From The Depths - Forum
Make steam engines need smokestacks - Printable Version

+- From The Depths - Forum (
+-- Forum: Alpha (/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Forum: Suggestions (/forumdisplay.php?fid=11)
+---- Forum: Power/Resource/Research suggestions (/forumdisplay.php?fid=47)
+---- Thread: Make steam engines need smokestacks (/showthread.php?tid=26392)

Pages: 1 2

Make steam engines need smokestacks - bs1110101 - 2017-01-10 12:54 PM

Exactly what the title says, each row of boilers would need to be ducted up to a smokestack, unlike internal combustion engines, these ducts would have a limit of how much exhaust would be able to flow through them, meaning ships with larger engines would need more and/or larger smokestacks.

In addition to this, i suggest buffing steam engines somewhat to compensate for the added hassle of smokestacks. Efficiency should be slightly better then fuel engines with a good refinery, but slightly less space efficient.

RE: Make steam engines need smokestacks - ShaadowMaaster - 2017-01-10 01:54 PM

Right now, steam engines are vague enough to be used as both high and low tech, which is a good thing, but this would make them a lot more low tech, so I personally don't support it. It would discourage boiler spam, I guess. This is about the "need", if it was "use smokestacks for better efficiency and lower power density" or something I would be all for it! Smile

RE: Make steam engines need smokestacks - ARCAGNELL0 - 2017-01-10 01:57 PM

Steam engines are pretty much 25% done at this stage of the game, mainly concerning balance and mechanics that make them up.

-2m pistons are useless when compared to 4m ones since they're identical apart from the fact the bigger ones need 50% less piping and 50% less crank shafts to achieve the same results

-Large turbines are completely useless when compared to small and compact turbine pieces since you can achieve stupidly fast ramp up times with the same volume of turbine used with those at the meager cost of some more blocks

-large boiler controllers are useless since small ones are able to control large boilers as well at attraction of the large one's volume and weight.

-we already have "smoke stacks" as in release valves but they're useless on the most optimized systems. And even if you needed them, they're so pathetically weak you'd have to slap them all over the place needing to add more pipe volume and in so doing g hurting tamp up times. The release valves also work in closed spaces.

-Steam starts out completely cold at spawn making only absurdly fast ramp up engines viable

Due to various combinations of the above factors we currently have a power source that is both impractical and broken if built correctly, wich can achieve stupidly good power densities at the cost of an even greater material inefficiency than full injector engines.

I assume steam was meant to both have the option of being a very material efficient source if engine power or a much less efficient power source that had sheer output in mind. We can currently have the latter now wich leads to even more options to make underwhelming weapon types like lasers useful but also makes any sort of injector engine completely useless by comparison apart from having some readybengine power at spawn.

I've built a 400k Power (under full workload) steam engine monstrosity already but I would've preferred to use buffed fuel engines instead or hell even super volatile power sources like nuclear reactors if they ever get integrated into the base game. I'm favourable of rebalancing power outputs and efficiency boh types of engines to drop steam down to low power density high material efficiency and make fuel engines have more output putting them on top; but I guess that's a talk we should bebhavibg with Nick when he asks for feedback on balance changes before stable release.

RE: Make steam engines need smokestacks - Richard Dastardly - 2017-01-10 02:07 PM

Steam currently magically eats everything - exhaust steam, exhaust heat, all heat; fuel engines don't, so steam shouldn't - if you want a cold source of energy then fork out for RTGs. Steam would still have it's energy density bonus if you had exhaust, and you could use exhaust in a feedback loop to raise burn rate faster - plus exhaust steam would lead to compounding & then it's efficiency goes up.

But, I suspect this will come - I doubt fireboxes are really there to be cosmetic. Maybe one day we'll get nuclear reactors as alternatives to boilers.

RE: Make steam engines need smokestacks - amimai - 2017-01-10 03:15 PM

Aren't steam engines already using closed loop fission reactions in the boilers?

Also small pistons useless? Since when?
Small pistons ramp up faster and 2 pistons going into 2 seperate drives gives you both the most resource efficient and the most compact steam engine (outputs 2k engine drive for 19volume...

RE: Make steam engines need smokestacks - ARCAGNELL0 - 2017-01-10 03:23 PM

(2017-01-10 03:15 PM)amimai Wrote:  Aren't steam engines already using closed loop fission reactions in the boilers?

Hehe I guess that would make sense given the current nature of them, would even make my partially/predominantly steam powered Scarlet Dawn units more lore friendly xD

RE: Make steam engines need smokestacks - CaptainFVV - 2017-01-10 04:03 PM

I like the idea of adding exhaust ductwork/funnels to steam engines, but would rather it be an optional configuration to tailor your ship's powerplant to your preferences vice a necessity. For now, I bring steam piping up from the engineering spaces and run a line up the front of my funnels with a pressure relief valve on top to represent the ship's "whistle."

As soon as steam engines came out I preferred them over fuel ones, as they fill out engineering spaces and actually make your interiors busy like a real ship's.

RE: Make steam engines need smokestacks - Normal69 - 2017-03-03 11:11 PM

I like this thread. (Y)

RE: Make steam engines need smokestacks - Eagle - 2017-07-12 01:47 PM

+1 for the Smokestack suggestion. Although A closed loop option (nuclear powered?) is very interesting, especially for stealth- or spacecraft.

Efficiency should be slightly better then fuel engines with a good refinery, but slightly less space efficient.
What? No. Efficiency should still be poorer than fuel engines, what else would be the point to fitting a fuel engine anymore on a large ship? Like modern day navies, the choice should be between a normal dieselfuel setup, or a gasturbine engine (in our case steam) that will power the ship. The first has a lower powerdensity but is cheaper to run, the latter more powerdense but more expensive. FtD should be no different.

RE: Make steam engines need smokestacks - link.qwerty - 2018-01-05 09:45 AM

I have been playing this game not so long ago. From the Depth hooked me in the same way as Minecraft in its time.
I want to make a few suggestions, referring to this post Steam Engine Idea and _this thread.
1. To give an opportunity to burn fuel in boilers, not only materials. By the option in Steam Controller. Burning the fuel will produce more steam than burning the materials. Perhaps as a fine, they will be more voracious than internal combustion engines, but the costs will be recouped by a large output of power. In real life (World War II, currently large-scale ships use gas turbine engines), warships burned oil in their boilers rather than coal or wood due to higher efficiency.
2. To make it possible for internal combustion engines to "choke" in sealed or flooded spaces. For example, on WWII submarines when driving in the above-water position, the entrance hatch (or the hatch of the galley) was always left open. If this was not done, the diesel engine at the time was consumed by all free oxygen and the mechanics in the engine room was losing consciousness. For internal combustion engines, add another ventilation pipe system that will supply air to the carburettors and superchargers (alternatively, into the engine space, for example in the form of a 3x3x3 box).
The same with boilers. If they do not have access to fresh air (in sealed or flooded space), they go out and require time for their re-heating (much more than for regular warm-up). This can be done with a chimney pipe connected directly to the boiler, for example.
Alternatively add option for flooding rooms through that pipes systems (let the air pump perceive these pipes as holes in the sealed room).
3. If the boiler's chimney was filled with seawater at the moment when the boiler is hot, an explosion. Cruisers and destroyers with steam engines in the WWII. They exploded when cold water flood the boiler room. On a submarine with a steam engine, you should extinguish the boiler before the sub is submerged. Otherwise, a big ka-boom.
4. Add valves for all pipes, including for the proposed ventilation pipes and chimneys. Including this will help solve the problem of flooding rooms, boilers and fuel engines with water. And also to solve the problem of overloading the pistons in paired systems, when one of the pair is destroyed, and the steam reducers do not cope with the increased pressure. It is good that the valves are controlled by AI blocks.
5. In far far future, add a nuclear reactor as another type of boiler for a steam engine. The boilers that are currently in the game are just similar reactors.
In real life nuclear reactors have one interesting detail that distinguishes them from a simple steam boiler - they are very capricious in operation. Heat generating systems are generally one of the most reactive. An ordinary boiler warms up for a long time to the operating temperature and cools down for a long time. It is impossible to warm up and cool down faster - temperature deformations will rupture the boiler body.
Nuclear reactors are starting even slower. And there are reasons for this. One of them is the danger of reaching an uncontrolled nuclear reaction, which usually ends with a thermal explosion. The second is self-poisoning of the reactor by the products of fuel decay (the most undesirable of them is xenon-135, which is formed from iodine-135, a significant amount of it is formed in the reactor as a result of its operation), which do not have time to "burn out" with a hasty launch. Engineers say - "the reactor falls into the iodine pit". The reactor just does not want to warm up. If you try to get it out of this state too quickly, the result can be an uncontrolled nuclear reaction.
In the game, this behavior can be described by the speed of the reaction in about the same way as done with boilers. The reaction rate is more than 1 - the reactor is heated. The reaction rate is less than 1 - the reactor cools down. The reaction rate is 1 - the state is stable. By increasing and decreasing the rate of reactor heating, it is necessary to achieve an optimal temperature at which a sufficient amount of steam will be generated.
I assume that this will not be easy to implement, because for simulation of a real reactor, you need to think through the coolant circulation system. That is why I say that this is a matter of a distant future.

My suggestions will not require, as I think, a strong code change (except # 2,3), since the necessary game mechanics already exist in the game. For backwards compatibility with old blueprints, this game mechanics can be entered as an option at the start of the campaign.
And i apologize for my poor english.