Conduits between reactors and stabilisers

[Jojomo]

The new power system requires conduits between reactors and chambers, but only a build link between reactors and stabilisers.
Requiring conduits between reactors and stabilisers as well (or an equivalent type block if not the exact same conduits) would achieve three things:

1. There would be no ships made where reactors and stabilisers are physically completely separate in non-contiguous pieces of hull (which wouldn't be a good thing to see, and is something some people are worried may actually happen)
2. There wouldn't be (unless the designer wanted it) any part of a ship that had no functional point/reason to exist, e.g. hollow space between reactors and generators. Even this minor function (a conduit connection and protection for it) would be far better than hollow space with no function at all.
   
3. Damage to the ship between stabilisers and reactors would actually matter - cutting a ship in half so that no connection existed between reactors and stabilisers would reduce its efficiency, which I think is a "realistic" effect someone might expect in that case.

In other words, A and B below wouldn't happen, C would happen instead:

 

[jayman38]

I would agree, but I'm in the camp that stabilizers should be close to the reactor, if they are kept at all. (I.e. a shell of stabilizers around a reactor core)

 

[Jojomo]

I would agree, but I'm in the camp that stabilizers should be close to the reactor, if they are kept at all. (I.e. a shell of stabilizers around a reactor core)

The pressure from power systems on hull shape then becomes towards "blob/sphere" though.

Power 2.0 pressure on hull shape is towards "wedge" shape, which I quite like: long axis with main stabilisers fwd, and reactor aft with chambers and secondary reactors all close by, and secondary stabilisers reasonably close by.

 

[Lone_Puppy]

Power 2.0 pressure on hull shape is towards "wedge" shape

Yeah, I noticed this to. Which kinda goes against what they were trying to achieve with no forced effect on ship design.

Personally, I don't understand why the whole spacial separation. It would be more logical to have a shielding separation, where you would encase the reactor assembly. Leaving the space inside that shield casing being up to the builder.

The old heat box mechanic would have been fine with a shielding component like this. I didn't see any issue with the heat box apart from it made better sense to call it a radiation box or something.

 

[Jojomo]

Yeah, I noticed this to. Which kinda goes against what they were trying to achieve with no forced effect on ship design.

I wouldn't call it forced. It is some pressure, but there are other competing pressures also, and the existing power system applies pressure on hull shape too: towards "cube".

 

[Dire Venom]

Hey, this is actualy pretty good :P
Having tangabile conections between various ship systems is a pretty cool idea imo. Currently systems are a giant sludge, and conduiats could be conected to provide various bonuses.
Internal shielding using a docked entity to protect these conduits would be a wise idea as well.

This would also prevent 'cloud' ships with boxes full of systems 2km away from the actual ship -_- (which need to be removed without limiting building design).

I dont think stabilizors should be forced into certian locations, a player should beable to make an astheticaly pleasing reactor without having to wrap it in layer upon layer of orange goop.
E.g reactor in the center, conected by conduits to various systems with stabilizors in a ring. This design would not be possible with stabilizor restrictions.

 

[Jojomo]

I dont think stabilizors should be forced into certian locations, ....

They aren't, placement just increases or decreases efficiency (analogous to block placement increasing or decreasing efficiency in the current power system)

E.g reactor in the center, conected by conduits to various systems with stabilizors in a ring. This design would not be possible with stabilizor restrictions.

Maybe I missed something here, but I can't see why not... Not only would it be possible, but assuming you made the ring radius large enough you could also make it with maximum stabiliser efficiency.

If the ring rotates then it would bet a little harder though: the reactor would have to rotate with the ring.