Most efficient power reactor pattern?

    Discussion in 'Features' started by Ferdi265, Feb 23, 2013.

    1. Ferdi265

      Joined:
      Feb 11, 2013
      Messages:
      86
      Is there a "most efficient" power reactor pattern? (By pattern I mean a scalable Pattern)

      If no, can somebody show me a decent 5x5xX or 7x7xX pattern?
       
    2. Nameless

      Joined:
      Feb 4, 2013
      Messages:
      60
      I\'d really like to see that myself too.
      EDIT:
      But in any case I\'d just like to add that I\'ve just built two ships each with slightly different power configurations, i.e.;

      2140500 / 813739 = 2.63
      and
      1659000 / 481467 = 3.45
      [Total wattage / rate = )ratio of regeneration)?]
      Presuming I\'m even calcuting things right let alone the right things; which is better?
       
    3. Calbiri

      Joined:
      Jan 1, 2013
      Messages:
      772
      I\'ll be honest, the best configuration is a case by case issue, the desired ship shape greatly effects the optimum reactor pattern.
       
    4. Calbiri

      Joined:
      Jan 1, 2013
      Messages:
      772
      Also depends on whether you prefer power load or regen
       
    5. Ferdi265

      Joined:
      Feb 11, 2013
      Messages:
      86
      So atm, I have found a pretty good Pattern that scales pretty well. It\'s a Tube-like non-symmetrical pattern (so put two mirrored next to each other to make it symmetrical) that has higher Regen/Bock the more you extend it.
      You can expand it in two ways: 1. Expanding the Base size (e.g. 5x5xX or 9x9xX) 2. Expanding the Tube length, where expanding Base size is always better (but it also makes the tube length bigger if you want better Regen/Block)
      My example [Link1] [Link2] [Link3] [Link4]
      Power Load 36264
      Power Max 165000
      Power Max / Power Load = 4.54
      (It\'s Bad but it\'s just a 5x5x13 example. with 7x7 and upwards it expands exponentially)

      Oh, and by the way, a smaller Max/Load is better
       
    6. Calbiri

      Joined:
      Jan 1, 2013
      Messages:
      772
      So if my Max/load get to something like 0.1 I\'m doing good?
       
    7. Ferdi265

      Joined:
      Feb 11, 2013
      Messages:
      86
    8. Ferdi265

      Joined:
      Feb 11, 2013
      Messages:
      86
      wait, you have more load than max?
       
    9. Calbiri

      Joined:
      Jan 1, 2013
      Messages:
      772
      im not sure what you mean by load and max
      my understanding is that your power reserves (batterys) are called your power load by the game
      and that your rate of power generation is called power regen by the game
      so your your little equation is this
      Power Load (what you call \"Max\"?) / Power Regen (what you call \"Load\"?) = efficiency ratio
      then yes, i easily get fractional ratios of effeciency
      the hangman is 0.62 by that equation, and ive greatly improved on that design
      another ship i have sitting around is at 0.37 although i havent quite hit 0.1 yet, i beleive i actually can
       
    10. Nameless

      Joined:
      Feb 4, 2013
      Messages:
      60
      I\'d just like to add that both of my reactor designs are almost of of the same exact configuration and that there IS NO power load (yet) and yet there\'s that disparaty between both designs. Ironically the slightly bigger ship is one the one with the better ratio (using my equation).
       
    11. milkman25

      Joined:
      Apr 14, 2013
      Messages:
      12
      As I have recently joined this game and the first thing i typed into Google was \"efficient power starmade\" and came to this forum and didn\'t get what i was looking for. so i spent some time looking at ways to build a better \"power core\" and this is what i came up with.

      you can follow the images along with the instructions

      https://www.dropbox.com/sh/83trvfhts7sn93g/3CMB8wD_6N

      start out with the basic 3 long on a 5x5 plane.
      next you build 2 on one of the starting platforms
      next you make a 3 long \"elbow\"
      from there you make 2 more
      and lastly you have the 3 on top.

      i usually build it up to the \"elbow\" on all 4 and then do the last 2 layers

      the final product should look like a stair step in a circular motion.

      the final step is that space in the middle. that is done by making 3 up and then one on each side

      and lastly the top 2 pieces.



      the logic behind this is that if you make a 5x5x5 solid block you get a specific about of power load and regen. but you can get the same regen by just making a hollow cube or just the frame. the reason for this is because the number of blocks equal the load but the regen is counted on the volume of the space. so what i have done here to utilize the maximum volume is make these 4 cores (plus the center piece) sperate. if you notice none of the 5 seprate cores are touching yet are ocupying the same 5x5x5 volume. so in turn we have here 4 (technically 5) \"cores\" in 1 and then if you want to make it look really cool you can put lights in the spaces around the center. or for effiancy you can put this on its side and put engine cores down the 4 empty holes. or if you want more power you can stack them (never connect the individual 5x5x5 cores) with a 3x3 ring sperating the cores. an example would be what i did in my borg cube here: http://starmade.org/content/my-first-project
       
    12. caingen

      Joined:
      Apr 9, 2013
      Messages:
      22
      You can add a couple more blocks to max your power load at 103.5k really easily. Overall, really an effiecient design and congrats on being the closest person to the theoretical 20k regen limit.
       
    13. lispink

      Joined:
      Jun 23, 2013
      Messages:
      1
      milkman25 I would love to see your design but the dropbox link is broken :(
       
    14. milkman25

      Joined:
      Apr 14, 2013
      Messages:
      12
    15. Vad3r

      Joined:
      Jul 1, 2013
      Messages:
      11
      This is the most effective one I can build / find at the moment. Will give you 9.5k, their are however configurations for a 10k out there somewhere http://im.bilderkiste.org/5137208324544/reaktor.png
       
    16. Trafalgar

      Joined:
      Jun 26, 2013
      Messages:
      262
      That\'s 9520.4 e/sec including the core\'s 1e/sec, using 76 blocks. I could see it being useful for a small fighter, possibly, where you don\'t want long unarmored power structures that can be shot off. But for other purposes:

      76 power blocks in a straight line, or a +, or a 3d +, or anything like that, generates 31356.9 e/sec. You can get 9577.4 e/sec with only 36 power blocks if they are all in a single straight line or + configuration. Of course, this is more susceptible to battle damage, but it also is far more mass-efficient at generating energy. It\'s especially useful for cloaking, and for large ships (but not as much ridiculously large ships).
       
    17. fluffysnowcap

      Joined:
      Jun 30, 2013
      Messages:
      2
      so far the best 3x3x3 reacter i made out puts 2046.4 with 17 blocks

      http://imgur.com/a/MfNOU
       
    18. Zaflis

      Joined:
      Jul 5, 2013
      Messages:
      372
      That is interesting... it is actually more powerful than this:
      XOX - OXO - XOX (X = power, O = other/empty)
      OXO - XOX - OXO
      XOX - OXO - XOX

      I believe the reason is in that your design fits in more powerblocks, than this thinner grid layout. It is known that:
      XXXX produces less power than:
      XOXOXOX even though both designs have 4 power blocks, and generally box-dimension makes it higher. But with designs under 9 box-dimension, unique single blocks give more power. But yeah, they take more space for that.
       
    19. Qweesdy

      Joined:
      Aug 23, 2013
      Messages:
      380
      For an actual ship (rather than theoretical designs for no practical value other than design challenge), attempting to use a \"pattern\" is just plain silly.

      For a simple example, at the moment I\'m rebuilding my carrier. It\'s got a a large array of salvage cannons at the top (for eating enitre asteroids/stations/planets). Because I want a 2*130 grid of beams I end up with long lines of cannons that can\'t/don\'t touch, which means lots of long gaps to fill in. About half of these gaps I\'ve filled with power generators (the rest are shields and thrusters); and this gave me well over 1 million e/sec power regen.

      For another example, yesterday I built a small repair ship. It\'s another grid (of astrotechnobeams this time) with another bunch of gaps to fill in.

      For another example, to get good thrust out of my previous carrier I had long lines of thrusters, that couldn\'t touch.

      Basically, the best way to design a power generator is to forget about designing a power generator and just slap generators in to fill in gaps. The space consumed by power tanks, weapons, shields, thrusters, etc will far exceed the space consumed by power generators; therefore space consumed by power generators is mostly irrelevant and can be treated as an afterthought.

      Note 1: Gaps (especially for larger ships) can cause major graphics performance issues; because the game renders all the hidden/inner textures. This is actually the reason why I\'m rebuilding my carrier - for the old carrier, whenever the camera was pointing in the direction of that huge array of salvage cannons the frame rate would drop to about 5 frames per second because I didn\'t fill in the gaps.

      Note 2: Once you get to the magic \"about 1 million e/sec\" regen rate you stop getting any bonus from special layouts. This means that once you\'ve filled in your gaps and got well over 1 million e/sec anyway; a solid cube of power generators is as good as anything else if you need more regen.

      Note 3:You should have more capacity than regen. If you\'ve got 1 million e/sec regen, then you need enough \"SD pc1.3 Power Tanks\" to store 1 million power or more and if you\'ve got no power tanks most of your regen will be wasted.
       
    20. Bede

      Joined:
      Jul 31, 2013
      Messages:
      12
      That texture pack is awful. Also just use a 3D cross and have done with it. Your ship will mass less and your thrusters will thank you for it. Also extra space for all the other fun things.
       
    Loading...