Fix or Remove Docked Thrust

[Master_Artificer]

I feel like the capital ship modules they keep talking about will just end up being "dock everything".

Which isn't a bad thing, mind you. Just needs some tweaks.

EDIT: and Tunks Spontaneous Unplanned Disassembly of his B&S ship was amazing when the dockers were sniped.

 

[spunkiethefirst]

Last I checked, although docked thruster inheritance does not suffer the diminishing return, as adding thrusters to the mothership, this is offset by the mothership being required to power those inherited thrusters, without the benefit of the docked entities reactors. This leads to the mothership being required to add further capacitors, docked reactors, and associated power transfer systems increasing cost, entity dimensions, complexity, and mass. Counter to that, I suppose you don't need to place reactors on the docked thruster and there are some mass savings there.

With the way weapons are able to pierce there is the inherent danger of hitting that one special block holding on these docked booster entities.
If you do reduce the effectiveness of docked thrusters to equal those placed on the mothership directly, then there would be no reason to have the feature implemented in the first place. The balance occurs in improved performance vs catastrophic failure, through loss of the docking block (with all the colliding entities and fps drop this entails).

 

[Lecic]

Last I checked, although docked thruster inheritance does not suffer the diminishing return, as adding thrusters to the mothership, this is offset by the mothership being required to power those inherited thrusters, without the benefit of the docked entities reactors. This leads to the mothership being required to add further capacitors, docked reactors, and associated power transfer systems increasing cost, entity dimensions, complexity, and mass. Counter to that, I suppose you don't need to place reactors on the docked thruster and there are some mass savings there.

With the way weapons are able to pierce there is the inherent danger of hitting that one special block holding on these docked booster entities.
If you do reduce the effectiveness of docked thrusters to equal those placed on the mothership directly, then there would be no reason to have the feature implemented in the first place. The balance occurs in improved performance vs catastrophic failure, through loss of the docking block (with all the colliding entities and fps drop this entails).

Thrust drains power based on the number of blocks you have. You are using less power and getting higher thrust by using docked thrusters.

Also, internally docked objects rarely get shot off. A couple dozen pairs of blocks, deep within a large ship, potentially with extra armor surrounding the docks, means there's little chance of those objects getting shot off.

 

[spunkiethefirst]

Thrust drains power based on the number of blocks you have. You are using less power and getting higher thrust by using docked thrusters.

Also, internally docked objects rarely get shot off. A couple dozen pairs of blocks, deep within a large ship, potentially with extra armor surrounding the docks, means there's little chance of those objects getting shot off.

Is that on a custom server config? When I try it single player the single docked thruster takes the same power as the directly applied one.

 

[Tunk]

You are pretty out of line with that comment GRHayes.
We don't just see the cardboard box, we open the damn thing, read the manual, then throw it away and start abusing the parts within in every way imaginable like mad scientists.
We have the math, testing, etc behind us, and have known about this since half a hour after the update (hell I predicted the issue from the release notes).

As for the stick carrier, sorry to say but that is stuff people thought of as soon as jump drives were available and well behind most large factions tech.

I'll leave it at that because a full response would probably result in a warning.

 

[GRHayes]

Now, I'm not exactly a scientist, but aren't larger machines are typically LESS efficient?
Greater max speed, yes, but usually slower acceleration.
Please explain how completely bypassing a downward curve (something not even docked reactors fully do) is not overpowered.

Answer to your first question is no.
Imagine you have a system that is a sphere designed to produce power internally and convert it to energy to use. the amount of surface area you have is directly proportionate to the heat loss. As surface area increase heat loss increase. however as volume increase the more power increases. If you were to use a sphere the Volume = (4πr^3)/3 where surface area A=4πr^2 Volume increases at a factor that is cubed where surface increases at a factor that is only squared. Thus production increases faster than heat loss does. There for efficiency increases with larger machines.
As long as the engineer designs something with efficiency in mind that will be the case. How many engineers do you think don't consider efficiency in their plans or designs? Probably none.

The problem is people get in their head bigger equals slower and lumber some and so on. Most people would crap their pants if they seen what an aircraft carrier can actually do or a nuclear submarine.

Again as far as acceleration. Again NO. resounding NO. I did point out their mass to volume is actually lower and since they have greater power they can usually accelerate quite well.

I think people generally think of things like trains and that gets them off on the concept. A train for the most part is usually a heavy mass to volume. Unlike a large ship or carrier would be. Its primary goal is to get as much from A to B for the least amount. So they rely on very high torque drives to get the system moving. That said most people would be blown away with how fast a freight train can get going on top end speed. But again they are designed around getting that large mass moving. As for freight trains they are some seriously efficient systems for moving large amounts of material when you look at fuel usage for the mass they are moving. They rely heavily on momentum.

Now take what you just learned and apply it to space where you have no drag or friction related to air or water. If the technologies are equal the large ship is going to dust the small ship on take off and top end. A small ship may have a greater maneuvering thrust set up to mass ratio than a large ship does. However that doesn't have to be the case. The large ship could be filled with increased thrusters for maneuvering and so on.
That said even if the large ship was built to an equal mass to volume ratio it would still have the advantage of more efficient systems.

The issue you have to understand is that you have to look at the energy lost from a system as opposed to the energy put to use by the system. If the system can make use of more energy and looses less energy do to heat, friction, ... on a percentile basis it is more efficient.

 

[Valck]

Larger ships would employ larger engines generators and as such if made correctly they would be more efficient than a scaled down version you would find in a fighter.

Now, I'm not exactly a scientist, but aren't larger machines are typically LESS efficient?

Actually no. There are exceptions of course, but generally speaking larger means more efficient use of resources, higher structural integrity, less waste by friction and heat losses etc., which is why we build large trains, large trucks, large ships, large power plants, large refineries, large machines and large factories. That's only valid up to the point when something becomes too large and unwieldy to actually fulfil its intended purpose (efficiency is certainly not the reason why we use SUVs for transporting a single person from A to B...), but usually you try to go as big as you can.

 

[Deserea]

Answer to your first question is no.

The problem is people get in their head bigger equals slower and lumber some and so on. Most people would crap their pants if they seen what an aircraft carrier can actually do or a nuclear submarine.

To further this, my naval recruiter told us that right when the gulf war, and or desert storm broke out i forget which im leaning more towards the gulf war, his ship(A US naval frigate) was out doing speed tests with ships from other countries, a german destroyer, korean ship and a US cruiser, his frigate out raced them all, and i think there was a Australian ship in there too, and over the horizon one of our Carriers came, passed his ship, and was gone over the horizon, it never came within hailing range, but they found out later from their command that it was indeed one of the US's nuclear aircraft carriers(forget the name of it, sorry). There is a reason that their top speed is classified, and why when you look them up it simply says "Over 30 Knots", they have the best engines in them, and they can out speed any other ship, if they need to im fairly sure of that.

 

[GRHayes]

Actually no. There are exceptions of course, but generally speaking larger means more efficient use of resources, higher structural integrity, less waste by friction and heat losses etc., which is why we build large trains, large trucks, large ships, large power plants, large refineries, large machines and large factories. That's only valid up to the point when something becomes too large and unwieldy to actually fulfil its intended purpose (efficiency is certainly not the reason why we use SUVs for transporting a single person from A to B...), but usually you try to go as big as you can.

Right.
Also the exceptions of when larger isn't more efficient would be if the smaller system used a more advanced or different technology.
[DOUBLEPOST=1451876580,1451876445][/DOUBLEPOST]

To further this, my naval recruiter told us that right when the gulf war, and or desert storm broke out i forget which im leaning more towards the gulf war, his ship(A US naval frigate) was out doing speed tests with ships from other countries, a german destroyer, korean ship and a US cruiser, his frigate out raced them all, and i think there was a Australian ship in there too, and over the horizon one of our Carriers came, passed his ship, and was gone over the horizon, it never came within hailing range, but they found out later from their command that it was indeed one of the US's nuclear aircraft carriers(forget the name of it, sorry). There is a reason that their top speed is classified, and why when you look them up it simply says "Over 30 Knots", they have the best engines in them, and they can out speed any other ship, if they need to im fairly sure of that.

I'll be a little more giving. They can break the legal speed limit most cars drive in the US.

 

[Deserea]

Right.
Also the exceptions of when larger isn't more efficient would be if the smaller system used a more advanced or different technology.
[DOUBLEPOST=1451876580,1451876445][/DOUBLEPOST]

I'll be a little more giving. They can break the legal speed limit most cars drive in the US.

That in no way surprises me at all! :D


truthfully, i prefer the old thruster mechanics, i dislike that i lost 15k thrust on one of my ships, and yet can go over the server speed, even though it struggles to get up to half of what it used to, with using double the power.(why? IMO, additional thrust over server speed should go towards acceleration, unless one has overdrive. -_-), i dont like the feeling of ice skating when trying to go sideways, and why all of a sudden when i try and rotate my ship(Z, X), does it send it in massive spiral type spins in the same location, and the fact that the shift key is now so useless ive reverted to turning auto dampening on, pretty much at all times, so i dont overshoot my target, run into stations, asteroids, or just about anything. Game has become to me, when im not building, more about micromanaging speed and trying to keep it under 30m/s, unless im in a fighter. I even /tried/ liking the new mechanics, i really really did, but i just cant.

 

[Lecic]

I feel like we're getting a bit off topic here.

Also, with larger = more efficient... docked thrusters don't really make much sense. That's a lot of tiny, very efficient machines, not one large efficient machine. They're MORE efficient than a large, single machine.

 

[Deserea]

I feel like we're getting a bit off topic here.

Also, with larger = more efficient... docked thrusters don't really make much sense. That's a lot of tiny, very efficient machines, not one large efficient machine. They're MORE efficient than a large, single machine.

The only way it would make sense, is to do a backwards curve, the more you have, the more efficient they are, but that wouldnt work from a balance standpoint i dont think, as nice as it would be, or would it?

The enemy of thrusters is power, and now they use /alot/ more power than they would have before this patch, so it would be balanced(unless im missing something, i may be) if they gained thrust from more modules placed.

 

[godmars]

Technically if we looked at this from the perspective of reality this is something this game actually got right.
Larger ships would employ larger engines generators and as such if made correctly they would be more efficient than a scaled down version you would find in a fighter. Larger ships in real life also have a lower mass to space ratio. Where a fighter has to be more compact.
Given we aren't pushing against and atmosphere or body of water for movement those negative effects don't hold in space. Which is why star wars and star trek both have it right when they show larger ships having greater speed capability than smaller ships.

Technically in a real space battle fighters would be next to pointless. They only make sense when dealing with other ships on or near their size. however everyone wants this fanciful idea that they can be a hero flying down the canyon on death star and their little ship makes a difference. Where in reality they wouldn't ever get close enough to make a scratch let along fly down the pass because they would have been blown to bit 20,000Km out or further.

However back to focusing on this is a game.

The fact is they need to make the trust changes. Cargo changes one dictated it. You have to laugh when the players want something nurfed.
The fact is they aren't done making changes and I have no idea what they may have in store for light craft. But I can think of several hundred ways this could be put to use and then it wouldn't be over powered in the least.

You are like a bunch of kids that tear the wrapping paper off a present see a plain card board box and start whining before ever opening it up to see what is in side. I do my fair share of bitching also. Seeing do this tends to show me how unfair I been to the dev team as well.

Yes, I know how powerful this can be I came up with the stick ship / carrier.

I'm aware that realistically a larger ship should be faster and small craft would realistically be useless, but in a game, ESPECIALLY a sandbox game, that should not be the case. (lets not even get started on realistic space combat, LOL) If a player wants to use a smaller ship, they need to have some sort of advantage in doing so or there really isn't any choice in the matter, you just build bigger. If anything we can pretend they use some super efficent magic tech that works better on...smaller stuff, or something

Is that on a custom server config? When I try it single player the single docked thruster takes the same power as the directly applied one.

Not sure if I understand you correctly but they use the same power, HOWEVER you get more thrust per individual block instead of putting it on the main ship...so having multiple docked thrusters would net you the same power consumption but a higher overall thrust vs having them all on the main ship.

 

[GRHayes]

I feel like we're getting a bit off topic here.

Also, with larger = more efficient... docked thrusters don't really make much sense. That's a lot of tiny, very efficient machines, not one large efficient machine. They're MORE efficient than a large, single machine.

But as everyone on here keeps telling me it isn't supposed to make sense its a game. I quit for 2 months over the issue.

As for a bunch of little machines working together can actually be increased in efficiency as well. All you have to do is look at something you are using this second video cards make use of large numbers of processors rather than a single cpu to increase efficiency.

For dealing with issues of parallelism multiple machines can deal with it in greater efficiency. Even that has its limits though. You reach a point when the assignment of tasks out weighs the increase in efficiency. So the cost of management simply gets to high and you no longer can get more efficient in fact efficiency can be reduced.

I don't however think that would apply to this instance. Granted I probably could come up with a means it could theoretically but not under simple assumption.

Regardless the current issue something need to be done or cargo ships weren't going to move much at all.

The attached ships should contribute no more than the trust they can produce on their own. If they are I suspect that will be patched.
I haven't checked.

Lets say a ship produces 1000 thrust docks on another ship. If that ship it is attached to makes use of its thrust it should be no different.
It also should use no more power than it would under the small ships systems.
Here is why. Technically the large ship is only providing power and basically controls to it. The small ship is actually what is providing the systems for power and thrust to its own systems. There is no reason for the engine of the small ship to become less efficient just because it docked to another ship. That would be ass backwards as it can get.

So looking at that yes it should be more efficient to build ships with modular engines.

What the real problem is. Is everyone got used to this unnatural power efficiency curve that was put into the game. Which is the crap I bitched about before and people told me it was a game and I said it makes no sense. When I talked to the "orange peeps" on this I was fed this is to simulate the law of squares vs cubes. I tried pointing out that isn't something that needs simulating it occurs naturally and by doing this it causes issues.

Well this is one of the consequences of doing that. In truth the reduced thrust and power curve are exactly opposite to reality and thus create problems.
[DOUBLEPOST=1451879466,1451879171][/DOUBLEPOST]

I'm aware that realistically a larger ship should be faster and small craft would realistically be useless, but in a game, ESPECIALLY a sandbox game, that should not be the case. (lets not even get started on realistic space combat, LOL) If a player wants to use a smaller ship, they need to have some sort of advantage in doing so or there really isn't any choice in the matter, you just build bigger. If anything we can pretend they use some super efficent magic tech that works better on...smaller stuff, or something


Not sure if I understand you correctly but they use the same power, HOWEVER you get more thrust per individual block instead of putting it on the main ship...so having multiple docked thrusters would net you the same power consumption but a higher overall thrust vs having them all on the main ship.

The first issue trying to fight the laws of nature and reality has negative effects like we are seeing now. It only gets worse the more you try to break things. Nature has its own means of balancing things out. The more you mimic it the better it works.

Second paragraph so you think because a ship is suddenly getting power from another power source it should be come less efficient that if it was just flying on its own. Again backwards logic and why this game has issues!

 

[Master_Artificer]

what even is this thread.

 

[Deserea]

Not sure if I understand you correctly but they use the same power, HOWEVER you get more thrust per individual block instead of putting it on the main ship...so having multiple docked thrusters would net you the same power consumption but a higher overall thrust vs having them all on the main ship.

Thats the part that gets me, the power consumption, with everything else done to thrusters, why was it increased so much? the nerfs, and the curve should have been enough, and if it was that way, i would actually side with Lecic here simply because it would make a bunch of sense to me if it worked that way. Much more sense than it does now at least to me! :O

what even is this thread.

A very large mess is what it is!

 

[spunkiethefirst]

I would agree with the original fix proposition if the docked entities thrust was powered by the docked entities own power supply and only fed off the mothership's power when the docked entity was lacking enough.

 

[GRHayes]

Thats the part that gets me, the power consumption, with everything else done to thrusters, why was it increased so much? the nerfs, and the curve should have been enough, and if it was that way, i would actually side with Lecic here simply because it would make a bunch of sense to me if it worked that way. Much more sense than it does now at least to me! :O

A very large mess is what it is!

The way I see it is they take more power now to get up to speed because it no longer takes power to maintain speed. Also it takes actually is capable of making my cargo ship move with 30-50% of the hull space filled with cargo. The old system it made a snail stuck in a jar of molasses look fast.

As for docked systems. Here is how people should think of them and why they work the way they do.
Lets say the engine whatever size it is produces X amount of thrust and requires P amount of Power to produce it.
You have that ships power system which provides it P in power. Then when it is docked to the larger ship that ship is providing it P in power also or should be.

Think of it like a toaster as long as it is plugged into an outlet that provides the required power it will produce the heat. So regardless which ship you plug your thurster/toaster into it should produce the same thing.

In reality it would actually have some additional effects depending on the system providing power. If you are running a super conductor system for power distribution on the large ship you shouldn't see many if any. However, if you run normal cabling, you would see increased losses of on it from the increased load placed on that wire thus heat loss by electrical increase thus a higher requirement for power from your primary system. Which is why electric cars are actually a bad idea unless powered by something like solar directly at the charging system.

In fact if you look at electric cars with the combined distribution system they become less efficient than normal gas cars.

 

[Master_Artificer]

I'll be a little more giving. They can break the legal speed limit most cars drive in the US.

Ehm, sort of. If you live in Hawaii, assuming you are talking about highway speed limits. But that is in short sprints, like to outrun torpedoes when you really don't feel like turning out of the way. It can cause considerable stress to the hull and especially to the drive-shafts. Having the propeller be one to two turns behind the rotation at the other end twists and warps them, and while shortening the drive shaft can aleviate some of the issue, you also don't want to leave your turbines too exposed.

Really, the safe limit for them if I remember was somewhere below 50 knots, correct me if I am wrong.


Outrunning torpedoes is cheating. Nuclear Turbines is cheating. Put them on everything.

 

[Deserea]

The way I see it is they take more power now to get up to speed because it no longer takes power to maintain speed. Also it takes actually is capable of making my cargo ship move with 30-50% of the hull space filled with cargo. The old system it made a snail stuck in a jar of molasses look fast.

As for docked systems. Here is how people should think of them and why they work the way they do.
Lets say the engine whatever size it is produces X amount of thrust and requires P amount of Power to produce it.
You have that ships power system which provides it P in power. Then when it is docked to the larger ship that ship is providing it P in power also or should be.

Think of it like a toaster as long as it is plugged into an outlet that provides the required power it will produce the heat. So regardless which ship you plug your thurster/toaster into it should produce the same thing.

In reality it would actually have some additional effects depending on the system providing power. If you are running a super conductor system for power distribution on the large ship you shouldn't see many if any. However, if you run normal cabling, you would see increased losses of on it from the increased load placed on that wire thus heat loss by electrical increase thus a higher requirement for power from your primary system. Which is why electric cars are actually a bad idea unless powered by something like solar directly at the charging system.

In fact if you look at electric cars with the combined distribution system they become less efficient than normal gas cars.

As for the speed, i didnt know that(mostly because i keep auto dampening on, due to reasons stated above, can we please get a easy brake system in game, that works?).

And what about thinking of them like booster rockets? thats how ive been thinking of them at least. Booster rockets so far as i know dont use the shuttles power they are attached too, and thats how ive thought they should function since the changes, especially if they are self contained units like most of the ones ive been making lately that, because they cant be self sustained thrusters, ive been turning them into smaller power supply units, there isnt much point in making big docked engines like the(below image), which imo, you should be able to make self sustained, docked thrusters, and if the changes that lecic mentioned go through, there is no reason not to(that i can see), as all docked entity thrusters will be added to the main ships thruster count.

Example below, all four of those are massive docked engines.

Spoiler