A few quick observations on the new auxiliary generators...

[Scypio]

Okay so from what has been told here i would look at this as a good pattern for auxiliary power.

Spoiler

And we can shift this by a block everytime we go larger. This way they'll explode and only damage the minimal amout of reactors while maintaining the maximum of block in a small aera. I'll run a few tests soon.

 

[Lecic]

Okay so from what has been told here i would look at this as a good pattern for auxiliary power.

Spoiler

View attachment 31888

And we can shift this by a block everytime we go larger. This way they'll explode and only damage the minimal amout of reactors while maintaining the maximum of block in a small aera. I'll run a few tests soon.

I'm not sure if basic hull is enough to protect the other slices of reactor, but that seems like it might do well.

 

[EricBlank]

@ Scypio; That's what I've been thinking of doing, too. Using advanced armor to divide sections of the reactor, such that one explosion doesn't destroy more than a few of the other reactor blocks adjacent to it.

I had tested with a reactor group about 10k blocks, just in one huge 10x20x50 brick, and after the reactor stabilized the power output had dropped from nearly 2mil to only a few tens of thousands. Certainly a huge loss in efficiency, but all those disparate blocks that remained were still behaving as one highly ineffectual group.

Thanks for finding the equation, Olxinos! That's a big help.

 

[lupoCani]

Oh, that explains it.

So, it is not a chain reaction. Rather, every time there's exogen damage, the reactor engages in an amount of evenly-spread self-destruction. The effectiveness of this self-destruction, which does not propagate itself, is limited by internal armor intercepting the equally internal damage.

 

[Groovrider]

I made a comment about control rods earlier that some one thought was funny. I was serious. Rods advanced armor laced through the reactor block will absorb damage from the explosions.

 

[Madman198237]

It might, but since the explosion is non-self-propagating, you have to consider the worth vs. the cost. Since damage is not directed orthogonally (4 directions on a plane, not 8) a rod will only absorb damage from 1 direction if a block should explode. Also, it will reduce your armor HP when damaged or destroyed in a detonation and already increases your mass. Also, the random explosions factor means that in order to intercept any shots, you have to have a lot of rods, which will mostly sit around doing nothing.

 

[EricBlank]

That seems to be what's happening, yeah.

Advanced armor between sheets definitely helps mitigate the destruction, but the difference isn't phenomenal.The difference is in the damage that penetrates to adjacent sheets. In advanced armor that's destroying 1 block adjacent to the center of the explosion, and in hull... 13, looks like. But the majority of the damage is restricted to the sheet on which the explosion took place, and damage there is identical regardless of the material making up the walls separating sheets of reactors. It looks like maybe a difference of like an extra 25% loss (of reactors) in a hull armor layer.

This was with a reactor of 10,350 blocks, separated into 11m high sheets joined at the bottom by one continuous layer, all wrapped in armor between sheets and around the entire structure.

You can divy it up into sticks, yeah, but that just makes the entire thing larger.

 

[kurosawa]

Now that we have auxillery power blocks, we just need to get rid of reactors needing to be placed down in XYZ lines,, and instead be able to just be put down in large groups like capacitors, and we'll be good to go.

No.

yes

 

[Groovrider]

Honestly with how heavy it ends up being I would really perhaps put this on a ship thats big enough to not be bothered by the weight. I was testing it on 6 25x25x25 cells that was delivering around 11 million e/sec. Adding vertical rods spaced 3 block apart lost me around 500k regen (not exact).

edit: The I'm thinking of some pretty evil solutions. We have to see if this update makes internally docked entities even more of an issue.

 

[Scypio]

I'm not sure if basic hull is enough to protect the other slices of reactor, but that seems like it might do well.

I just took what i got on my hand to do a small screenshot and show it. Of course reactors will need standard and/or advanced armor. By the way for small reactors, basic hull can be enough. As i tested my pattern on a small one it worked.
AAAAnd with a few tests, they always blow up at the same spots. Doesn't matter wich block is destroyed first, explosions are always there. Only 2 explosions with this 10x10x10 pattern and 550 blocks.

Spoiler

There has been more than theses 2 tests of course. Every single ones got the same result.

The problem with this is that with bigger systems we'll need more than one block of armor or they'll blow up too. I'm thinking about using a lot of small systems like this one instead of a large one because if they got hit there will be a lot of big explosions that will costs much more. I definitely need to trace some curves.

edit: The I'm thinking of some pretty evil solutions. We have to see if this update makes internally docked entities even more of an issue.

An internal entity with shields to protect the rest of the ship from himself ? Makes sense but if it covers the whole reactor, it means that the shield got taken out before. Except with piercing effects. I don't know how it interact between docked entities.

 

[Calhoun]

Do the explosions ignore shields?

 

[Kingofanime]

I did some testing of my own. I made a 22 x 22 x 22 cube of auxiliary reactor blocks and sprinkled warheads evenly throughout the structure. I was hoping the auxiliary reactor explosions would trigger the warheads, and result in some kind of super chain reaction. But sadly, they did not.

 

[NeonSturm]

Aaaaaaahhhhh checkerboards again!
At least you do not have to link any shit to different computers!

But you haven't shown what happens if the bottom side gets hit.

 

[Az14el]

Nice way to make an exploding armor plate.
I would not be replacing 50% of my power with armor blocks, holy shit no, you'll get a good bit more protection yes, but the cost is nearly half your potential supply and all the weapons & recharge that could get you.

Don't be afraid of losing blocks to Aux reactors, protect efficient groups & not lines (think of the weight cost of the wrapping armor blocks vs the power of the individual group your placing, then consider how much that bit of armor would stand up against a 200k dps weapon system that could be supplied by that same aux placement), it's just another pitfall straight to no-dakka-syndrome

 

[EricBlank]

Hey, this is the brainstorming stage. Crazy bullshit is all welcome here.

 

[NeonSturm]

I think this update will reduce weapon count on ships, but not stations.
Stations will not have laggy docked reactors anymore but even more laggy undocked ships inside which use power-supply.
If there is no risk of getting banned, I will certainly do it. If the risk is low, some peoples might be tempted to do it, especially those who do not remember the rules and are too lazy to remember.

If we have fixed formations where ships keep the same distance to each other, it might affect ships as-well, rendering the limitation on non-fuel-based reactors effectively useless.

Don't be afraid of losing blocks to Aux reactors, protect efficient groups & not lines (think of the weight cost of the wrapping armor blocks vs the power of the individual group your placing, then consider how much that bit of armor would stand up against a 200k dps weapon system that could be supplied by that same aux placement), it's just another pitfall straight to no-dakka-syndrome

You need power for thrust. This places a lower limit.
If you use the same limit alternatively for weapons INSTEAD of thrust, it defines the number of weapons to use (lower limit!).

The upper limit would be dictated by the supply with fuel, which is (currently) a bit too uncertain to speculate about the size of weapon systems (with information I've seen).

 

[Lecic]

I think this update will reduce weapon count on ships, but not stations.

HAHAHAHAHAHA

No.

 

[Pacific_Jim]

Until it's practical to defend and there's actual incentive to build multiple stations I don't think we need to worry too much, hard to take advantage of an exploding weakness on an entity that doesn't take damage.

 

[Olxinos]

Do the explosions ignore shields?

Yes they do. However I think I saw Lancake say things in chat suggesting they weren't supposed to so it might change in the future.

Aaaaaaahhhhh checkerboards again!
At least you do not have to link any shit to different computers!

But you haven't shown what happens if the bottom side gets hit.

The first explosion location doesn't seem to be directly related to the destroyed block, but you're right, it'll do more damage if a bottom block explodes. Anyway, I don't think that pattern is perfect since even if it prevents too many auxiliary blocks from being destroyed, it's very likely to separate split the group when the explosions happen (i.e. less energy).

I tried to read the code to understand where the explosion locations were chosen, I'm not completely sure yet, but it indeed appears to be deterministic at first glance.

Also, a few interesting materials to make your auxiliary banks safer (from weakest to toughest):
- girders (2 alloyed metal mesh, 0.01 mass, 75HP, 10SHP)
- basic hull (1 alloyed metal mesh 1 crystal composite, 0.05 mass, 75HP, 50AHP, 5SHP)
- glass doors (5 crystal composite, 0.05 mass, 75HP, 50AHP, 0SHP)
- plex doors (15 alloyed metal mesh, 0.15 mass, 100HP, 60% armor, 75AHP, 0SHP)
- blast doors (38 varat capsules, 0.25 mass, 250HP, 75% armor, 100AHP, 0SHP)

Shield capacitors might also be an interesting choice

 

[NeonSturm]

Shield capacitors might also be an interesting choice

Agree, because you add the mass/resources anyway and shield caps are rather useless once your shields are down and you under sustained fire.
Has anyone tested?​