Search results

More power for given mass, less percentage damage to your power system per enemy weapon impact. Less power for a given mass. Post a ship at 100% stabiliser efficiency, as per the guidelines in my post on page 1. I'll modify it and post it back with more power at the same mass.

First, let me re-iterate my point: using stabilser efficiency below 100% means you can produce more power for the same mass. Simple as that. There are of course exceptions that won't benefit, e.g. unhulled ships, ultra-thin rod forms, etc. I've demonstrated this over and over and over here with...

That's incorrect also. It depends on the geometry. Certainly the effect is smaller with only a single layer of hull. And larger reactors need a relatively large cross section, but even the 27k reactor I've just been discussing can save mass with just a single layer of hull if it has a large...

I'd say enclosing ships in at least hull is pretty typical, and aspect ratios of 20:1 aren't, so it's likely to be widely applicable.

Those questions aren't my problem. I have my point, and I've been very clear about in what circumstances it holds. You said it didn't hold for reactors over 15k, which was incorrect. What you do with it is up to you.

Yep, that's pressure towards smaller cross sections. There's also pressure the other way, for example enclosing volume without more hull than you need, and fitting all the fwd facing weapons you want. Anyway, that isn't anything specific to systems 2.0, it's a choice we've always had to make...

That's because you haven't used the best stabiliser efficiency for the geometry and armour level you used. You should have used about 85-90% If you post your reactor dimensions I'll give a more accurate value. For a reactor of 60*30*15=27000, using a single layer of AA (crystal in images...

Cool. Increasing your reactor while maintaining the same stab effic also increases your volume... If you use 100% stab efficiency you are very unlikely to be able to power all the systems that can fit in the ship - to fill the hull extreme geometry or huge excesses of redundant systems will be...

And the simple answer to that is that you need to know how many system blocks that reactor can power before deciding whether the volume is enough. And second, the solution is even simpler/better: to get more volume you increase your cross-section. I've used a small one of 20x10 here. A larger...

That is all incorrect. (I'll post a large reactor example for you tomorrow) Here are some more example pairs (100% stabiliser efficiency vs "best" stabiliser efficiency for the given geometry and armour level. All use the same 20x10x5 reactor as my previous example. 100% stabiliser efficiency...

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.

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...

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...

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.

"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. When you've...

Don't ignore what I've said earlier in the thread: for a ship enclosed in a contiguous hull. If you reduce stabiliser effciency by bringing them closer to the reactor, you need to increase the stabiliser count to maintain reactor out put, but you save a lot of hull with the closer separation...

Less total blocks, not more. Only more stabiliser blocks. Reactor effciency isn't the issue. Stabiliser effciency is. The offer of a demonstration still stands as above. Nothing but dev builds for quite a while now.

What it means is that for equal mass ships, the one with lower stabiliser effciency can produce more power.

That's quite an amazingly incorrect peice of advice. If you feel like it (I'll understand if you don't) how about putting your money where your mouth is. Post a ship that is reactor, stabilisers, and hull. Say between 50 and 500m on its longest axis, a single contiguous hull fully enclosing...

I read this earlier on a phone where I couldn't understand the diagrams, and then forgot about it. Unless I'm misunderstanding you (possible) you're in luck: stabilisation already works like you described - PROVIDED you only talk about distances above the minimum cutoff distance (I'll refer to...