Search results

No-one here cares about mass mate! :-P

Yes but systems 2.0 power systems have both reactor efficiency and stabiliser efficiency, and they're not the same thing (I can't imagine many people ever considering a reactor efficiency below 100% though). I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be difficult but I don't understand what you mean. Could...

Not really. I'm not talking about reactor efficiency, I'm talking about stabiliser efficiency (it's a common point of confusion in this thread). And you'd need to define what you mean by entire ship efficiency: if it uses total block count or mass then what I'm talking about would by...

I hope RedAlert will confirm that, but until he does I'll assume you don't speak for him.

By all means, continue this argument. If the LSE for a ship would mean not enough room for systems (say for an extreme LSE like 10%) the incredibly simple solution to this "problem" is to use a less extreme SE. You still get better power/mass ratio by lowering your SE, and you guarantee room...

Ok, so you won't be proving your point (I'm wrong) then? It's a simple suggestion: a 100% SE ship that fits the description that I say my point applies to, that I will then modify to have a better power/mass ratio. I've been offering this opportunity since page 1. If I'm wrong just show...

You can always guarantee, 100%, that you have space for your systems. This is a strawman. Do your "duty", and demonstrate then: show a ship with 100% SE, that fits within the description I say my point applies to, that I can't improve the power/mass ratio of.

You learnt after 3 or 4 pages that I was actually talking about stabiliser efficiency, not reactor efficiency, which is a good step RedAlert. My point is whatever I decide it is, not whatever you decide it is. It is: for typical designs (unhulled, or ulttra-thin rods, etc, have their own...

Anyone who doesn't care about power/mass ratio is completely free to ignore my posts. I'll be perfectly content, I promise.

This response: "You have failed to see the entire point of why your building method is flawed, your suggestion that you should be adding more blocks then nessicary is wasted space and reduces efficiency. Your design of adding unessicary reactor component blocks is wasted space that could be...

Cool. Post a ship that uses 100% SE then, within the guidelines of my page 1 post, and I'll modify it to have more power for the same mass.

I suggest you discuss that with RedAlert. He's said a couple of times in this thread that the most critical aspect of a ship is how many weapons/shields/systems it can run (and I agree with him). What's the average mass of all your designs? There are a LOT of players designing ships that are...

If mass was meaningless we'd all just make ships as massive as we possibly could. That isn't what happens though. Mass is typically the most common single variable metric used to compare ships, which makes power/mass ratio something to care about. I'm not asking you to care about it, but SE...

The systems blocks for a given reactor output stay constant. I.e. you don't make them worse or better by altering your shape (always within the assumption that you have enough volume for them, I've addressed that previously). What is affected by shape is your power system and your hull, and...

So very wrong. There's no point using max efficiency on one sub-system if it lowers your overall efficiency. Except for extreme designs (no hull/ ultra-thin rods/ etc), best power/mass ratio will be achieved with SE lower than 100%.

Is it good? I don't know or care what's good about it. That's what the system is, and my interest is minmaxxing the system.

Yes, but in systems 2.0 you have this situation: if your power system can fit within your given hull at 100% SE, then it isn't powerful enough to power all the systems that can fit within that hull. (Barring extreme geometry of course, as usual)

Space isn't a bottleneck in systems 2.0. There's more than enough of it without needing to make any effort. I'm talking about using less blocks total. Add a small number of stabiliser blocks to save a large number of hull blocks. Forced empty space between reactor and stabilisers? You've spent...

I don't see the relevance for whether or not the hull is pre-built, the numbers are all the same at the end (I personally build systems first, hull last). I'd say giving up power per mass is a big sacrifice. You don't need the extra volume 100% stabiliser efficiency gives you (and as a bonus...

You're correct, I didn't read your post. Read all mine first.