Why power reactor module formula is not something like the power capacitor formula ?

[Peekie30]

Is making crosses from inside out the most efficient or making corner point ones the most efficient?

corner point thingies, if you want to hop on the NFD build server later tonight, i can show ya

 

[Drakkart]

No, just because games everyone could master suck. some stuff has to be a bit more complicated for a game to provide a decent level of demand to the brain, wouldn't play it if it was not challenging.

 

[GRHayes]

Straight lines aren't the most efficient way of doing it, far from it. Ideally you'd want a cross (+ shape thingy) that extends as much in each direction as you can. Then you keep adding those multidirectional crosses until you reach the soft cap. Making sure that they don't intersect or touch each other, all while ensuring that you're maximizing the dimensions of each individual group, can be pretty challenging at times (especially with smaller ships).

Actually you are wrong. Strait lines are the most efficient. You can only save 1 block by making a cross.
I not only ran the math I actually built them and tested them.
The reason is the formula doesn't go by volume as so many people misinterpret but the addition of the dimensions.
But doing so would mean you waste a huge amount of room. By making strait line modules in 1 row you could connect 40 of them side by side.

It also seems you don't understand what the game actually considers a reactor. When you create one of the cubes that you have been taught to do. That isn't 1 reactor but several as far as the game is concerned. The more that the dimensions add up to in any single one of those the greater that value becomes to a certain point. Also the greater each individual block produces. It creates a sort of bell curve. Once you get past a certain point it declines again. When said it was the most efficient I was telling the truth I gave the top of the bell before it starts turning back down. The very next block starts going down if you take total power and divide it by the number of blocks in the reactor.

Dimensions = Power = per block
100 = 48,992.5
300 = 299,736
400 = 479,724.5
500 = 683,737.3
600 = 900,221.4
700 = 1,116,166.5 = 1594.5
800 = 1,318,843.5 = 1648.5
900 = 1,497,980.7 = 1664.4 >
1000 = 1,647,409.7 = 1647.4 <
950 = 1,576,612.7 = 1659 <
925 = 1,538,262 = 1662 <
912 = 1,519,165.2 = 1665.8 > **** Final Answer
918 = 1,528,768.9 = 1665.3 <
915 = 1,523,980.8 = 1665.6 <
913 = 1520773.5 = 1665.7 <

You can get the same power with one less block if you make an L shape by moving a block over.
But like I said above you will have made it 2 times as wide. You could use the extra width to reduce the vertical of the module thus you could stack them on top of each other but you still end up taking up the same amount of space.

 

[Crashmaster]

The optimum strategy changes with extreme ship sizes and shapes of course but straight lines are only best for less-efficient checkboard setups in box ships or redundant >2mil e/sec power brute-forcing in titans.

If you can fit a straight line in a ship, you can fit a non-straight, longer and therefore more efficient line in it instead.

No one discusses power reactor design in terms of space-efficiency.

 

[Malacodor]

It doesn't matter if you have 1000 blocks in a line or a 2d or even 3d L or cross shape, the power output is always the same. You don't even save one block (yes GRHayes, test it in-game). This means that if your ship is too small to fit a single long line of reactor blocks, L/cross shapes are of course more efficient (as Crashmaster said).

 

[AtraUnam]

redundant >2mil e/sec power brute-forcing in titans.

There are a few strategies that while worse bleow 2mil e/sec can be used to stretch the soft cap a few hundred k e/sec above 2 mil without quite lowering to the default 25 e/sec per block.

 

[GRHayes]

It doesn't matter if you have 1000 blocks in a line or a 2d or even 3d L or cross shape, the power output is always the same. You don't even save one block (yes GRHayes, test it in-game). This means that if your ship is too small to fit a single long line of reactor blocks, L/cross shapes are of course more efficient (as Crashmaster said).

I did test it in game that is how I know you save only 1 block. And yes you save one block.
The reason is because you get to reuse 1 block in the second dimension. It doesn't work though for the 3rd dimension because you already used it.

So if you take 3 blocks and put them in an L shape it gives you the dimension of 2+2 = 4 which is the same as 4 in a straight line.
or you can take 911 blocks move one to the side and get 912 because 910+2 = 912.

Before you go and tell someone else to do something in game I suggest you do the same. Because I did and obviously you didn't!

You can also tell I test stuff by the number of articles I've put up with pictures regarding the issues. Such as the one below or bug reports I filed.
http://starmadedock.net/threads/block-count-is-off.21446/#post-238404

 

[Malacodor]

I did test it in game that is how I know you save only 1 block. And yes you save one block.
The reason is because you get to reuse 1 block in the second dimension. It doesn't work though for the 3rd dimension because you already used it.

So if you take 3 blocks and put them in an L shape it gives you the dimension of 2+2 = 4 which is the same as 4 in a straight line.
or you can take 911 blocks move one to the side and get 912 because 910+2 = 912.

Before you go and tell someone else to do something in game I suggest you do the same. Because I did and obviously you didn't!

I did test it while writing this:
7 reactors in a straight line: 923.9 e/s
7 reactors in a 2d L: 923.9 e/s
7 reactors in a 3d L: 923.9 e/s

 

[GRHayes]

I did test it while writing this:
7 reactors in a straight line: 923.9 e/s
7 reactors in a 2d L: 923.9 e/s
7 reactors in a 3d L: 923.9 e/s

My apology apparently they did something to it since last I tested. You are correct.
Not like the change made much difference. +/- 1 block in the scheme of things is insignificant. I checked the rest of the primary workings of it at least that still works.

I was trying to find that curve chart posted recently when they made the adjustment. If I remember correctly all they did was change a few values not the formula supposedly. apparently they did.

Apparently things changed between one point of my testing and the next.

 

[Bkwrm]

Dunno, on one hand I don't mind the current system. It's doable. However it is rather hard to explain to a newbie without pictures and it does limit a lot of ship designs.

It's also hell on designers that like making full interiors which is my main complaint really. I don't enjoy making huge ships just so they can have competitive power supplies. Of course I usually forego weapons systems period and just focus on running as quickly as possible :/

 

[NeonSturm]

I want a ship to have not 1 but 2 or 3 reactors at least (redundancy) and would like that being encouraged for every system.

In the real life, aircraft also has 2-4 turbines very often. Cars only have just 1 motor, because they don't crash land.
Some lighter aircraft can land without working motor. And Helicopters can use the fall-energy to keep their rotors spinning.​

Everything above fighter size (about the space for 1 crew member and bunks or (5 to 10)* (computers + other 1-block-per-ship items) ).​

 

[NoK0mm3nt]

Straight lines aren't the most efficient way of doing it, far from it. Ideally you'd want a cross (+ shape thingy) that extends as much in each direction as you can. Then you keep adding those multidirectional crosses until you reach the soft cap. Making sure that they don't intersect or touch each other, all while ensuring that you're maximizing the dimensions of each individual group, can be pretty challenging at times (especially with smaller ships).

This is incorrect and hopefully we can stop perpetuating it. For any given number of blocks, there is no differences from putting them in a single line vs putting them into a x, y, z cross.

Check it out: Take 10 blocks in a line. Now take those 10 blocks and put them into a 4x4x4 box edge (10 blocks). The power output is the same.

Summary: This is false myth from back in the 5x5x5 power maxing challenge. If you are *constrained* in a dimension (as per the 5x5x5 challenge), yes you need to utilize dimensions to maximize power recharge.

 

[Keptick]

This is incorrect and hopefully we can stop perpetuating it. For any given number of blocks, there is no differences from putting them in a single line vs putting them into a x, y, z cross.

Check it out: Take 10 blocks in a line. Now take those 10 blocks and put them into a 4x4x4 box edge (10 blocks). The power output is the same.

Summary: This is false myth from back in the 5x5x5 power maxing challenge. If you are *constrained* in a dimension (as per the 5x5x5 challenge), yes you need to utilize dimensions to maximize power recharge.

That's not what I was saying... And I know that you get the same power recharge with a cross or line with the same amount of blocks. However, it's more efficient to minimize the amount of reactor groups in order to reach a required power regen. So unless your ship is long enough in one axis to be able to reach the cap with a single reactor group it's better to use croses than straight lines.

The reason for that is that larger groups provide more power per block.

 

[Aynslei]

It seems a pretty important part of the reason they are lines has been glossed over.

You can more reliably break a line of blocks rather than a blob which will start to cripple the targets power regen.
That would not be possible if everyone just had blobs of power regen like they do capacitors.

Like Keptick said, more groups = less efficiency, so in combat making your opponent's groups shorter and more numerous is a pretty great depth to ship combat that I don't want to see die because some people may think it is hard.

 

[NoK0mm3nt]

That's not what I was saying... And I know that you get the same power recharge with a cross or line with the same amount of blocks. However, it's more efficient to minimize the amount of reactor groups in order to reach a required power regen. So unless your ship is long enough in one axis to be able to reach the cap with a single reactor group it's better to use croses than straight lines.

The reason for that is that larger groups provide more power per block.

If that is what you meant, then we are in agreement. Unfortunately many new & existing players don't understand that and when they see "it's more efficient" tend to assume it is more efficient per block count, rather than more efficient for constrained dimensions. That's an important distinction we tend to leave out when describing it - consider new players playing pure survival with limited block counts, not 'Master Builders' UNSC replicas.

So, just to summarize for anyone who reads this:

1) Per Block, power recharge is just as efficient for your power group to be in a straight-line as it is to be in a 2-d L or 3-D cross shape
2) Per 3D box area, you can better use more blocks in your power group by extending in all dimensions, unless your ship is large enough to hit the softcap in a single axis
3) Efficiency of your overall system is also impacted by total number of power groups you have, so 2 lines of 125 blocks gives you slightly less than 2x the power of a single 125
4) Even considering 3), adding single unconnected blocks can give you more power than adding them to a power group in a way that doesn't increase it's 3D box area

Overall, I believe the current method over-complicates the game for casual gamers and is hard to explain accurately without many examples & explanations. I understand and laud the goal behind - just wish for a simpler implementation.

 

[Kenshkrix]

3) Efficiency of your overall system is also impacted by total number of power groups you have, so 2 lines of 125 blocks doesn't gives you slightly less than 2x the power of a single 125
4) Even considering 3), adding single unconnected blocks can give you more power than adding them to a power group in a way that doesn't increase it's 3D box area

The way you phrased 3 is quite confusing, "doesn't gives you slightly less than" is the part where you're defining what the comparative result should be but doesn't make sense.
I assume you mixed up '2 lines of 125 blocks gives you slightly less than 2x' and '2 lines of 125 blocks doesn't give you 2x'.

Put differently: 'one line of 250 gives more power than 2 lines of 125'.

Also I was under the impression single blocks would in fact reduce overall efficiency due to having more power reactor groups without any dimension bonuses, but as far as I remember I've literally never even thought of testing that.

 

[NoK0mm3nt]

Thanks for picking that up - I've fixed it now. It was late, I was moving words around, and I forgot to strike "doesn't" from the rearrangement.

If you have 125 in a line, then create a second line of 125, it doesn't quite double your power recharge because of the number of groups math.

For single blocks, I think that highlights how convoluted the current system is - even for people who relatively know it such as yourself. Single blocks still get a dimension bonus since they are a 1 x 1 x 1 group and the additional number of groups doesn't out weight it in most cases. Trying it out - make a line of 125 blocks and add an isolated block. Do the same when you have 2, 3, 4 lines of 125 blocks. It adds more than the base block power (25) each time. Adding a single block to an existing power group if it isn't increasing the dimensions only gives you the base block power.

 

[lupoCani]

This is incorrect and hopefully we can stop perpetuating it. For any given number of blocks, there is no differences from putting them in a single line vs putting them into a x, y, z cross.

Check it out: Take 10 blocks in a line. Now take those 10 blocks and put them into a 4x4x4 box edge (10 blocks). The power output is the same.

Summary: This is false myth from back in the 5x5x5 power maxing challenge. If you are *constrained* in a dimension (as per the 5x5x5 challenge), yes you need to utilize dimensions to maximize power recharge.

Though, when ever are you not constrained? For a single line to hit the softcap it needs to be close to two kilometers long. If your ship is any smaller than that, then crosses are, indeed, more efficient.

 

[NoK0mm3nt]

Though, when ever are you not constrained? For a single line to hit the softcap it needs to be close to two kilometers long. If your ship is any smaller than that, then crosses are, indeed, more efficient.

When new users are playing survival-style games and have limited block numbers. "How should I lay out these 20 power reactors I just built in my factory"

 

[lupoCani]

True, material constraints can come before dimensional ones. Thanks.