HowTo build a ship in the new dev build

[NeonSturm]

Apparently, the new dev does not have a jump computer or jump module anymore.
Maybe it's inherent to ships as I could use a computer in the weapons menu when removing every computer block of this type.

Other missing blocks are Scanner Computers+Antennas and Jump inhibitor which is apparently tied to the reactor now.

Overdrive passive seems to get replaced by a mobility reactor and ion effect by a defence reactor.
Apparently you can have 2 level-2 chambers but only one level-1 chamber. Everything changes.

I think it's good to replace all these computers and modules with a few chamber-blocks.
I also think it's beneficial to the game to have ship roles depending on the reactor.
(scout, interceptor, ...)

With my 3x5 reactor (15 blocks) I can build a 30m long ship and use about the same number of shield rechargers and the same number of caps or 30 weapon blocks.
This gives me a nice "little" shuttle, but "little" is relative with SM's 1m thick doors.

Perhaps you get not the same amount of guns on your ship, just build a bigger one now.

Has someone a guide how large a decent miner needs to be for the right amount of power to power the right amount of salvagers?

Which size are your new fighters/gunships/escorts/turrets in comparision to these miners?

 

[Jojomo]

A very rough rule of thumb that I start with (haven't run the numbers for optimisation, so don't quote me as saying this is the way to go) is to place the reactor first (sized on the number of salvage blocks you plan to use), then place stabilisers at about 30% efficiency distance and see if you're happy with the size.

Adjust the stabiliser location until you're happy with the size, and then add stabilisers until you have 100% reactor output.

Don't place your stabilisers at 100% efficiency distance - unless your ship has no hull this won't even result in the lightest possible ship for your chosen power output (because of the extra hull required to cover the extra volume).

 

[FlyingDebris]

Don't place your stabilisers at 100% efficiency distance - unless your ship has no hull this won't even result in the lightest possible ship for your chosen power output (because of the extra hull required to cover the extra volume).

Place them well out in to 100% efficiency and don't use any hull. Now abuse the excess of power you have to install Big Fucking Guns(tm)
[doublepost=1511936673,1511936109][/doublepost]Also, stabilizers contribute to reactor HP, so having more means you're gonna get smoked easier.

All in all, it's actually a pretty bad idea to have more stabilizers than you need to.

 

[GDPR 302420]

Don't place your stabilisers at 100% efficiency distance - unless your ship has no hull this won't even result in the lightest possible ship for your chosen power output (because of the extra hull required to cover the extra volume).

This is incorrect, lower power efficiency hurts your ship and provides no meaningful benefits.

NeonSturm you should never have your power layout at anything less then 100% efficiency, more power per block gives you more ability to fit larger guns and other systems that use power, making your ship considerable for effective for its mass, even if you are not interested in meta builds, you should never do any less then 100% efficiency.

 

[NeonSturm]

So I have to first build mining arrays then shields then look at power requirements then build a suitable reactor and finally redo the whole ship because everything is just a trial build not how you really build?

 

[FlyingDebris]

do power first and then stack on as much shit as you can tbh

 

[kikaha]

My Salvager WIP in the dev build has a reactor level 17 , 2 chambers (400 blocks each) for mining bonus X2 and jump distance 3.

To build my ship i had to first choose a rôle for it. Now more than ever is what i believe will make decent ship. Choosing a purpose for them.
So this is a salvager. So i needed a good array to mine fast.
I decided/estimated roughly that i wanted a ship around 100 meters long. i press X then build my salvage array at the front (why not :P ) and build a hull around it in a shape that i like.

From then on i put down my reactor and my stabilizers at the same time, a little of reactor here, some stabilizers there to get 100% power then test my salvage array to see if i get enough power to fire it, move (full acceleration) and charge the jump drive at the same time.

I got this.

 

[Jojomo]

This is incorrect, lower power efficiency hurts your ship and provides no meaningful benefits.

NeonSturm you should never have your power layout at anything less then 100% efficiency, more power per block gives you more ability to fit larger guns and other systems that use power, making your ship considerable for effective for its mass, even if you are not interested in meta builds, you should never do any less then 100% efficiency.

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 the rest without any concave sections. 100% stabiliser effciency. Avoid extreme geometry.

I'll modify it to be lighter with the same power output by reducing the stabiliser efficiency (and therefore also the hull used)

 

[GDPR 302420]

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 the rest without any concave sections. 100% stabiliser effciency. Avoid extreme geometry.

I'll modify it to be lighter with the same power output by reducing the stabiliser efficiency (and therefore also the hull used)

You missed the point.

A ship being light =/= overall efficiency, infact achieving lighter weight using your method only hurts your ship.

 

[FlyingDebris]

"I'm going to put more blocks on the ship and make it less efficient per block, that'll make it lighter and do the same thing!"

Read what you said again, slowly.

 

[NeonSturm]

I tested building a miner.

I first had a reactor 5x5x5 and needed to put the stabilizers about 40 blocks away.
My mining array was 25x25x10 and consumed too much power.

Then I build a reactor 9x9x5 further behind and slabbed some inefficient stabilizers on.
Then it was working with 300% power consumption at times.

Having less efficient stabilizers is ok if they are above roughly 70% for a smaller ship, but I wouldn't go further.

 

[FlyingDebris]

Current meta there massively buffs LONGBOI ships, so it's really fucked one way or another

Optimally, there's no reason to have anything less than 100% efficiency, it's just that you need a bigger reactor period for your ship, that or a smaller array

 

[Jojomo]

You missed the point.

A ship being light =/= overall efficiency, infact achieving lighter weight using your method only hurts your ship.

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

 

[The_Owl]

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

uh


have you even played the dev build?

 

[GDPR 302420]

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

As FlyingDebris said

"I'm going to put more blocks on the ship and make it less efficient per block, that'll make it lighter and do the same thing!"

There is a reason you want your reactor blocks at maximum efficiency, reactor hp.

 

[Jojomo]

As FlyingDebris said

"I'm going to put more blocks on the ship and make it less efficient per block, that'll make it lighter and do the same thing!"

There is a reason you want your reactor blocks at maximum efficiency, reactor hp.

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.

uh


have you even played the dev build?

Nothing but dev builds for quite a while now.

 

[The_Owl]

Nothing but dev builds for quite a while now.

Then please tell me how 50% efficiency produces MORE POWER than 100% efficiency

 

[GDPR 302420]

Don't place your stabilisers at 100% efficiency distance - unless your ship has no hull this won't even result in the lightest possible ship for your chosen power output (because of the extra hull required to cover the extra volume).

A lighter ship with less then 100% efficiency provides absolutely no meaningfull benefits over a heavier ship with 100% efficiency.

Low weight =/= preformance

More weapons, shields, thrust, utility systems and power to use them = preformance
[doublepost=1512036905,1512036703][/doublepost]Jojomo I strongly advise you obtain knoweldge of shipbuilding and base game mechanics before you come onto threads with players asking for help and spreading misinformation.

 

[Jojomo]

Then please tell me how 50% efficiency produces MORE POWER than 100% efficiency

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. The decrease in hull mass is greater than the increase in stabiliser mass.

That's why for the same power output you can have lower mass, or for the same mass you can have higher power output.
[doublepost=1512037281,1512036983][/doublepost]

A lighter ship with less then 100% efficiency provides absolutely no meaningfull benefits over a heavier ship with 100% efficiency.

Low weight =/= preformance

More weapons, shields, thrust, utility systems and power to use them = preformance

And for the same mass ship a lower stabiliser efficiency means more power for weapons, shields, thrust, and utilities than a ship with 100% stabiliser efficiency.

[doublepost=1512036905,1512036703][/doublepost]Jojomo I strongly advise you obtain knoweldge of shipbuilding and base game mechanics before you come onto threads with players asking for help and spreading misinformation.

I suggest you spend more time building in systems 2.0 before arguing with someone who does almost nothing except build 2.0 power systems.

 

[GDPR 302420]

And for the same mass ship a lower stabiliser efficiency means more power for weapons, shields, thrust, and utilities than a ship with 100% stabiliser efficiency.

More efficiency = less blocks required to achieve the same power output of your "non-100% efficient" design.

The amount of blocks you saved from simply upgrading to 100% efficiency gives you more room for other systems.
[doublepost=1512037695,1512037638][/doublepost]

I suggest you spend more time building in systems 2.0 before arguing with someone who does almost nothing except build 2.0 power systems.

For someone who has been doing "almost nothing except build 2.0 power systems" you seem to have next to no clue what you are even talking about.