So many of you who play this game and are seasoned may not need to read this as you have likely found the best layouts for your power block engines. However, just as many people likely, like me, have been unable to find anything useful as far as layouts for engines beyond the tutorials posted by beetlebear which, while helpful (really, if you're having trouble with making power blocks on your own, you should look it up if you haven't alraedy), didn't help me maximize the recharge rate for use in larger ships. They may also be slightly misleading to those new to the game who have yet to grasp the methodology of the game.
This being said, I am not claiming to understand fully how the recharge rate is calculated, nor will I explain my hypotheses on how it is calculated, as the purpose of this post is purely to give the results of my countless experiments.
Now to begin.
For our purposes, let's say the volumn in which we are placing the power blocks is a 5 x 5 x 7 space. The five layouts I will outline are fictional (tutorial), solid, checkerboard, sponge, and capped checkerboard, terms that I will get into when I explain each one. In the cross sections I show, "x" will represent a power block while "o" will represent no power block (either empty space or another block altogether).
NOTE: These layouts are intended for larger sized ships. Use of these in small and some medium sized ships (namely those that do not have much room inside for personel movement) may be unseemly, aesthetically displeasing, or even altogether impossible.
Fictional (Tutorial):
This is beetlebear's tutorial power block, which I am mentioning only for the sake of reference. To learn more about it please see the tutorial at http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YZ0qTeXjeT4. In the volume expressed above, the recharge rate is 2,585.7 e/sec over 15 power blocks, which is an efficiency of 122.42% of a single power block's recharge rate of 140.8 e/sec.
NOTE: "Fictional" is a term my friend created to explain the large increse of recharge rate despite only placing one block. It refers to the fact that the three axes on which the blocks are placed create a fictional volume that is only physical on three edges, even though the fictional volume is being calculated into the recharge rate.
Solid Power Block:
The basic layout of a power block engine is a pure, solid block which, in cross section, looks like this:
x x x x x
x x x x x
x x x x x
x x x x x
x x x x x
This pattern continues through all 7 layers, and produces a recharge rate of 6,585.7 e/sec over 175 power blocks. This provides a recharge rate of about 37.63 e/sec for each block. This is extremely inefficient, as a single power block can provide 140.8 e/sec recharge rate on its own, cutting this layout's efficiency to a horrible 26.725% of each block's possible recharge rate.
Checkerboard:
This layout is similar to the solid layout. The key difference is that it uses half the power blocks by utilizing the following cross section throughout the 7 layers:
x o x o x
o x o x o
x o x o x
o x o x o
x o x o x
This layout can produce a decent 12,022.8 e/sec recharge rate over 91 power blocks, nearly doubling. Double the recharge rate may seem low if you're remembering the previous efficiency, however you're using half the blocks, so the recharge rate per block is about 132.12 e/sec, which yields a nice efficiency of 93.84%.
Sponge:
This is a variation on the checkerboard, however it utilizes no adjacent power blocks, contrary to what the previous two versions have done. The layout is made of alternating layers of the following two patterns:
Layer A:
x o x o x
o x o x o
x o x o x
o x o x o
x o x o x
Layer B:
o x o x o
x o x o x
o x o x o
x o x o x
o x o x o
These layers in the pattern of ABABABA in the 7 layers produce a recharge rate of 12,393.9 e/sec over 88 power blocks, which is 140.84 e/sec for each block: an efficiency of 100.03% per block. This layout provides the best recharge rate per block, and is thusly more desirable when both resources and credits are low, as it is more budget friendly, though not by much.
Capped Checkerboard:
As the name would indicate, this is an evolution of the checkerboard layout. This layout contains three cross sections:
Cap A:
x x o x x
x o x o x
o x x x o
x o x o x
x x o x x
Body:
x o x o x
o x o x o
x o x o x
o x o x o
x o x o x
Cap B:
o x o x o
x x o x x
o o x o o
x x o x x
o x o x o
This layout merges the checkerboard and fictional layout ideas. By compacting multiple fictional layouts into a checkerboard pattern which amplifies its effect, the power recharge rate in the above mention space is 12,907.8 e/sec over 95 power blocks, which translates into 135.87 e/sec per block, which is 96.5% per block. While this layout only provides the second best efficiency per block, it does provide the best recharge rate within a specific volume, and is much more desirable on larger ships, stealth or otherwise. However, as it requires a few more power blocks than the sponge, it is a little less budget efficient.
edit:
So, one of my friends I play with recently informed me of an improvement he made to the capped checkerboard. It changes Cap B to the following:
o x x x o
x o x o x
x x o x x
x o x o x
o x x x o
This is simply pattern of Cap A offset up two, which allows for a greater efficiency of the four fictional layouts on that side. This also allows for an easier extension of the two caps outwards. In essence, it's a repeated pattern of plus signs strewn accross both ends of the checkerboard layout.
Results:
Overall, the capped checkerboard layout is the best, though as stated at the beginning of this post, it should be reserved for larger ships, as the smallest possible layout is a 5 x 5 x 5 cube. If making a fighter or other small to medium sized ships focused on combat, the use of both fictional and sponge layouts will be the most volumetrically efficient.
This being said, I am not claiming to understand fully how the recharge rate is calculated, nor will I explain my hypotheses on how it is calculated, as the purpose of this post is purely to give the results of my countless experiments.
Now to begin.
For our purposes, let's say the volumn in which we are placing the power blocks is a 5 x 5 x 7 space. The five layouts I will outline are fictional (tutorial), solid, checkerboard, sponge, and capped checkerboard, terms that I will get into when I explain each one. In the cross sections I show, "x" will represent a power block while "o" will represent no power block (either empty space or another block altogether).
NOTE: These layouts are intended for larger sized ships. Use of these in small and some medium sized ships (namely those that do not have much room inside for personel movement) may be unseemly, aesthetically displeasing, or even altogether impossible.
Fictional (Tutorial):
This is beetlebear's tutorial power block, which I am mentioning only for the sake of reference. To learn more about it please see the tutorial at http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YZ0qTeXjeT4. In the volume expressed above, the recharge rate is 2,585.7 e/sec over 15 power blocks, which is an efficiency of 122.42% of a single power block's recharge rate of 140.8 e/sec.
NOTE: "Fictional" is a term my friend created to explain the large increse of recharge rate despite only placing one block. It refers to the fact that the three axes on which the blocks are placed create a fictional volume that is only physical on three edges, even though the fictional volume is being calculated into the recharge rate.
Solid Power Block:
The basic layout of a power block engine is a pure, solid block which, in cross section, looks like this:
x x x x x
x x x x x
x x x x x
x x x x x
x x x x x
This pattern continues through all 7 layers, and produces a recharge rate of 6,585.7 e/sec over 175 power blocks. This provides a recharge rate of about 37.63 e/sec for each block. This is extremely inefficient, as a single power block can provide 140.8 e/sec recharge rate on its own, cutting this layout's efficiency to a horrible 26.725% of each block's possible recharge rate.
Checkerboard:
This layout is similar to the solid layout. The key difference is that it uses half the power blocks by utilizing the following cross section throughout the 7 layers:
x o x o x
o x o x o
x o x o x
o x o x o
x o x o x
This layout can produce a decent 12,022.8 e/sec recharge rate over 91 power blocks, nearly doubling. Double the recharge rate may seem low if you're remembering the previous efficiency, however you're using half the blocks, so the recharge rate per block is about 132.12 e/sec, which yields a nice efficiency of 93.84%.
Sponge:
This is a variation on the checkerboard, however it utilizes no adjacent power blocks, contrary to what the previous two versions have done. The layout is made of alternating layers of the following two patterns:
Layer A:
x o x o x
o x o x o
x o x o x
o x o x o
x o x o x
Layer B:
o x o x o
x o x o x
o x o x o
x o x o x
o x o x o
These layers in the pattern of ABABABA in the 7 layers produce a recharge rate of 12,393.9 e/sec over 88 power blocks, which is 140.84 e/sec for each block: an efficiency of 100.03% per block. This layout provides the best recharge rate per block, and is thusly more desirable when both resources and credits are low, as it is more budget friendly, though not by much.
Capped Checkerboard:
As the name would indicate, this is an evolution of the checkerboard layout. This layout contains three cross sections:
Cap A:
x x o x x
x o x o x
o x x x o
x o x o x
x x o x x
Body:
x o x o x
o x o x o
x o x o x
o x o x o
x o x o x
Cap B:
o x o x o
x x o x x
o o x o o
x x o x x
o x o x o
This layout merges the checkerboard and fictional layout ideas. By compacting multiple fictional layouts into a checkerboard pattern which amplifies its effect, the power recharge rate in the above mention space is 12,907.8 e/sec over 95 power blocks, which translates into 135.87 e/sec per block, which is 96.5% per block. While this layout only provides the second best efficiency per block, it does provide the best recharge rate within a specific volume, and is much more desirable on larger ships, stealth or otherwise. However, as it requires a few more power blocks than the sponge, it is a little less budget efficient.
edit:
So, one of my friends I play with recently informed me of an improvement he made to the capped checkerboard. It changes Cap B to the following:
o x x x o
x o x o x
x x o x x
x o x o x
o x x x o
This is simply pattern of Cap A offset up two, which allows for a greater efficiency of the four fictional layouts on that side. This also allows for an easier extension of the two caps outwards. In essence, it's a repeated pattern of plus signs strewn accross both ends of the checkerboard layout.
Results:
Overall, the capped checkerboard layout is the best, though as stated at the beginning of this post, it should be reserved for larger ships, as the smallest possible layout is a 5 x 5 x 5 cube. If making a fighter or other small to medium sized ships focused on combat, the use of both fictional and sponge layouts will be the most volumetrically efficient.
