Best Reactor Type.

[Tunk]

Pretty much its to do with how the 'bonus' regeneration is calculated on a group and a quirk of the math at a single block.
Anyways I spent some time torturing myself in excel for fun, have some nifty graphs.

http://imgur.com/a/gExnp

As for docked power, the common definition of it is a ship containing only a reactor, power storage and power supply beams to send power back to the mothership.
It can also mean inline reactors, which provide power to peripheral systems.

[edit]
Just thought I would add, these all assume a single group of reactors (all touching), and that all reactors added to the group increase the sum of the dimensions of the reactor (x+y+z).
So for OP, most cube reactors are generally made up of many small groups packed in tight (many groups, low group bonuses).
This is why the longer line reactors got more efficient when expanded, because the group bonus increased significantly.

With most of these reactors you can get a lower mass by using 3-4 longer reactor lines running the length and breadth of the ship rather than trying to build a reactor in a specific place.

 

[MrFURB]

What do you do about battle damage? For a power cube, you have a fairly easy time assessing damage. How the hell do you figure out where power lines have been severed? With NuclearFun's ships as an example, I can only assume power lines are running throughout the ship, due to the lengths you need.

There's a few ways to identify battle damage on ships with line based reactors, and the same methods apply to cross and T shapes as well. If you build your power lines in a specific place (most of mine tend to be towards the 'spine' of the craft, where the natural shape of the hull provides the most protection from that direction) all you need to do is check that rough area in build mode and note if you see any spots where you can see the inside faces of blocks next to the destroyed ones. With simple shapes it's simple to deduce what the missing block is. Since I tend to fill up my ships like systems pinatas this is easy as missing blocks stick out like a sore thumb, although some people have hollow spaces on the interior which can complicate things.
I also remember a set of numpad keys that allow you to highlight certain systems so you can see all the blocks therein such as thrust, power, shielding, and weapons. I can't recall the exact keys offhand but they're there.

 

[NuclearFun]

I have a question for you and others using power lines. I've always built fighters and small craft, so I don't run into this issue. And shipyards should provide an easy answer. But...

What do you do about battle damage? For a power cube, you have a fairly easy time assessing damage. How the hell do you figure out where power lines have been severed? With NuclearFun's ships as an example, I can only assume power lines are running throughout the ship, due to the lengths you need.

In one of my first "big" (would be a small frigate by today's standard) ships i used a very delicate and special power configuration, going completely crazy with power crosses stretching through the ship while trying to maximize the dimensions - after battletesting i abandoned that quickly: there is a reason why military equipment is as simple and sturdy as possible. Lines are very easy to fix in comparison to more complicated boxes.

 

[<SCRIPTKITTY>]

kinda liked the vid though by just continuing garths pattern you showed that you did not comprehend how powercubes actually get build. btw. the real 5x5x5 cube does still around 9k regen... anyway you just started you'll find out soon enough how fascinating simple and complex at the same time this game is...

I admit, the science of this game is still quite new to me that was one of the reasons for making this video in the first place to help me learn. The way I continued garth's design was the way that seemed the most logical, since it was repeating the same pattern, if this is not the case what is the best way to expand on said design?

 

[Gasboy]

I admit, the science of this game is still quite new to me that was one of the reasons for making this video in the first place to help me learn. The way I continued garth's design was the way that seemed the most logical, since it was repeating the same pattern, if this is not the case what is the best way to expand on said design?

For the 5x5x5 cube, the blocks around the outside make one continuous line. So four lines. The best 5x5x5 cube simply adds to the lines on the inside, without connecting to each other. You get just shy of 10k power.

 

[Panpiper]

I keep seeing players actually using these small square reactors people talk about. The mere fact people talk about them in threads like this make newcomers think that using these tiny cube reactors is a good idea, or a good way to get power. Just a few hours ago, I saw someone who obviously wanted more power, flying around in a ship that had several 5x5x5 cube reactors, all clearly built to somebody's pattern.

NEVER use these cube reactors! Never!

People talk about them solely as an intellectual exercise, they should NOT be used for power. You will ALWAYS get more power for the number of reactor blocks by simply running lines of power blocks from one end of your ship to the other.

In my opinion, in order to prevent newbies from thinking tiny cubes are the way to go for power generation, absolutely every post talking about these tiny cubes needs to both start and finish with the clear admonishment that these are a BAD IDEA, and should never be used.

 

[Tunk]

I agree completely, unfortunately in all my years dealing with users one thing rings true.

They will use a pre-build pattern/design over a more effective custom solutions 95% of the time if one is available.
The more that use those patterns the higher it gets ranked on search.
It ends in a vicious feedback loop, and you actually need to break the feature to force users to stop using it.

 

[Gasboy]

Some folks like to have their power centralized rather than running throughout the ship. Not everyone is building ultramegasuperserverbreakingbattleships that have to have the maximum everyhing.

 

[Parameter]

Some folks like to have their power centralized rather than running throughout the ship. Not everyone is building ultramegasuperserverbreakingbattleships that have to have the maximum everyhing.

Agreed. For very small ships like drones, I think drop in cube reactors can even be a fairly optimal design. Starting with a 5-cubed reactor gives you a reasonable amount of "safe" power generation in the core of your ship, and you can add additional lines branching off of it that run near the skin of the ship to maximize power generation, although those are more susceptible to damage given how little is between them and the hull.

Nothing sucks more than having a tiny fighter become utterly useless because of a destroyed power line.

 

[Drakkart]

I admit, the science of this game is still quite new to me that was one of the reasons for making this video in the first place to help me learn. The way I continued garth's design was the way that seemed the most logical, since it was repeating the same pattern, if this is not the case what is the best way to expand on said design?

The idea is getting as much bonus energy out of the "sum of dimensions" part of the equation. So let us say you start a power line in the front bottom left corner then you want this line to end on the back top right corner of the cube because then you ensured that from all 3 axis you added up the entire lenght height width of the cube for this powerline. And now to build a cube find a pattern which allows all used powerlines to do the same thing. or as close as possible to it. that is why the 5x5x5 is so famous.
by you just following the pattern further you gained no more coverage for the other two dimensions just the length.

 

[<SCRIPTKITTY>]

Agreed. For very small ships like drones, I think drop in cube reactors can even be a fairly optimal design. Starting with a 5-cubed reactor gives you a reasonable amount of "safe" power generation in the core of your ship, and you can add additional lines branching off of it that run near the skin of the ship to maximize power generation, although those are more susceptible to damage given how little is between them and the hull.

Nothing sucks more than having a tiny fighter become utterly useless because of a destroyed power line.

I agree, In smaller ships like drones or fighters a centralized cube reactor with auxiliary reactors is a pretty sound idea. Just regret not thinking of it myself :p

 

[Panpiper]

I agree, In smaller ships like drones or fighters a centralized cube reactor with auxiliary reactors is a pretty sound idea. Just regret not thinking of it myself :p

I'm sorry, but you are flat out wrong. You will ALWAYS get more power using the full dimensions of your ship rather than constraining your power to the dimensions of a smaller cube. ALWAYS. If you want to deliberately hamstring yourself with substandard power, go ahead. Other people reading this thread however must not let themselves be led astray.

 

[<SCRIPTKITTY>]

I'm sorry, but you are flat out wrong. You will ALWAYS get more power using the full dimensions of your ship rather than constraining your power to the dimensions of a smaller cube. ALWAYS. If you want to deliberately hamstring yourself with substandard power, go ahead. Other people reading this thread however must not let themselves be led astray.

The most logical way to go about things is actually neither of these. Docked reactors is the best way and always will be. Why? Because should there be a power update again you don't have to gut out a ship to reword the power or use up a ton of resources building a whole new one. What I was getting out of this was having a centralized reactor while also having a docked reactor (or 6) so that should the current reactor set up be deprecated you can switch out the docked reactors with a new design in order to make up for that.

But again super mega power setups are not always required. On a mining ship I have a single cube reactor while it is not the most efficient It is space saving and gets the job done.

 

[Valck]

The most logical way to go about things is actually neither of these. Docked reactors is the best way and always will be. Why? Because should there be a power update again you don't have to gut out a ship to reword the power or use up a ton of resources building a whole new one. What I was getting out of this was having a centralized reactor while also having a docked reactor (or 6) so that should the current reactor set up be deprecated you can switch out the docked reactors with a new design in order to make up for that.

Provided of course this new power setup can fit within the space you allocated to your docked reactors, which may or may not be the case, especially if you have them docked internally...

 

[Parameter]

I'm sorry, but you are flat out wrong. You will ALWAYS get more power using the full dimensions of your ship rather than constraining your power to the dimensions of a smaller cube. ALWAYS. If you want to deliberately hamstring yourself with substandard power, go ahead. Other people reading this thread however must not let themselves be led astray.

It's true that you will get more power using the full dimensions of your ship. To move that statement to its logical conclusion, if all you want to do is maximize power on a small ship, you really ought to run your power lines on the very outside of your ship, to maximize your power boxdim. As many as possible.

However, The first time you lose shields on your small ship and those pirates start pot-shotting your hull, you're going to start seeing your power strands broken apart, and your power will drop substantially, potentially screwing your power budget and degrading your ability to fight.

As an alternative, you can orient your power supplies like a star, with intersections in the center of your ship, and spokes radiating out to the edges of the ship dimensions to maximize power boxdim. This increases the resiliency of your power. Unfortunately, for small ships it becomes very hard to optimally structure the intersections in the center without wasting extra power blocks going around other reactor strands.

I think a better idea for small ships is a central cube reactor + radiating spokes. Small cube reactors give you several non-intersecting reactors in the center of your ship, with a minimal amount of power blocks wasted due to routing. You can add power blocks to the outside of your cube reactor pieces as "spokes" to extend the box-dims of the cube reactor components to the size of your ship. This gets you the advantages of maximizing your power boxdim, a good power "floor" as your small ship takes hull damage, and a ship reactor that is fast & easy to build.

It's possible hand-routing in the center of the ship could increase my maximum power regen over using a cube reactor. If so, then after I'm done rapid-prototyping my drones, I can easily cut out the cube reactor from the center and rewire it by hand. It's not nearly so easy the other way around.

 

[Panpiper]

... if all you want to do is maximize power on a small ship, you really ought to run your power lines on the very outside of your ship, to maximize your power boxdim.

This is completely incorrect. You do not need to run the length of a power line on the 'outside' of your ship to have maximum box dimensions. You 'do' want the ends of the X,Y&Z lines to reach the outside of your ship however, or at least reach the outer hull cladding.

...Unfortunately, for small ships it becomes very hard to optimally structure the intersections in the center without wasting extra power blocks going around other reactor strands.

And that is exactly what you are suggesting that people do, to throw in what is very likely for most, an undecipherable mass of power modules in the form of a cube, from which to radiate spokes in what would unquestionably be a highly non-optimized fashion.

None of that is necessary. Running optimum XYZ lines through the full length, height and width of your ship is simple, especially if it is the first thing you build. People building larger ships could start with a hull shape and then replicate something like what I show below inside their hull later, extending the power lines (and for larger ships possibly adding some more XYZs)

Basic power structure:

The trick is simply to nest 3D Xs one over another taking care that none of them touch one another. You can put as many of these sorts of 3D Xs into your ship as will fit, and of course, you can extend the lines in all directions till they meet your hull. That is in fact the whole idea. Do NOT simply build this example and fail to continue the lines!

This example is using 376 power blocks and is generating over 150,000 power inside of a space that is only 31x23x23. That power would go up substantially of those lines were to be extended. (Obviously if one was trying to build a shoe box with these dimensions, one could add extra 3D Xs inside the rectangle which would generate even more, but that is not the point. This is just an example, and who wants to build a shoe box anyway?

The very same structure however can be cleaned up to permit a cleaner shape of ship, In the picture below, the structure has exactly the same dimensions, 31x23x23, is using the same number of power modules, 376 and is generating exactly the same amount of power.

Cleaner power structure:

By adding 3D Xs and extending the power lines in all directions of one's ship, one can easily generate large amounts of power. Smallish ships can quite easily approach one million power generation this way.

Hopefully with these examples, people can dissuade themselves of the absurdity of using power cubes. I have included Sment files of these structures. Feel free to use them for the start of your own constructions.

 

[Parameter]

This is completely incorrect. You do not need to run the length of a power line on the 'outside' of your ship to have maximum box dimensions. You 'do' want the ends of the X,Y&Z lines to reach the outside of your ship however, or at least reach the outer hull cladding.

And that is exactly what you are suggesting that people do, to throw in what is very likely for most, an undecipherable mass of power modules in the form of a cube, from which to radiate spokes in what would unquestionably be a highly non-optimized fashion.

None of that is necessary. Running optimum XYZ lines through the full length, height and width of your ship is simple, especially if it is the first thing you build. People building larger ships could start with a hull shape and then replicate something like what I show below inside their hull later, extending the power lines (and for larger ships possibly adding some more XYZs)

Basic power structure:

The trick is simply to nest 3D Xs one over another taking care that none of them touch one another. You can put as many of these sorts of 3D Xs into your ship as will fit, and of course, you can extend the lines in all directions till they meet your hull. That is in fact the whole idea. Do NOT simply build this example and fail to continue the lines!

This example is using 376 power blocks and is generating over 150,000 power inside of a space that is only 31x23x23. That power would go up substantially of those lines were to be extended. (Obviously if one was trying to build a shoe box with these dimensions, one could add extra 3D Xs inside the rectangle which would generate even more, but that is not the point. This is just an example, and who wants to build a shoe box anyway?

The very same structure however can be cleaned up to permit a cleaner shape of ship, In the picture below, the structure has exactly the same dimensions, 31x23x23, is using the same number of power modules, 376 and is generating exactly the same amount of power.

Cleaner power structure:

By adding 3D Xs and extending the power lines in all directions of one's ship, one can easily generate large amounts of power. Smallish ships can quite easily approach one million power generation this way.

Hopefully with these examples, people can dissuade themselves of the absurdity of using power cubes. I have included Sment files of these structures. Feel free to use them for the start of your own constructions.

I love your thoroughness, your examples really help illustrate a good build paradigm for most ships. I think this is a good general approach for basic shipbuilding - as long as your ship is large enough.

I do think you were a little over-zealous to characterize my post as "completely incorrect, " and I'll show you why.

For small ships, like drones, crosses break down as a design paradigm - there just isn't enough space to really stack crosses. In order to try to do so, you have to hug the outside of your box-dims to have room for more than a couple crosses. Such a design makes small ships with cross power layouts really vulnerable to ship damage. A lucky hit by a pirate could really hurt your power refresh as smaller ship sizes push your cross intersections towards the outside of the ship.

Conversely, while crosses maximize box-dims but sacrifice compactness, cube reactors, sacrifice box-dims (and thus power regen), gain space efficiency. Adding "spokes" of reactors off of a cube reactor can fix the limited box-dim while still maintaining compactness of design, allowing you to shelter more power in the center of your ship, better protected from enemy fire. Spoked cube reactors are not optimal for all ship sizes, but they do well at providing better protected power at small ship sizes.

To prove my point, I conducted two power builds in a 7x7x11 drone hull, one the traditional 3D cross design, one my spoked cube reactor design. Both were tested at different numbers of blocks, and the screenshots captured the energy for each configuration. The test's album link is below, but I've compiled a table of the energy results for the TL:DR crowd.

Small Ship Reactor Test:
http://imgur.com/a/nFYZR

Test Results

Layout 1: Simple Designs

• 69 block 5x5x5 cube reactor: 9927.4 e/sec (143.88e/sec/block)
• 69 block stacked crosses + 2x 9-block reactors: 11845.5 e/sec (171.67e/sec/block)
• Crosses win by a substantial margin. This proves that cube reactors by themselves are not optimal power layout for ships with larger box-dims. I did have to offset the ship core to accomodate the cross design.

Layout 2: Filled Cross vs. Spoked Cube Reactor

• 85 block 5x5x5 cube reactor + spokes: 13662.5 e/sec (160.73e/sec/block)
• 85 block "modified crosses": 13806.9e/sec (162.43e/sec/block)
• Still plenty of room for blocks, but the cross is getting cramped. I had to abandon the standard cross pattern and instead start trying to modify it so that it would work in the small space. The result is that the cross design looks more like a custom job, and took much longer to build than the spoked reactor. At this point the power ratings are comparable, but the spoked reactor consolidates most of the power blocks in one part of the ship.

Layout 3: Testing Optimizations

• I wanted to implement some easy optimizations to both designs to try and improve output. Not claiming these are the most optimal configurations - more like low-hanging fruit.
• Optimized 85 block 5x5x5 cube reactor + spokes: 14789.1e/sec (173.99e/sec/block)
• Optimized 85 block "modified crosses": 14016e/sec (164.89e/sec/block)
• Removing a few unnecessary blocks inside the cube reactor and replacing them with single reactors netted us a large performance gain. Another plus is that the entire spoked reactor power build was just a few minutes. I toyed around with the modified cross design some, but couldn't find a better optimization than replacing small power groups with single reactors. There are probably better cross designs out there for this size, but I did at least as well as a novice builder would with that design pattern

Conclusion
Spoked cube reactors can provide similar or even better performance at small ship sizes than the traditional 3D cross build. 3D crosses are not compact, and this hurts them in small builds. Larger ships with larger volumes can benefit more from 3D crosses, as they give high power regen at the cost of low power block densities. Smaller ships may not have enough volume to take full advantage of 3D crosses - at these scales, spoked cube reactors (ie, emulated 3D crosses with a cube reactor at the center) can get you a competitive power regen in a smaller package.

Hopefully I've proven that my post was at least partially correct.

 

[<SCRIPTKITTY>]

I have sure learned a lot from everyone that has posted here. Thank you all.