"More room"? That really is funny.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.
When you've built a few more of your own you'll learn otherwise.[doublepost=1512037695,1512037638][/doublepost]
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.
It will depend on geometry of the ship, and how heavily armoured it is. If it's lightly armoured the "best" stabiliser efficiency won't be as low as it is for something under a heap of AA.Currently I am busy building things and figured that for a miner which needs some power it might make sense to put stabilizers at 75% distance.
However 30% distance is a bit extreme and needs too many stabilizers to be worth considering it.
Yes.can someone build something and not just talk
One thing to note is that when you are building, you should always build your systems first then wrap a hull around that. I think Jojomo's advice was backwards and would only have any chance of being applicable was if you were to build your hull before your finished your systems, which you should simply not do.So if you are using adv armor or are using standard and are sure your systems will fit between your reactor and stabilizers, Jojomo may be correct. If you are using hull or are not sure of your systems volume you are best off placing at 100% effectivness.
If you want a quality ship then definitely.One thing to note is that when you are building, you should always build your systems first then wrap a hull around that. I think Jojomo's advice was backwards and would only have any chance of being applicable was if you were to build your hull before your finished your systems, which you should simply not do.
You're absolutely right, talk is cheap.can someone build something and not just talk
It makes no difference in what order you do things, the numbers remain the same.One thing to note is that when you are building, you should always build your systems first then wrap a hull around that. I think Jojomo's advice was backwards and would only have any chance of being applicable was if you were to build your hull before your finished your systems, which you should simply not do.
You shouldn't if thisWhy armor ships when you can do without armor?
is how you do armor.
I'm not suggesting that anyone should. This isn't a real ship. I could have used a single layer of hull and still have saved mass by dropping stabiliser efficiency, it just wouldn't have been down to 20%. EDIT: I'll do that tomorrow and post it too.You shouldn't if this
is how you do armor.
Seriously Jojomo, no one who does that is concerned about mass or tmr.
So why use an example that isn't an example of things people should do?I'm not suggesting that anyone should
Take up my offer to RedAlert. Post a 100% stabiliser efficiency ship following the minimal guidelines in my post on page 1, nothing too extreme, and I'll post one back that is a shortened version of yours and has more power for the same mass.So why use an example that isn't an example of things people should do?
Its an awful way to try and make a point.
If you are incapable of reading my post above, or are too stubborn to understand that it is applicable to different scales, you are beyond my ability to educate.Take up my offer to RedAlert. Post a ship as per the minimal guidelines in my post on page 1, not too extreme, and I'll post one back that is a shortened version of yours and has more power for the same mass.
I just built two basic reactors of 125 blocks each, one with not full stabilization distance and one with full stabilization distance.
When I covered them each with hull the full distance one was undoubtedly lighter, by 30 or 40 mass. (I think it was roughly 180 vs 215)
With standard armor the shorter one was lighter by about 10 mass, total mass being about 330, so the difference was pretty negligible.
Because the shorter one was already lighter at standard armor, it would probably be lighter with adv armor too.
However, it should be noted that these are just reactors, and that if systemed, more volume would need to be occupied. The longer reator already has more volume and thus does not need to expand itself as much, whereas the smaller one might, which would increase the amount of armor it would need relative to the longer one. The longer ship probably has 1.5x the usable volume of the smaller one, so thats less systems that have to go outside that volume, every system block that does necessarily expands the amount of armor used, so that 10 mass difference between the ships using standard armor means very little. Though you are probably still right for adv armor Jojomo, but nobody who wants a good combat capable ship uses that.
A stabilizer block in the version I was in was .4 mass, hull is .05, standard armor .15 and adv .25, so it isn't hard to math out the actual differences associated with ship lengths.
I had meant to take screenshots with stats included, but pressed the wrong button, and I don't have time to repeat it currently.
So if you are using adv armor or are using standard and are sure your systems will fit between your reactor and stabilizers, Jojomo may be correct. If you are using hull or are not sure of your systems volume you are best off placing at 100% effectivness.
Well i did ans no one seems to care. its higher up in this very thread...can someone build something and not just talk