Power system adjustments.

[AtraUnam]

Just wanna point out that 400m is absoloutly gigantic for a salvager, even salvagers that can eat entire asteroids in seconds don't normally get that large.

 

[Snowtiger256]

Just wanna point out that 400m is absoloutly gigantic for a salvager, even salvagers that can eat entire asteroids in seconds don't normally get that large.

I concur, that salvager in it's original old power configuration was about 150m long with all the bells and whistles included. Practically built the ship using the array as a base for it to make it as compact as it could be. I did pare down the reactor to about 1mill power (new power), but it's still 258m long. Most of the excess length is necessary to maintain the gap between reactors and stabilizers.

The ship in it's original configuration can be found here: TFS Nexus

 

[AtraUnam]

I concur, that salvager in it's original old power configuration was about 150m long with all the bells and whistles included. Practically built the ship using the array as a base for it to make it as compact as it could be. I did pare down the reactor to about 1mill power (new power), but it's still 258m long. Most of the excess length is necessary to maintain the gap between reactors and stabilizers.

And therein lies the issue, new power was in part supposed to move us away from gigantism and is instead (in its present dev build iterations(s)) enforcing gigantism

 

[Jojomo]

And therein lies the issue, new power was in part supposed to move us away from gigantism and is instead (in its present dev build iterations(s)) enforcing gigantism

Was that a stated goal of power 2.0? (Not saying it wasn't - asking)
[doublepost=1508446024,1508445945][/doublepost]

I concur, that salvager in it's original old power configuration was about 150m long with all the bells and whistles included. Practically built the ship using the array as a base for it to make it as compact as it could be. I did pare down the reactor to about 1mill power (new power), but it's still 258m long. Most of the excess length is necessary to maintain the gap between reactors and stabilizers.

The ship in it's original configuration can be found here: TFS Nexus

Was that with perfect reactor efficiency? What length could you get down to with reduced efficiency?

 

[Snowtiger256]

It is with 100% perfect efficiency. The reactor only has like 20% excess power, when it comes to running the array (array itself needs about 800k power to run). I don't really want to go much lower than that, just to have a bit of overhead to run other systems.

 

[Jojomo]

It is with 100% perfect efficiency. The reactor only has like 20% excess power, when it comes to running the array (array itself needs about 800k power to run). I don't really want to go much lower than that, just to have a bit of overhead to run other systems.

Couldn't you run a larger, less efficient power system? How often did you run a perfectly efficient power system in power 1.0?

 

[Snowtiger256]

Yes, I almost always used tailored power systems that were as efficient as I could make them in the old system too. I fail to see why that would have to change when a new system is introduced. The only thing that changes is that I cannot rely on having power storage anymore, since the new system is based on generation of power, ans has no dedicated power storage units.

As for the power system in this particular rig, I did start with a system with 2,5mill power, and was disappointed to find out that it took nearly 600m of total hull length to support all that power to account for stabilizer gap and the stabilizer arrays themselves. Then I pared it down to 2mill and got into the 400m territory. The current power setup is where I went next. I can probably cut down length a bit more by rearranging the stabilizer arrays into a shorter, more compact unit, as they're currently 50m long and there is a hollow between the two units.

 

[GnomeKing]

Remember that power usage will be different - 2,5mill old will not give same final systems output as 2.5mil new....

we really do need some numbers for the weapons/systems ect to move forward with testing. I don't like stabilizers per se, but if they are part of well made overall mechanics, happy to give it a go: But I cant mess around any longer in Dev without some actual systems to attach to the power > we really need to know what final power usage of systems is going to be to make any further useful comments on the current Dev build.

 

[Jojomo]

Yes, I almost always used tailored power systems that were as efficient as I could make them in the old system too.

You always used power systems at 1665 e/s/block? Possible yes, but it would be surprising...
[doublepost=1508490132,1508489576][/doublepost]

As for the power system in this particular rig, I did start with a system with 2,5mill power, and was disappointed to find out that it took nearly 600m of total hull length to support all that power to account for stabilizer gap and the stabilizer arrays themselves. Then I pared it down to 2mill and got into the 400m territory.

How short could you make the ship by using a more powerful reactor with lower efficiency (smaller stabiliser separation)?

 

[AtraUnam]

You always used power systems at 1665 e/s/block? Possible yes, but it would be surprising...

Bear in mind that the most efficient possible reactor mechanically is not the most efficient possible reactor for a given ship.
For example IRL rocket engines get more efficient the bigger they get so if we wanted to use the most 'efficient' engine possible we would be sticking gigantic engines on even tiny rockets, this is of course a ridiculous idea when viewed in context. Similiarly a 1665 e/s/block reactor is not neccesarily going to be the most efficient method of powering every ship.

 

[Jojomo]

While you can of course increase ship mass to reduce length, while still keeping the same power output (by using less efficient stabilisers) I've changed my opinion somewhat of how much flexibility you have by doing that. Stabilisers shouldn't drop to zero effectiveness when too close, they should still have a small effect.