HowTo build a ship in the new dev build

[aceface]

can someone build something and not just talk

 

[Jojomo]

More efficiency = less blocks required to achieve the same power output of your "non-100% efficient" design.

The amount of blocks you saved from simply upgrading to 100% efficiency gives you more room for other systems.

"More room"? That really is funny.
Which do you believe is the bottleneck to performance in systems 2.0, room or power?

I'll give you a hint: it isn't room - even with low stabiliser effciency designs typically have room for enough systems to consume all power many times over.

[doublepost=1512037695,1512037638][/doublepost]

For someone who has been doing "almost nothing except build 2.0 power systems" you seem to have next to no clue what you are even talking about.

When you've built a few more of your own you'll learn otherwise.

 

[klawxx]

OP, thanks for passing up this information.

I would only ask that the devs kept the removed blocks on a decorative category or something, since a lot of them have good and interesting textures and some people might like to keep using them. My favorite are antennas as floors and the jump drive (top) computers as some kind of wall hatch.

 

[NeonSturm]

Jump and Scan are parts of the ship core now, just like the activation beam.
No decorative blocks for it, sorry - but perhaps later when all things are sorted out

Currently I am busy building things and figured that for a miner which needs some power it might make sense to put stabilizers at 75% distance.

However 30% distance is a bit extreme and needs too many stabilizers to be worth considering it.

 

[Jojomo]

Currently I am busy building things and figured that for a miner which needs some power it might make sense to put stabilizers at 75% distance.

However 30% distance is a bit extreme and needs too many stabilizers to be worth considering it.

It will depend on geometry of the ship, and how heavily armoured it is. If it's lightly armoured the "best" stabiliser efficiency won't be as low as it is for something under a heap of AA.

 

[Non]

can someone build something and not just talk

Yes.

I just built two basic reactors of 125 blocks each, one with not full stabilization distance and one with full stabilization distance.
When I covered them each with hull the full distance one was undoubtedly lighter, by 30 or 40 mass. (I think it was roughly 180 vs 215)
With standard armor the shorter one was lighter by about 10 mass, total mass being about 330, so the difference was pretty negligible.
Because the shorter one was already lighter at standard armor, it would probably be lighter with adv armor too.


However, it should be noted that these are just reactors, and that if systemed, more volume would need to be occupied. The longer reator already has more volume and thus does not need to expand itself as much, whereas the smaller one might, which would increase the amount of armor it would need relative to the longer one. The longer ship probably has 1.5x the usable volume of the smaller one, so thats less systems that have to go outside that volume, every system block that does necessarily expands the amount of armor used, so that 10 mass difference between the ships using standard armor means very little. Though you are probably still right for adv armor Jojomo, but nobody who wants a good combat capable ship uses that.

A stabilizer block in the version I was in was .4 mass, hull is .05, standard armor .15 and adv .25, so it isn't hard to math out the actual differences associated with ship lengths.

I had meant to take screenshots with stats included, but pressed the wrong button, and I don't have time to repeat it currently.

So if you are using adv armor or are using standard and are sure your systems will fit between your reactor and stabilizers, Jojomo may be correct. If you are using hull or are not sure of your systems volume you are best off placing at 100% effectivness.

 

[GDPR 302420]

So if you are using adv armor or are using standard and are sure your systems will fit between your reactor and stabilizers, Jojomo may be correct. If you are using hull or are not sure of your systems volume you are best off placing at 100% effectivness.

One thing to note is that when you are building, you should always build your systems first then wrap a hull around that. I think Jojomo's advice was backwards and would only have any chance of being applicable was if you were to build your hull before your finished your systems, which you should simply not do.

 

[Non]

One thing to note is that when you are building, you should always build your systems first then wrap a hull around that. I think Jojomo's advice was backwards and would only have any chance of being applicable was if you were to build your hull before your finished your systems, which you should simply not do.

If you want a quality ship then definitely.

 

[nulitor]

Why armor ships when you can do without armor?
Place a lot of randomly spread capsules throughout the sector for distracting shots.
Then have the powergen 65k blocs away from the core and the stabilizers 65k blocks away on the opposite side.

 

[Snowtiger256]

Building hull-first is only applicable if you're trying to convert existing ship designs to power 2.0 or filling premade hulls.

Building systems-first is a bit trickier in power 2.0 due to needing a couple of test builds and some mathing and tinkering, in order to get it right, but it's certainly doable.

Sure, it's a bit of a shock at first to see where the game places the limits for a reactor of a given size. With a little tinkering you can really get reactors stable even well before the limit, although this requires a lot more stabilizers than at optimal distances (my personal tests have shown me that its around 8-10x more at an acceptable distance of about 20-25% of the optimal distance, because that's usually where the stabilizers start to gain efficiency). From this point on, you can use less and less stabilizers, until you hit 1:1 ratio at the 100% stabilizer distance.

 

[Jojomo]

can someone build something and not just talk

You're absolutely right, talk is cheap.

Here are some examples, with 1000 block reactors.

The reactor is 20x10x5, and there are two layers of AA (only on three sides, for clarity)

1. 100% stabiliser efficiency. Mass 5.8k, power 100k e/s


2. 20% stabiliser efficiency. Mass 4.7k, power 100k e/s



This is obviously a very extreme example. It easily saves significant mass even at 20% stabiliser efficiency (and even with one side open). Typical designs aren't likely to to resemble this example, but the principle is sound, and obvious to anyone looking at the numbers.

Only a very extreme ship right at the other end of the scale (very narrow and rod-like, extremely lightly armoured) will want to use 100% stabiliser efficiency.
[doublepost=1512046483,1512046345][/doublepost]

One thing to note is that when you are building, you should always build your systems first then wrap a hull around that. I think Jojomo's advice was backwards and would only have any chance of being applicable was if you were to build your hull before your finished your systems, which you should simply not do.

It makes no difference in what order you do things, the numbers remain the same.

But for the record I build systems first and hull last.

 

[nulitor]

The ship I described would not armor at all his powergen.

 

[Non]

Why armor ships when you can do without armor?

You shouldn't if this

is how you do armor.

Seriously Jojomo, no one who does that is concerned about mass or tmr.

 

[Jojomo]

You shouldn't if this

is how you do armor.

Seriously Jojomo, no one who does that is concerned about mass or tmr.

I'm not suggesting that anyone should. This isn't a real ship. I could have used a single layer of hull and still have saved mass by dropping stabiliser efficiency, it just wouldn't have been down to 20%. EDIT: I'll do that tomorrow and post it too.

The point is that only for very extreme designs in the opposite direction to this one ({almost}unarmoued long ultra-thin rods) will 100% stabiliser efficiency be "best".

It boils down to being able to have more power from the same mass, by dropping stabiliser efficiency.

 

[Non]

I'm not suggesting that anyone should

So why use an example that isn't an example of things people should do?

Its an awful way to try and make a point.

 

[Jojomo]

So why use an example that isn't an example of things people should do?

Its an awful way to try and make a point.

Take up my offer to RedAlert. Post a 100% stabiliser efficiency ship following the minimal guidelines in my post on page 1, nothing too extreme, and I'll post one back that is a shortened version of yours and has more power for the same mass.

 

[Non]

Take up my offer to RedAlert. Post a ship as per the minimal guidelines in my post on page 1, not too extreme, and I'll post one back that is a shortened version of yours and has more power for the same mass.

If you are incapable of reading my post above, or are too stubborn to understand that it is applicable to different scales, you are beyond my ability to educate.

In case you just missed it:

I just built two basic reactors of 125 blocks each, one with not full stabilization distance and one with full stabilization distance.

When I covered them each with hull the full distance one was undoubtedly lighter, by 30 or 40 mass. (I think it was roughly 180 vs 215)
With standard armor the shorter one was lighter by about 10 mass, total mass being about 330, so the difference was pretty negligible.
Because the shorter one was already lighter at standard armor, it would probably be lighter with adv armor too.

However, it should be noted that these are just reactors, and that if systemed, more volume would need to be occupied. The longer reator already has more volume and thus does not need to expand itself as much, whereas the smaller one might, which would increase the amount of armor it would need relative to the longer one. The longer ship probably has 1.5x the usable volume of the smaller one, so thats less systems that have to go outside that volume, every system block that does necessarily expands the amount of armor used, so that 10 mass difference between the ships using standard armor means very little. Though you are probably still right for adv armor Jojomo, but nobody who wants a good combat capable ship uses that.

A stabilizer block in the version I was in was .4 mass, hull is .05, standard armor .15 and adv .25, so it isn't hard to math out the actual differences associated with ship lengths.

I had meant to take screenshots with stats included, but pressed the wrong button, and I don't have time to repeat it currently.

So if you are using adv armor or are using standard and are sure your systems will fit between your reactor and stabilizers, Jojomo may be correct. If you are using hull or are not sure of your systems volume you are best off placing at 100% effectivness.

 

[FlyingDebris]

If you use motherboard or no hull at all the benefit per mass for 100% efficiency becomes even more extreme. Advanced armor is next to totally useless so I don't see why you'd use it in a ship

 

[kikaha]

can someone build something and not just talk

Well i did ans no one seems to care. its higher up in this very thread...

 

[Top 4ce]

So the argument here is that unless you're filling a shell, meeting a mass or volume requirement, one should place stabilizers at 100% efficiency?

Otherwise more stabilizers will equal more power for the same mass, but less volume, especially when armor is included?