From The Depths - Forum

Full Version: Steam turbine collection (Compact, Prefabbable, fast ramp up and with data!)
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
Hey Yall. I'm in the process of improving the turbine systems of my units and updates so I'm building a Platform showcasing the most compact 3x3 turbine systems I can make. These are campaign unit focused so they need to be

-easily prefabbable

-very space efficient (90 to 100% volume usage)

-ramping up very fast

-be block efficient and/or have a very high power density

This Platform currently has 9 3 high 3 wide designs that range from 2 to 15 units of lenght.

[attachment=40715]

I'm in the process of writing down very useful data for each one of them.

[attachment=40714]

The first sign post will have the standard info values:

-block count of the system

-volume of the system

-material/sec usage of the system

The second sign post will have values that define volume/block efficiency and battery charge density of each design. Each of these values is related to one second.

-battery storage charge

-block efficiency of said battery charge

-volume efficiency of said battery charge

Turbine database

Note #1

I'll name my own turbine design with the Arc 3x3 L(insert lenght value here). I may also put a letter after the LX to specify a version, the versions go down the alphabet starting from A (duh) and proceeding leftward.

Note #2

SFT stands for Self Fill Time, meaning how many seconds it takes for the turbine to fill its own volume of battery storage at spawn. The number behind the achronym stands for how many more times the battery volume is when compared to the torbine volume, meaning that the SFT2 value will be how many seconds the design will take to fill double its volume in battery storage and so on.

Note #3

If you desire to have your design included in this database you should also help me list all its data yourself first. You can measure block count, volume and material burn rate even at spawn without issues, just remember to count empry spaces inside the turbine design towards the actual volume of the design to probarly show the advantages of compact designs.


Measuring battery regen, battery regen per volume and battery regen per block will require you to wait for the steam engine to fully max out.

In order to accurately measure the SFT value you'll need to follow this slightly complicated but (close to) perfectly accurate method:

1) Stop the game with Shift + F11

2) Display FPS, Game Speed and Game time values iwth SHift + F4

3) Spawn the SFT Platform with your steam engine on and the battery storage for that SFT value.

4) Resume the game with pressing Shift + F11 again

5) Stop the game again the moment you see the green light with Shift + F11 one more time . Try not to blink. Remove 0.2 seconds from that time to simulate your reaction time.

Arc 3x3 L2

Blocks: 10

Volume: 18

Material burn per second: 1.4

Battery power generated per second: 2733

Battery power generated per second per volume: 154

Battery power generated per second per block: 273

SFT1: 18.4

SFT2: 26.7

SFT3: 34.2

Arc 3x3 L3

Blocks: 11

Volume: 27

Material burn per second: 2.8

Battery power generated per second: 5547

Battery power generated per second per volume: 205

Battery power generated per second per block: 504

SFT1: 20.3

SFT2: 29

SFT3: 36.2

Arc 3x3 L7

Blocks: 31

Volume: 63

Material burn per second: 6.2

Battery power generated per second: 12160

Battery power generated per second per volume: 225

Battery power generated per second per block: 392

SFT1: 18.7

SFT2: 27.1

SFT3: 34

Arc 3x3 L9

Blocks: 31

Volume: 81

Material burn per second: 8.4

Battery power generated per second: 16080

Battery power generated per second per volume: 198

Battery power generated per second per block: 519

SFT1: 20.3

SFT2: 29.1

SFT3: 36.4

Arc 3x3 L12 A

Blocks: 41

Volume: 108

Material burn per second: 11.2

Battery power generated per second: 22549

Battery power generated per second per volume: 209

Battery power generated per second per block: 551

SFT1: WIP

SFT2: WIP

SFT3: WIP

Arc 3x3 L12 B

Blocks: 54

Volume: 108

Material burn per second: 8.4

Battery power generated per second: 13374

Battery power generated per second per volume: 123

Battery power generated per second per block: 247

SFT1: WIP

SFT2: WIP

SFT3: WIP

Arc 3x3 L12 C

Blocks: 51

Volume: 108

Material burn per second: 9.8

Battery power generated per second: 17730

Battery power generated per second per volume: 164

Battery power generated per second per block: 348

SFT1: WIP

SFT2: WIP

SFT3: WIP

Arc 3x3 L12 A


Blocks: 51

Volume: 135

Material burn per second: 14

Battery power generated per second: 27450

Battery power generated per second per volume: 203

Battery power generated per second per block: 538

SFT1: WIP

SFT2: WIP

SFT3: WIP

Arc 3x3 L12 B

Blocks: 48

Volume: 135

Material burn per second: 14

Battery power generated per second: 28300

Battery power generated per second per volume: 210

Battery power generated per second per block: 590

SFT1: WIP

SFT2: WIP

SFT3: WIP



May it be useful to you aswell, I'm currently planning to find out what's the best turbine design in order to fill 2.000.000 units of battery storage every 10 seconds (Warlord overhaul uses 6 separate impact PACs and they 350k battery storage each ç_ç) , I'll probably choose the turbine design with the best mashup of block/volume efficiency but I'll try leaning more towards block efficiency.

P.S. Feel free to give me the BP of your own compact/fast ramp up designs and I'll see to include them! (P.S. I'll probably change the name of the thread if that happens to include your contribute)
There isn't much to optimize on steam engines for now, only 2 things to watch for:
- don't stack too many boilers, over 2-3 pressure buildup is too annoying to deal with
- have at least 1, preferably 2 small turbines for each large boiler
(2017-01-06 06:34 PM)draba Wrote: [ -> ]There isn't much to optimize on steam engines for now, only 2 things to watch for:
- don't stack too many boilers, over 2-3 pressure buildup is too annoying to deal with
- have at least 1, preferably 2 small turbines for each large boiler

I do still think there's a lot of optimization left when it comes to arrangement and minimizing the amount of piping to reduce volume usage, space waste and ramp up time. These turbines do just that.

And I vividly suggest to separate the steam engines you use for proper engine power and the ones used for battery charge. I usually run turbines on steam systems at around 4k-5k pressure while the fastest ramp up, high yield piston steam engines under full workload do not even get to 1800.

Some of these engines go over 500 battery power charged for every block they're made of and over 250 engine power per volume, that's something a hybrid system will never be able to achieve, while these systems can be fit in any spot and get there in 20 seconds due to them having very sectioned boilers.


P.S. Turbines also realy slow up ramp time so placing them in conjunction with pistons hurts the ability of the Whole system to ramp up at a good enough rate to be used in combat, one more reason to keep them separate.
(2017-01-06 06:45 PM)ARCAGNELL0 Wrote: [ -> ]I do still think there's a lot of optimization left when it comes to arrangement and minimizing the amount of piping to reduce volume usage, space waste and ramp up time. These turbines do just that.

And I vividly suggest to separate the steam engines you use for proper engine power and the ones used for battery charge. I usually run turbines on steam systems at around 4k-5k pressure while the fastest ramp up, high yield piston steam engines under full workload do not even get to 1800.

Some of these engines go over 500 battery power charged for every block they're made of and over 250 engine power per volume, that's something a hybrid system will never be able to achieve, while these systems can be fit in any spot and get there in 20 seconds due to them having very sectioned boilers.


P.S. Turbines also realy slow up ramp time so placing them in conjunction with pistons hurts the ability of the Whole system to ramp up at a good enough rate to be used in combat, one more reason to keep them separate.

I don't think this is a finished version of steam engines so I didn't put too much thought into the ones I use: IIRC 2 versions are 3 towers of 3 large boilers + 11 turbines and 4 boilers with 6 turbines.
Pistons are way worse than turbines, the only reason I ever had some is that they look cool(and always spawning with empty batteries in designer makes pure turbines way too aggravating Smile).
There's something very important to look at.
It's the number of pipes.
The more pipes, the more volume, the less pression (at equal number of boilers).

So, it is very important to minimize piping.
(2017-01-06 07:25 PM)draba Wrote: [ -> ]
(2017-01-06 06:45 PM)ARCAGNELL0 Wrote: [ -> ]I do still think there's a lot of optimization left when it comes to arrangement and minimizing the amount of piping to reduce volume usage, space waste and ramp up time. These turbines do just that.

And I vividly suggest to separate the steam engines you use for proper engine power and the ones used for battery charge. I usually run turbines on steam systems at around 4k-5k pressure while the fastest ramp up, high yield piston steam engines under full workload do not even get to 1800.

Some of these engines go over 500 battery power charged for every block they're made of and over 250 engine power per volume, that's something a hybrid system will never be able to achieve, while these systems can be fit in any spot and get there in 20 seconds due to them having very sectioned boilers.


P.S. Turbines also realy slow up ramp time so placing them in conjunction with pistons hurts the ability of the Whole system to ramp up at a good enough rate to be used in combat, one more reason to keep them separate.

I don't think this is a finished version of steam engines so I didn't put too much thought into the ones I use: IIRC 2 versions are 3 towers of 3 large boilers + 11 turbines and 4 boilers with 6 turbines.
Pistons are way worse than turbines, the only reason I ever had some is that they look cool(and always spawning with empty batteries in designer makes pure turbines way too aggravating Smile).

Yeah I wanted to try out different setups of the same thing to see what the differences are, and it seems like some gain in pure output but lose in block efficiency or get bigger or viceversa. I am mainly using these turbine designs to install them on either units using PACs and being able to reduce the amount of volume I need to charge said PAC as much as possible but also as a very compact and meaningful way to charge up battery storage for laser shield purposes like on the Dominion for it to be able to withstand laser fire from the getgo even against something as DPS intensive like a Hypathos. it does that already but the turbine designs it uses are sort of bad Tongue

P.S. I wish we could switch turbines on/off with ACB controls based on battery/power fraction ç_ç
I realize you just cannot cram enough Bluelines into a big fancy battleship with LAMS and PACs and all that to power it, but even a gas guzzling injector engine seems to burn far less resources.
Can someone 'splain me what I am doing wrong or is steam just not suitable for campaign use?
Is Nick planning to give us a nuclear reactor that we could use to power the steam system?
(2017-01-06 07:37 PM)Krougal Wrote: [ -> ]I realize you just cannot cram enough Bluelines into a big fancy battleship with LAMS and PACs and all that to power it, but even a gas guzzling injector engine seems to burn far less resources.
Can someone 'splain me what I am doing wrong or is steam just not suitable for campaign use?
Is Nick planning to give us a nuclear reactor that we could use to power the steam system?

Steam has 5 main appeals:

-it's dirt cheap when compared to fuel engines and the RP cost of fuel tanks

-it is very block efficient and can make use of empty internal space while at the same time not being overly heavy, meaning it can be neatly fit on any faction design that does not have cramped internals since it already was at the block count limit

-the power density of both turbines and steam is very high, much higher than most fuel engines and in some cases even higher than a full injector engine if you got a very well space-optimized steam array; the same applies to turbines

-The resource crates can store a lot and cost much less RP than fuel tanks, making steam units have a lot more internal space and not require stupidly high amounts of RP to even build

-Steam has the same efficiency on every burn rate, meaning that the power you want is directly proportional to the material usage you're going to sustain. This also implies that if you ACB control an engine to set itself to 0.1 burn rate out of combat it will also decently take the role as an efficient way to move your units around the map, while you usually always couple injector engines to use in combat with fuel efficient but combersome fuel engines out of combat if you don't use steam.
You don't need a very space-optimised steam array to exceed the power density of injector engines, maximum at ~70PPBB (not to mention the fuel, which for some reason has a lower storage density than the materials they are 'refined' from).

The ACB control for limiting fuel/material usage can also be applied to fuel engines, by shutting off main engines/limiting max rpm out of combat. I'm pretty sure the fuel efficiency for injector usage with refuelling is uniformly better than steam, if both use ACB control (since cylinders are cooler at lower rpms).
(2017-01-07 02:57 AM)Guaibee Wrote: [ -> ]You don't need a very space-optimised steam array to exceed the power density of injector engines, maximum at ~70PPBB (not to mention the fuel, which for some reason has a lower storage density than the materials they are 'refined' from).

The ACB control for limiting fuel/material usage can also be applied to fuel engines, by shutting off main engines/limiting max rpm out of combat. I'm pretty sure the fuel efficiency for injector usage with refuelling is uniformly better than steam, if both use ACB control (since cylinders are cooler at lower rpms).

Blargh.....sorry I must've mistaken autonomy for fuel efficiency along the way since you can concentrate a lot of material better than fuel but you're right, steam burns thru material very fast, especially if you got 250 huge boilers going at full burn rate in combat like a monstrosity I recently designed has. 400k engine power and enough battery regen to keep laser shields charged even against a hypathos at the cost of 350 materials per second. You can have a relatively high autonomy when compared to fuel injected engines but you'll eat material like nothing else but smoke deployer spam can.
Pages: 1 2
Reference URL's