From The Depths - Forum

Full Version: Fuel Engine mini-overhaul.
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
A proposal to add and change some parts currently part of fuel engines.


I propose the following changes and additions:



Change: Supercharger: Receives the following buffs and mechanics: Now increases efficiency by [somewhere between 0.6 and 0.8], multiplied by the number of spaces around the supercharger that are either air, or are a block that air can pass through (like pipes). This value decreases from [somewhere between 0.6 and 0.8] to 0.58 by the time you reach 50% max RPM. After which, it decreases rapidly, and is something like 0.05 by the time it reaches full RPM.

What this means: A carb with a supercharger on it that is "fully ventilated" with 5 air-passable blocks around the supercharger will have an efficiency multiplier of 3.90 at 50% RPM (base efficiency is 1, and a super w/5 air-passable blocks adds 5x0.58, or 2.90 to this for 3.90). For comparison, a maxed out turbo (when you pipe enough exhaust into an in-line for instance) achieves an efficiency multiplier of 3.93. This means that Superchargers would technically be a bit superior below 50% RPM and would drop below a fully-gassed turbo a little before you get up to 50%.

You can still connect a supercharger to multiple carbs of course. But this would mean of course that it has more blocks touching it that block air (the carburettors would be "solid" blocks).

If you used these to produce, say, a simple engine somewhat equivalent to a "T4" turbo engine (4 turbos per carb), then lets say you end up with a 5x5x3 engine with 4 cylinders, 4 carbs, each of which has for fully vented superchargers on it. This engine has 800 max power, but you set its limit to 50% and thus its power is effectively 400. The result is an engine similar to a T4, with a PPBB (power per bounding box) of ~5.3. For comparison, some high end 4T engines (using turbos) can hit 8+ PPBB. Also, this "4S" engine would be slightly less effecient then a (fully gassed) T4, since it would be multipliers of 3.90 instead of a turbo's 3.93. It would however be possible to make very small compared to a typical T4 engine, which is a very useful trait if you want that efficiency in a small vehicle, and would see much less need for piping and such since the supers would not require exhaust to function (you should still of course probably have exhaust pipes).


Change: Turbo mechanics:

A turbo connected directly to a cylinder (instead of receiving exhaust from pipes) now acts like it is using 10x the exhaust of that cylinder for efficiency purposes (it of course still only pumps out the amount of exhaust the cylinder is actually producing). For comparison, a turbo taking exhaust from pipes, and which is using 10 exhaust would produce an efficiency multiplier of 2.09. In practice, since a cylinder may produce less then 1 exhaust per "exit" if its running more efficiently, the actual efficiency multiplier of a directly connected turbo would probably be around 2.

Reasoning: This would allow direct connections to be more viable to use, especially in small engine designs.

Naturally, you can also make engines that have both turbos and superchargers to generate efficiency profiles that may prove useful for different vessel requirements.


Change: Engine Block: If an engine does not produce at LEAST a net of 1 power, it will shut down, and wait until it can before starting up again. This is relevant to the next couple parts, which use set amounts of engine power, and thus could lead to an engine which would not produce a net positive power (if, for instance, a cylinder overheated, or if you just simply built an engine with only one cylinder and a whole bunch of the below parts).


Change: Radiator Mechanics:

Radiators no longer reduce efficiency of cylinders themselves. Instead, they now reduce the power the engine block generates by a set amount via basically adding a negative modifier to the total engine power. For instance, lets say that a 1x1 radiator reduces engine power by 25, and a 3x3 reduces it by 250 (and has 10x the cooling effect of a 1x1). The amount of cooling provided by a radiator may be adjusted to be balanced for this power reduction (likely, a single radiator would be stronger than it is now, given the power consumption).

Optionally, radiators could also gain a mechanic similar to superchargers, where they become more efficient at cooling when there are air blocks around them. Alternatively, they could become more efficient if their "face" is pointing out of the vehicle, and less efficient if their "face" is directly in contact with blocks that do NOT allow air to pass (like armor).

What this means: If you have an engine that produces 540 power (due to cylinders being hot and not producing a full 100 per carb), and you add a radiator, the engine will then cool. lets say it is now producing 580 power. The engine ignores the power use of the radiator when calculating how efficient each cylinder is, and such. It is only when you goto the engine block itself that the -25 power modifier is added in (so the actual output of the engine is now effectively 555).


New Part: Compressor: 1x1x1 block with one exhaust point. Must be connected to a crank shaft or adapter. Like the proposed new radiators, this part reduces the engine's power. In exchange, it produces a set amount of "exhaust" which comes out of it and can be piped into turbos and such just like any other exhaust. Lets initially say that the compressor reduces engine power by 100, and produces an amount of "exhaust" equal to 5 times the engine's current %RPM.

What this is used for: It is, effectively, a part that generates extra exhaust. It would be useful for smaller engines that wouldn't normally have enough exhaust to fully spin up turbos. It can potentially be used to help a larger engine continue to have sufficient exhaust for its turbos at RPMs lower than normal.


New Part: In-line Turbo (straight)

This part is an in-line turbo. Unlike the existing one, which turns the exhaust in a 90 degree angle, this new one would take exhaust in one side, and put it out the other. Whereas a normal turbo is effectively like a corner pipe with a thing attached to it, this new turbo is like a straight pipe with a thing attached. Because its effectively a straight pipe, it does not need Left and Right variants, so it would be just one part.



Changes: Adapter

After you connect an adapter to a crankshaft, you can now build another crankshaft coming out of another side of that adapter, and this new crank shaft will be connected to whatever engine the adapter in question is connected to. This would allow for more forms of engines and more flexibility in the shapes of engines.


New Part: Piped Adapter

This adapter also acts like an exhaust pipe, and has one exhaust exit on it. Unlike the normal adapter, it cannot be used to connect a new crankshaft, and it cannot connect to anything on the sides that the exhaust comes out (except, of course, exhaust pipes). It takes exhaust from any connected cylinder and outputs it.

In addition to this part, there would also be a pair of variants that have two exhaust ports, one in a corner-pipe configuration, and another in a straight-pipe configuration.

This part simply makes it easier to get exhaust out of cylinders, and would see use in various situation where you want to get exhaust to move through the engine in certain ways, or get exhaust out of a cylinder that would otherwise be blocked. I imagine it would see use in high-power engines a fair bit. You can also use it to send a pipe through the center area of an engine without having to go around it.


================================

At this point, we reach some of the changes that really would change the attributes of fuel engines substantially and would be more likely to require changes to some existing designs. These do not need to be considered even if all the above changes were to be added...
================================

More extreme proposals:


Changes: Injector.

The Injector now has a different use. It is now connected to a carburetor, and increases the amount of power that carburetor adds to any cylinders the carburetor is effecting, which naturally increases the heat as well. Efficiency itself would not change (aside from the possible change from a cylinder being hotter)

Lets say that the modifier per injector is 1.5. For instance, a carburetor with 2 injectors will now produce 225 power in each connected cylinder instead of 100. With 3, it would be 337 power in each connected cylinder. Naturally, the injectors are competing for carburetor surfaces with cylinders, turbos, and superchargers. So adding an injector to a carb would in the end make it such that there is one less space available that you can use for, say, a turbo or supercharger.

The new use for these parts would primarily be for 1-2T and 1-2S (supercharger) engines, where they would allow improved power outputs from higher power, low efficiency engines.


Changes: Names of Injector and Carburetor

The carburetor is perhaps now renamed to be "injection something" or maybe "fuel intake" or "air/fuel intake" or something. The block that is currently the injector may be renamed to "extra injector" or something like that (if carbs become "fuel intakes" then it can actually just stay as injector).




So, thoughts? Comments?
Ah, come to think of it... (based on another topic here)


New Part: Mechanical Engine Block

Acts like a normal engine block, except that it produces double the "power." However, this power is in the form of "mechanical power," which can only be used by things directly connected to this engine via a shaft. This could include new custom propeller parts, or it could just be something like there being a new spinner block that requires a connection to a gearbox to work or something, instead of needing new propeller blocks. It is possible that there could be new systems that make use of mechanical energy too, like a new weapon system. Existing propeller parts could be given identical-looking variants that just require a shaft to connect to them.

New Part: Mechanical shaft, and Differential Gearbox.

This would connect to the back of a mechanical engine block, and would let you "pipe" the mechanical energy from the engine to where its needed (like propulsion or something). The shaft parts are all straight. The Differential Gearbox takes the mechanical energy from an input shaft, and then transmits it to one or more output shafts. This lets you effectively split up the mechanical power to multiple shafts, or simply lets you change the direction.


New Part: Generator
Attach this to a mechanical shaft coming out of a mechanical engine and it will convert up to 45% of the mechanical power provided by a mechanical engine block back to a form that can be used anywhere on the vehicle. This makes it less efficient then using a normal engine block, but it does allow you to get power out of a mechanical engine instead of having to just build a second engine.





Depending how steam engines get overhauled, they could also get a part that converts their power into mechanical energy form.
.
This sounds interesting.
I would be careful with injectior rework because it makes it necessary to rework injection engines as well as making it impossible to make 3x3+1 engines impossible to make.
Please don't replace the fuel injector in this manner. In the real world carburetors and fuel injectors are two very different devices, even if they don't map very well to their FTD versions in terms of fuel efficiency.
Also the straight in-line turbo should still have left and right variants for aesthetic reasons if it looks similar to the existing turbos. Also, maybe the supercharger should also take power, like the radiator...? Maybe.
I like the ability to generate power from the drive shafts. I wish the CJE's could also have an option of adding drive shafts off of them or even a section in the jet that generates power but reduces thrust a little bit.

I agree with BioPhoenix about the injector/carb situation. I think the main idea is to keep them separate as two different options for engine power/efficiency. Though regarding the in-line turbo I'm not sure why it would need left and right variants. Based on the OP it seems the main reason for it is for simple straight sections where left/right won't matter? I'm assuming this is because it would be a mostly symmetrical looking piece. Unless one side would show a fan setup?
If people don't like the parts under "more extreme proposals" there is nothing wrong with only implementing the stuff before that part.

I would like to hear feedback on what they would think of them if the parts were not already named "injector" and "carburetor" though.


After all, with the "more extreme proposals" it would basically just become:

New Injector: is what you get when you add the injector part to the "carburetor" (which would no longer actually be called that, but would instead be called something to do with fuel intake or air/fuel mixing).

New "carburetor": would be what you get if you don't add any injectors and only use the intake or air fuel mixer or whatever the new name for the part is (it would no longer be called a carburetor, but it would still behave the same way as it did before).

The important part here is that, if we did those last two things, there would no longer be a part named a carburettor. The part would still be there, but it would just be renamed. Because, after all, carburettors and injection systems are different, so it doesn't make sense to have both together from a naming perspective. Therefor, to implement this change to injectors, we would need to rename the part that is currently called a Carburetor, and make its new name something like "Fuel/Air chamber" or "Fuel/Air Mixer" or "Fuel Intake/Input" or something like that.



If we wanted to be technical, the new system would basically mean that we are using indirect injection engines, where the fuel is injected not into the piston area itself, but into the area right before it. If you DON'T use an injector, you can either argue that its a carburetor engine instead, or you can perhaps argue that its actually still an injection engine and the air/fuel mixer part (the part that is CURRENTLY called a carburetor) has an injector in it, and adding more just lets it better mix fuel and air so as to be able to use a richer mixture. In this case, you could perhaps compare the injector add-on part to be like turning the system into a multi-point injection system?
.
The idea of an intake/injector going onto the carb itself would be interesting, especially magnifying the power that the carb is providing to the cylinders around it. I could be reading this wrong but it seems to me this could, depending on placement, free up spaces on the cylinders themselves? Allowing for a bit more wiggle room with other attachments. Or did I get the wrong impression?
While I love the idea of making superchargers more useful again, I internally cringe at them requiring open sides for 'airflow' or what have. In the real world, superchargers are a MECHANICAL boost, and actually function off a small portion of the engines power (usually via their own drive belt) to do much what turbochargers do.

In game, supers work best at low RPM and turbos at high and that is actually relatively accurate. But with the insane efficiency boosts in-line turbos can give with T3 or, gods forbid, T4 give..... there's really no point.

I'd love to see more variations in engines, too. New parts, new links/arrangements of older parts (that straight turbo would be so much easier to pipe for engine rookies like me!!). As far as I'm concerned there's only two types of series engines right now, and I'd love to see more viable options.

Or, gods forbid, an upper limit placed on online turbo boosting so it isnt so insanely good that it blows EVERYTHING out of the water, with the only concern being having room to place the moderately large engine
I see. Then rather than using adjacent air blocks, maybe have it so that the efficiency of a supercharger starts at about a boost of 3.9 or 4-ish (at 50% RPM, increasing a little as you go lower and decreasing sharply as you go above 50%), and decreases based on how many carbs it is actually affecting. Like, say, -0.5 for each carb after the first.

After all, a real machine having to do the same work split across more devices would be less effective in any given one, right?



(2018-07-12 12:13 AM)Ramble6 Wrote: [ -> ]The idea of an intake/injector going onto the carb itself would be interesting, especially magnifying the power that the carb is providing to the cylinders around it. I could be reading this wrong but it seems to me this could, depending on placement, free up spaces on the cylinders themselves? Allowing for a bit more wiggle room with other attachments. Or did I get the wrong impression?


Probably. The new in-line variant and the ability to "snake" the crank shaft itself with adapters would also add more flexibility too.


In practice, I suspect that it would allow people to extend the "linear power vs. efficiency" thing.

With T5, T4, and T3 engines, you essentially double PPBB each time you go down a turbo. Best T5 design is between 3 and 4 PPBB. Best T4 is around 8-9 PPBB. Best T3s are about 16-18PPBB. Best T2s however (improved blueline variants and extendables) don't double any longer, but are rather around 23-26 PPBB.

The reason being that, of course, once you get down to T2, the optimal setup is that 4 cylinders are touching each carb along with the 2 turbos But at this point, the engine itself starts getting too crowded, and it gets to the point where things like the crank shaft or inability to have multiple engines use the same carburetor start limiting the design options. The carbs themselves start getting closer to each other too, which makes it harder to turbo them without blocking another turbo.

The best T1s seem to be around 40-45 PPBB, but they don't usually have many carbs that service 5 cylinders, and just get the boost over T2 by being able to pack them closer due to only needing to worry about piping 1 turbo to each carb.



...

But I digress.

If you can sacrifice a carb side to boost power instead of efficiency, we could potentially see some new T1 and T2 designs that make use of this to improve their power by giving them new ways to overcome the limitations of pipery and crankshaftery.
.
Reference URL's