A Simple Helpful Calculation for you all

So I'm almost 90% sure this is right because I've even run tests on it to clarify its accuracy which you can usually get within a few seconds depending on distance. But I've come up with a calculation on how many real minutes it would take to reach a place in time compression.

First what you need, are your waypoints, plot them, then set time to x1 and read the end waypoints time, lets say 96:15 which is 96 hours and 15 minutes.

Next, take 96 and multiply by 60 (minutes in an hour) to get 5760 (total minutes in 96 hours) then add 15 (the leftover) to get 5775 (Total minutes for the whole trip)

Now take whatever TC you want to run it at, and divide by that, lets say 512 to get 11.279296 Minutes.

Now if you want to get real precise, take 60(seconds in a minute) and multiply .279296 to get 16.75776 seconds. So your trip of 96 hours and 15 minutes at 1x time compression would take 11 minute and 16 seconds at 512.

So the equation would look like this, [ h x 60 + l(m)]/ 512 = t(m)

where h= hours, l(m)= leftover minutes, the remainder if you will, and t(m.a.c.) = trip in minutes at compression.

If you don't understand why this equation works look below

Another way to look at it would be a ratio such as (using the same variables)

512tc------|----- 5775 Minutes-----|----11.279296 minutes
_______ = ___________ = __________

a-----------|-------- 1 tc----------|-------1a

The tc in the top left and tc in the bottom right cancel out and leave you with minutes on top, over 1a

So yeah, I had always wondered for a way to calculate that but never realized it until I had a duh moment and remembered math. When I say I tested it I mean in the case of those numbers there, I got 11 minutes and 16 seconds at 512 tc for a 96 hour 15 minute trip at 1 tc. So I took a stop watch, started it and stopped it once I reached my destination my time?? 11 minutes, 20 seconds (No stops from ships, just slight mathematical error somewhere due to my laziness) then I ran it again on a shorter distance and a longer one and was a little under a few seconds off either way.

So then I thought I'd post this up here for you all, hope this is a useful tool for any of you who would like to know that number and are pressed for time

Casey

[Fish In The Water]

Originally Posted by USNSRCaseySmith

So the equation would look like this, [ h x 60 ] + l(m)/ 512 = t(m)

Easy on the math, you're making my head hurt...



Just kidding, thanks for the post!

[Salvadoreno]

Originally Posted by Fish In The Water

Easy on the math, you're making my head hurt...



Just kidding, thanks for the post!

<-----me trying to figure out what u just said.

Hehe nice discovery tho!

Originally Posted by Salvadoreno

<-----me trying to figure out what u just said.

Hehe nice discovery tho!

I could walk you through it if you like?? Lol

[Lord_magerius]

To quote the philosopher Bernard Black
"I can feel bits of my brain falling away like a wet cake"

[Missing Name]

I actually do mental approximations for this. "Do I have enough time to eat? Lemme see... it'll be about fifteen minutes to cross the Atlantic. Yeah, sounds good."

Originally Posted by Lord_magerius

To quote the philosopher Bernard Black
"I can feel bits of my brain falling away like a wet cake"

Basically. to find out how much time it will take you to travel say 100 hours in a time compression of say 1024x you take 100 hours times 60 (Because you have to convert it to minutes because that is what your end answer will be) and divide by 1024 (Because the x at the end of 1024 means multiply, so all time compression does is multiply the speed at which time passes by that much) and your answer is in minutes of how long it takes you to travel 100 hours of in game travel time at a tc of 1024.

I know when i used the equation that was confusing but let me try to make it simpler. (h x 60) + however minutes leftover (I.e. 10:16 = 10 hours and 16 mins, so add 16 minutes) then divide that by whatever time compression your using to get how many minutes it will take you in RL to travel that distance (Say 10 hours 16 minutes as in I.e.) at a whatever time compression you choose. Sorry if I wrote it that confusing guys. I just thought thats how it would make the most sense If you don't understand it ask me why and I'll help guide you through the bit you don't understand.

[VONHARRIS]

Originally Posted by USNSRCaseySmith

So the equation would look like this, [ h x 60 ] + l(m)/ 512 = t(m)

where h= hours, l(m)= leftover minutes, the remainder if you will, and t(m.a.c.) = trip in minutes at compression.


Casey

Sorry for that but the correct form of the equation is:
(h x 60 + l )/512 = t

The way you have written it , only the variable l will be divided by 512 and not the whole factor hx60 + l
This is why the bracket is required.
Example :
If h=96 and l=15 , as in your example , then your equation gives the following results:

96x60 + 15/512 = t
5760 + 0.02929 = t
5760.02929 = t which is wrong

Now :
(h x 60 + l )/512 = t
(96 x 60 + 15)/512 = t
(5760 + 15)/512 = t
5775/512 = t
11.279 = t

It is obvious that your calculations are correct but you have miswritten the equation.
I couldn't help it , I teach math!
Sorry again.

Originally Posted by VONHARRIS

Sorry for that but the correct form of the equation is:
(h x 60 + l )/512 = t

The way you have written it , only the variable l will be divided by 512 and not the whole factor hx60 + l
This is why the bracket is required.
Example :
If h=96 and l=15 , as in your example , then your equation gives the following results:

96x60 + 15/512 = t
5760 + 0.02929 = t
5760.02929 = t which is wrong

Now :
(h x 60 + l )/512 = t
(96 x 60 + 15)/512 = t
(5760 + 15)/512 = t
5775/512 = t
11.279 = t

It is obvious that your calculations are correct but you have miswritten the equation.
I couldn't help it , I teach math!
Sorry again.

haha thats okay! I appreciate the help there and it is fixed I also kept the l(m) and t(m) to make it look a bit cooler (m standing for minutes) even though a variable with a variable underscore or whatever you like to call it is used for more complex equations if I remember right. I cant believe I forgot that though, a basic rule of math haha. Thanks Von Harris!

[desirableroasted]

Originally Posted by USNSRCaseySmith

haha thats okay! I appreciate the help there and it is fixed I also kept the l(m) and t(m) to make it look a bit cooler (m standing for minutes) even though a variable with a variable underscore or whatever you like to call it is used for more complex equations if I remember right. I cant believe I forgot that though, a basic rule of math haha. Thanks Von Harris!

(h/tc)*60 is quite fast, and ends up (in your example) under two seconds different from your equation. (96/512)*60= 11.25 minutes. Certainly, your equation is more exact, but (h/tc)*60 takes 4 seconds on the calculator.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by desirableroasted

(h/tc)*60 is quite fast, and ends up (in your example) under two seconds different from your equation. (96/512)*60= 11.25 minutes. Certainly, your equation is more exact, but (h/tc)*60 takes 4 seconds on the calculator.

Aye that...otherwise by the time I completed the calculation the result would be different to the current time/position....might even have arrived at the final waypoint

[Sailor Steve]

Interesting how different minds work. This is not something I've ever wondered about. I guess I'm with Missing Name on this - I listen to the music and enjoy the ride. It takes as long as it takes.

Originally Posted by jimbuna

Aye that...otherwise by the time I completed the calculation the result would be different to the current time/position....might even have arrived at the final waypoint

now I feel like I didnt help anyone

Originally Posted by desirableroasted

(h/tc)*60 is quite fast, and ends up (in your example) under two seconds different from your equation. (96/512)*60= 11.25 minutes. Certainly, your equation is more exact, but (h/tc)*60 takes 4 seconds on the calculator.

Yeah I know, but Im pretty anal about converting it all to minutes instead of 96.xxx hours I dont know why?

[desirableroasted]

Originally Posted by USNSRCaseySmith

Yeah I know, but Im pretty anal about converting it all to minutes instead of 96.xxx hours I dont know why?

Yeah, took me awhile to visualize it. Funny, we are all ok when told a 100-meter dash took 10.45 seconds, but are befuddled when told a marathon took 2.45 hours.