177: Beam Cams Explained

Confessions of an Automationeer, Part 177: Beam Cams Explained

Today I'll explain a new kind of vanilla fixture that I've never bothered to use on any of my builds - until now. It's called a Beam Cam, and its purpose is to place a camera angle for use when the car is exported to BeamNG. Normally, I find this item to be of little use, since I haven't bought and installed BeamNG on my PC yet, but I've realized that I may have to submit a car for use in a challenge in which BeamNG testing is involved in some capacity. There are actually two variants of the Beam Cam fixture: one for a bonnet cam (which points forward and is placed on the car's bonnet), and another one for a driver cam (which also points forward, but should be placed as close to eye level on the driver's side as possible). Both variants can be found in the miscellaneous fixtures category - the first one from the right on the bottom row of fixture categories in the fixture tab.

The car I used as the subject of this post is the 2005 WM Warrior - a lightweight, all-aluminum, front-engined, rear-drive, 2-seat sports car powered by a 400-bhp 4.0-liter naturally-aspirated V8 engine mated to a six-speed manual gearbox and helical LSD, with dual wishbone front suspension and a multilink rear end, plus 4-wheel ABS-assisted large-diameter vented disc brakes housed behind lightweight forged alloy wheels wrapped in low-profile high-performance tires. All this hardware, when combined with a premium interior and stereo sound system (which includes sat-nav), ensures a balanced blend of sportiness and comfort, while a full set of airbags (frontal, side, and curtain on both sides) and electronic driving aids (stability and traction control) ensure that occupant safety is never neglected. Finally, a discreet aero kit (one lip each on the front and rear, plus a small rear spoiler fixture and a sealed undertray) help it cut through the air with ease.

Above, from top: A quick look at the exterior and interior of the WM Warrior, the first of my Automation builds to have at least one Beam camera as standard.

Now that I've described the specs of this beauty, I'll explain where I placed the Beam cams. The driver cam is located just in front of the driver's seat, as it should be, and the bonnet cam is placed slightly ahead of the base of the windshield. Here they are, along with what their viewpoints are supposed to look like:

Above and below: Beam cams provide additional first-person camera angles for use in BeamNG. The driver cam (above), placed at eye level on the driver's side, adds an internal first-person viewpoint; the bonnet cam (below), placed on the car's body ahead of the windshield, adds an external first-person one. You can install either (or both) of these fixtures as you see fit if you want to do so. For each Beam cam, its viewpoint will be shown in the bottom-right corner of the screen.

Although I've recolored the Beam cam fixtures for clarity in both of the screenshots, I've exported the car with both fixtures set to a fully transparent finish, to ensure that nobody notices them when examining its exterior and interior.

I have yet to submit anything in a challenge that requires the fitment of either a driver or bonnet Beam Cam (or both), but it's nice to know that these fixtures can be selected and installed on any car - they can give you a new way to view the BeamNG world from on board your vehicle.

Confessions of an Automationeer, Part 176: Arch Rivals

Confessions of an Automationeer, Part 176: Arch Rivals

My recent deep dive into a pair of small but powerful (and track-focused) mid-engined junior supercars from the mid-'00s had me thinking about applying a similar idea, but with a pair of front-engined road-biased sports cars from the same year as the subject of the comparison. This time, the two entrants will be the AAA Crossbow (blue) and HPG H350 (green). Both of them are built on all-aluminum platforms (body and chassis), and they also have big naturally aspirated engines up front, driving the rear wheels via the classic combination of a six-speed manual gearbox and a helical LSD, while 4-wheel independent suspension (dual wishbones up front and a multilink setup in the rear) help keep the wide high-performance tires (245/40R19 front and 265/35 R19 rear for both cars) planted at all times, especially when combined with 4-wheel vented disc brakes. And given that these cars are meant to be driven daily more of the time, both of them have full premium interiors and sound systems (complete with satellite navigation, a full set of front, side and curtain airbags for both occupants, and even the full suite of driving aids - anti-lock brakes, plus fully defeatable traction and stability control) as standard equipment.

Above and below: The AAA Crossbow (blue) and HPG H350 (green) were built mainly with one purpose in mind: take the pace and presence of a larger front-engined sports car and squeeze it into a smaller, lighter package for the discerning enthusiast.

Mechanically, however, the similarities end there: the AAA Crossbow's engine is a 400-bhp 4.0-liter V8, whereas the HPG H350 instead has a 360-bhp 3.5-liter straight-six. The former places less weight over the front wheels; the latter counters with even more smoothness, thus yielding extra comfort (41.2 for the HPG compared to the Crossbow's 40.0). However, the Crossbow is narrower than its six-cylinder rival, which may explain its superior drivability figure of 73.1, whereas the HPG can only muster 71.1. On the other hand, the HPG has a higher safety score (55.8 versus 53.4 for the Crossbow) and weighs just 1225kg (although the Crossbow only weighs 5kg more), while being slightly more reliable to boot (82.1 versus 81.7). Finally, the Crossbow's V8, though less economical (returning 22.4 US mpg on the combined cycle compared to the HPG's 23.5), provides it with a superior prestige score of 59.0 (for comparison, the HPG only managed 57.8).

In short, although the Crossbow and H350 are quite small on paper, they have big, lusty hearts under their bonnets - enough to make anything from the class above stand up and take notice. They may not be as overtly sporting as the mid-engined cars I discussed previously, but they are almost as fast, and more comfortable to the point that they can even be considered for daily use. This may not be the last you will see of them, though - I could add a fully detailed 3D-fixture interior to either (or both) of them if I feel like doing so.

Confessions of an Automationeer, Part 175: Big Power in Small Packages

Confessions of an Automationeer, Part 175: Big Power in Small Packages

Recently, I had a go at designing two small, lightweight, mid-engined sports cars from scratch in Automation, with both builds having model/trim years set to 2005. and utilizing engines whose power outputs were comparable to higher-end sports cars from that era. I could have entered either of these cars in CSR 162 on the Automation Discourse, but I'd already submitted something else for that challenge, and besides, both of them may well have been too track-focused for it, considering its more road-focused premise. I was, however, able to quickly finalize the design and engineering for both, which left me quite satisfied with both designs in the end. So here they are - and here's how they stack up.

The first car I'll be discussing here is the SVM Ravager, whose 4.0-liter V10 delivers a healthy 430 horsepower and revs to 8200 rpm. Its all-aluminum construction limits its curb weight to just 1195 kg - and its small size makes it easy to place on the road. All this power is sent to the rear wheels via a close-ratio 6-speed manual transmission and a helical LSD, with wide high-performance tires surrounding lightweight forged alloy wheels and large ABS-assisted vented disc brakes. Combined with dual wishbone suspension at each wheel, tuned for sportiness while preserving a sliver of comfort, the result is full-sized supercar-rivalling performance in a package best described as a miniaturized one.

Above, from top: The 2005 SVP Ravager is the result of condensing a full-fledged supercar into the body of a junior one, and has the power, pace, and presence to seriously threaten anything (and everything) from the class above (and possibly beyond).

The Ravager is not devoid of creature comforts - its lightweight sports interior comes with a high-end sound system and satellite navigation, plus a full suite of airbags (frontal, side, and curtain on the driver and passenger sides) and driving aids (stability and traction control, both of which can be toggled on or off with a single button press) - but it still has a somewhat pared-back feel, in keeping with its driver-focused ethos.

Not long after completing the Ravager, I set to work on what I felt would be its natural rival: the KMA K36. Built on a newer, even more curvaceous body set than the Ravager, its other main difference is its use of a 3.6 flat-crank V8 engine in place of the Ravager's V10. Tuned for a similar high-RPM profile, it may not be as powerful (400 horsepower instead of 430), but counters with a lower idle speed and superior throttle response.

What the K36's engine it lacks in raw power and torque compared to the Ravager's, it makes up for in superior throttle response and drivability, despite (or because of) its lower engine speed.

Apart from the engine, however, its engineering is very similar to that of the Ravager - 4-wheel dual-wishbone independent suspension, RWD with a 6-speed manual gearbox and helical LSD, large ABS-assisted 4-wheel vented disc brakes are all standard, as are a premium stereo sound system incorporating satnav, plus a full suite of six airbags and driving aids.

Above, from top: The KMA K36 is the SVP Ravager's natural rival, trading a small amount of raw power and speed for superior drivability and responsiveness. It, too, is a junior supercar in size only; its performance is comparable to a full-sized one.

In short, both of these cars are what my idea of an ideal sports car ought to be: ample (but not excessive) amounts of power, wrapped up in a small and light package.

Don't be fooled by the relatively small sizes of the Ravager and K36 - both of them have the firepower and dynamics to punch well above their weight.

Hotshot Tales, Part 7: The Kerb Ramp Glitch at Alpine Town

Hotshot Tales, Part 7: The Kerb Ramp Glitch at Alpine Town

Although there are very few bugs in Hotshot Racing, one of them has remained unpatched to this very day: the Kerb Ramp. You can trigger it by hitting the edge of the inside kerb at Alpine Town (the fourth layout of the Alpine map) while boosting. This isn't guaranteed to occur every time, but when it does, your car will be launched high into the air. Sometimes, it will even fall through the ground and into a bottomless void, before respawning on the track. However, performing the Kerb Jump will also reduce your speed significantly, so it is inadvisable to do this on the final lap unless you have a very large lead (or, in Drive or Explode or Barrel Barrage, a totally unassailable one).

Above, from top: An extreme example of the Kerb Ramp glitch, the most infamous bug of Hotshot Racing, in action - hitting the inside kerb on the final corner at Alpine Town may launch your car into the air. On this occasion, I even fell through the ground and into an endless void, before respawning on the ground - but not without losing a lot of speed in the process. I had also triggered the glitch  previously in this race, but without falling through the road. Nevertheless, I was still able to finish in first place.

It's a very funny, but rare, glitch that can literally decide the outcome of a race under specific circumstances. However, given the fact that triggering the glitch would cause a huge loss of speed, it is inadvisable to do so in high-level play, except in situations where you are the last remaining player in a  Drive or Explode or Barrel Barrage race, and the resulting loss of speed and control is not guaranteed to lead to your elimination.

MechDB Misadventures, Part 4: Comparing Fixed Equipment in BattleTech and Infinite Space

MechDB Misadventures, Part 4: Comparing Fixed Equipment in BattleTech and Infinite Space

In the BattleTech universe, OmniMechs (a more modular type of BattleMech pioneered by the Clans, and later developed in the Inner Sphere) are known for being generally more customizable than other BattleMechs, albeit with some restrictions. Mainly, their core components (engine, armor, structure, and any other equipment on the chassis) are all fixed equipment and cannot be removed or replaced. I'll use this customized Timber Wolf/Mad Cat (based on the S configuration's center torso) as an example.

Above: An example of a customized loadout for the Timber Wolf/Mad Cat S in MechWarrior Online, showing all fixed equipment slots (7 each for Clan Endo-Steel Structure and Clan Ferro-Fibrous Armor spread out across the chassis, plus 1 fixed Jump Jet Class III in the center torso). This fixed equipment cannot be removed from any location on the OmniMech, limiting the amount of critical slots that can be used for weapons and equipment.

As you can see, having fixed equipment on an OmniMech reduces the amount of free space available for installation of whatever weapons and equipment you want to install on it, thus forcing you to get creative with your loadouts so that they're not too bulky (in addition to not being too heavy) for the build. There is, however, one notable exception: the Executioner/Gladiator "Sovereign", which lacks the MASC found in other variants, has only one Class 1 Jump Jet in each leg (whereas other variants have two such Jump Jets in each leg), and downgrades the engine from a 380-rated XL unit to a lighter, but less powerful, 285-rated XL item, thus reducing its speed and mobility, but freeing up more space and mass for weapons, equipment, and heat sinks. It should be noted that the Executioner EXE-B-C(LGD) "Sovereign" was created specifically for MWO, and hence is not found the original BattleTech tabletop game.

Above and below: Two examples of custom configurations based on the Executioner/Gladiator, showing how much less mass is reserved for fixed equipment on the "Sovereign" Legendary 'Mech compared to other variants. Most Executioner variants have a 380-rated Clan XL engine weighing 27.5 tons (not counting additional mass from filling its heat sink expansion slots), 4 Class I Jump Jets (weighing 2 tons each, for a total of 8 tons reserved for Jump Jets), and a Mk IV Clan MASC weighing 4 tons, for a total of 39.5 tons of fixed equipment (not counting fixed critical slots reserved for its Clan Ferro-Fibrous Armor or additional engine-mounted heat-sinks), as shown on the customized EXE-M build below. The "Sovereign" build shown above, however, only has a pair of Class I Jump Jets (again weighing 2 tons each) and a 17.5-ton 285-rated Clan XL engine (but no MASC) as fixed equipment (a more modest 21.5 tons, excluding the solitary additional engine-mounted heat sink), thus trading speed and agility for additional space and tonnage (6 critical slots and 18 tons, to be precise) that you can invest in weapons and other equipment. The upshot is that the customized Sovereign is slower, but better suited to long-range combat (with fewer, but heavier weapons), whereas the EXE-M is a faster, more agile brawler that relies on a larger number of lighter, shorter-ranged weapons.

In contrast, Inner Sphere and Clan standard BattleMechs can swap between engine, armor, structure, and heat sink types freely; using a lighter, bulkier type of armor or structure will cause dynamic slots of the corresponding type to appear on the MechLab. Even if all critical slots have been filled, these slots are not fixed, and can be freed up by downgrading to a heavier, less bulky type. Inner Sphere Stealth Armor is an exception: it requires not only a Guardian ECM Suite, but also occupies 2 free critical slots in every component of a 'Mech (except for the head and center torso), while weighing the same as Standard Armor.

Above: Standard BattleMechs (such as the Stone Rhino SR-6 shown above) can switch freely between engine types and ratings, as well as different armor, structure, and heat sink types; in the case of the former two, using a lighter type will cause dynamic slots to appear in the MechLab (except for Inner Sphere Stealth Armor, which requires 2 free critical slots each in every component other than the head and center torso, without adding or removing weight), and switching back to a heavier type will remove some or all of these slots.

My observations about fixed equipment in MechWarrior Online (and, by extension, the BattleTech tabletop game) reminded me of how the Infinite Space trilogy handled a similar issue. In Weird Worlds (and its sequel, Sea of Stars), all weapons on Tchorak and Ravian vessels (such as the former's Lava Bomb and the latter's Proton Claw) are treated as hardwired fixed equipment that cannot be replaced. However, these are the only examples of fixed equipment within the entire franchise, since  other equipment in Tchorak and Ravian ships is never subject to this restriction.

Above and below: Throughout the entire Infinite Space trilogy, Tchorak and Ravian ships are the only ones in the series whose weaponry is hardwired fixed equipment that cannot be removed or replaced, unlike those of other factions' ships. However, any and all other equipment installed on a Tchorak or Ravian ship (such as thrusters, shields, etc.) can be replaced or removed.

For all practical purposes, however, this rule only has an effect in the Combat Simulator mode, since you can't control (or even acquire) a Tchorak or Ravian ship in normal gameplay, where these factions can only be encountered as part of NPC fleets.

In short, rules regarding fixed equipment in BattleTech and Infinite Space are meant to make the game more balanced, by limiting your ability to customize builds based on certain units; however, they also encourage creativity by giving you a chance to work around these restrictions, and even turn them into strengths if you can do it right.