Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Opting for volume efficiency while maintaining efficiency
2017-11-14, 06:30 AM (This post was last modified: 2017-11-14 06:48 AM by BioPhoenix.)
Post: #11
RE: Opting for volume efficiency while maintaining efficiency
Smallest viable fuel engine requires two injectors on a direct-linked cylinder and as many exhaust as you can fit. At that small size and if you don't expect your craft to survive, fuel consumption from injectors is hardly an issue. (After all, a destroyed fuel tank is no different from a depleted one.) The shape's kinda funny but the power per volume is very high.
Compact injector engines can be really small in general. Inline turbo engines are more for big ships.

EDIT: Also, I believe that carrier-held subvehicles don't burn fuel when moving on the strategic map, so you don't need to worry about strategic fuel consumption in that regard either.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2017-11-17, 01:48 AM
Post: #12
RE: Opting for volume efficiency while maintaining efficiency
(2017-11-14 06:30 AM)BioPhoenix Wrote:  EDIT: Also, I believe that carrier-held subvehicles don't burn fuel when moving on the strategic map, so you don't need to worry about strategic fuel consumption in that regard either.

If that's true it'd be a huge change to my thoughts on using injector engined small craft.

I can sail my airplane in space.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2017-11-17, 09:04 AM
Post: #13
RE: Opting for volume efficiency while maintaining efficiency
(2017-11-14 05:18 AM)TheShadowKick Wrote:  I see a lot of suggestions to use RTGs, but if I'm putting something as expensive as RTGs on something I want it to survive a battle. And in my experience very small craft just don't have any survivability.

One or two small RTG is not so big cost, and you need not much energy to move a small vehicle around, if you don't want to use high damage energy weapons or multilayered strong shields on it.
So why do you need so much power? Smile

From the Depths english playlist starts here, before that it's hungarian:
https://youtu.be/Ltdx0yVI9cA?list=PLImar...ZokVtdBa73

[Image: 6yFiDvF.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2017-11-17, 10:59 AM (This post was last modified: 2017-11-17 11:02 AM by draba.)
Post: #14
RE: Opting for volume efficiency while maintaining efficiency
(2017-11-17 09:04 AM)Normal69 Wrote:  One or two small RTG is not so big cost, and you need not much energy to move a small vehicle around, if you don't want to use high damage energy weapons or multilayered strong shields on it.
So why do you need so much power? Smile

RTGs have atrocious power density, to compensate they also have horrible cost-effectiveness.
They are objectively bad at all sizes so nobody in their right mind uses them.

An example to show just how silly an idea that is, a "standard" microjet on the workshop has:
- 1 huge jet engine + 8 small ones on a spinblock
- 2 ammo processors
That needs 360 power.

You can get that with:
- 4x4 RTGs, a 4m battery beam and an electric engine: 22 volume and ~3500 materials
- a 7 volume injector engine + 3 fuel tanks, 10 volume and ~500 materials
By using RTGs you pay twice as much for a plane that's weaker with the added volume.


That's only microfighters, everything halfway good in the game needs a ridiculous amount of power for active defenses or warp spam.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2017-11-17, 11:20 AM
Post: #15
RE: Opting for volume efficiency while maintaining efficiency
(2017-11-17 10:59 AM)draba Wrote:  RTGs have atrocious power density, to compensate they also have horrible cost-effectiveness.
They are objectively bad at all sizes so nobody in their right mind uses them.

Then my mind must not be right Wink
I made a submarine with shields and LAMS fully powered with RTGs.

But I agree, it's pure madness, the cost is just too high, as well as the volume taken for the 'engine'.
But I wanted a 'nuclear' submarine, so I guess I had no other choice...
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2017-11-17, 11:28 AM (This post was last modified: 2017-11-17 11:29 AM by draba.)
Post: #16
RE: Opting for volume efficiency while maintaining efficiency
(2017-11-17 11:20 AM)Gladyon Wrote:  
(2017-11-17 10:59 AM)draba Wrote:  RTGs have atrocious power density, to compensate they also have horrible cost-effectiveness.
They are objectively bad at all sizes so nobody in their right mind uses them.

Then my mind must not be right Wink
I made a submarine with shields and LAMS fully powered with RTGs.

But I agree, it's pure madness, the cost is just too high, as well as the volume taken for the 'engine'.
But I wanted a 'nuclear' submarine, so I guess I had no other choice...

Yep, "thinks they are optimal" instead of "uses them" is more accurate.
I did have them in adventure mode purely for the convenience, but they are simply bad when cost is a limit.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2017-11-17, 07:01 PM
Post: #17
RE: Opting for volume efficiency while maintaining efficiency
With my semi cheaty electric engine output increase RTGs actually become competitive. It triples the battery energy to power conversion so you can either dump your batteries as capacitors or you can abuse efficiency of electric engines to get a lot of free, efficient power.

A pair of 1x4 RTGs can offer 950 power with an output setting of iirc 0.33 . Which I think is much closer to their material cost.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2017-11-17, 07:22 PM
Post: #18
RE: Opting for volume efficiency while maintaining efficiency
(2017-11-17 07:01 PM)SynthTwo Wrote:  With my semi cheaty electric engine output increase RTGs actually become competitive. It triples the battery energy to power conversion so you can either dump your batteries as capacitors or you can abuse efficiency of electric engines to get a lot of free, efficient power.

A pair of 1x4 RTGs can offer 950 power with an output setting of iirc 0.33 . Which I think is much closer to their material cost.

By buffing battery capacity you just push steam turbines from being slightly better than turbos to being the ultimate propulsion in every situation.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2017-11-17, 07:26 PM
Post: #19
RE: Opting for volume efficiency while maintaining efficiency
I like using RTG for cargo craft and ships which don't use much power. I used to use it for everything, but beyond DWG, OW, and WF, you really need lots of power in shields. I think RTGs are better for small ships powering just a few props and maybe a weak shield, and in adventure mode. I think that fuel or steam is essential on small jets though. I like using 3-5 large jets with a few smalls for turning, and RTGs don't work well enough.

Reducing electric engine output is how to make RTG power more cost-efficient, it isn't cheaty at all, just a way to use more batteries for more power per RTG.

2000mm HE dakka enthusiast.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2017-11-17, 07:30 PM
Post: #20
RE: Opting for volume efficiency while maintaining efficiency
(2017-11-17 07:26 PM)MizarLuke Wrote:  I like using RTG for cargo craft and ships which don't use much power. I used to use it for everything, but beyond DWG, OW, and WF, you really need lots of power in shields. I think RTGs are better for small ships powering just a few props and maybe a weak shield, and in adventure mode. I think that fuel or steam is essential on small jets though. I like using 3-5 large jets with a few smalls for turning, and RTGs don't work well enough.

Reducing electric engine output is how to make RTG power more cost-efficient, it isn't cheaty at all, just a way to use more batteries for more power per RTG.

I really want to do the math on how long a ship needs to run to make RTGs cost-efficient, but I think that might have to be done on a case-by-case basis.

I can sail my airplane in space.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)