- Joined
- Feb 10, 2017
- Messages
- 350
- Reaction score
- 775
Edit: oops. Butter fingers hit enter. Anyways; pictures say it all really, check out the power stats on these builds.
Thought these might be worth discussing?
- Thread starter MrGrey1
- Start date
Edit: oops. Butter fingers hit enter. Anyways; pictures say it all really, check out the power stats on these builds.
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2015
- Messages
- 150
- Reaction score
- 78
i'm pretty sure that ther wasn't any patch that changed this.
you just have to set the right angles on the reactor calibration to achive it. and it also works with only 6 groups instead of 8 when placed right.
Valiant70
That crazy cyborg
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2013
- Messages
- 2,189
- Reaction score
- 1,167
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2017
- Messages
- 350
- Reaction score
- 775
They were all built yesterday on v2.00.335....
I was building with aprox 1:1 stabilizer:reactor ratio, taking reactor block count divided by 8 then inverse cube and get the nearest cuboid to those dimensions, rounding up to odd.
Place your reactor, turn your y-axis angle to 45', set all your plains on, and place one group of stabilizers down so that the plains mirror all eight stabilizer groups with a gap of 3 between each group and at a distance from the reactor so as you have 100% stability. At that point it should be showing you 4/6 dimensions used.
From there just remove/replace the stabilizer groups increasing one of the gaps between them by one each time. (Basically just moving the stabs out in one dimension by one block at a time.) Each time you do this shift the other reactor alignment sliders, one at a time to 45'. To start with this will result in your dimensions falling from 4/6 to 2/6 and getting worse overall stabilization. But keep doing it and there will come a point where the dimensions go from 4/6 to 6/6. The stabilization will be way over 100% so you can now move the stabilizer groups back toward the reactor to reduce the stabilizer buffer as desired.... and Bob's your uncle. You've (ab)used the reactor alignment mechanic to achieve a 6 dimensional reactor in a configuration that results in the smallest possible total dimensional volume of the power system... which happens to be a long rectangular box.
ps. I found the easiest reactor size to demonstrate /test this with was the 199 reactor. the stabilizers can be nice 3x3x3 blocks and you don't have to do much to get to the 6/6 break point. Ie: reactor 199 @ 5x5x8(-1) and 8x stabilizer groups of 3x3x3 for a ratio of 199:216
I was building with aprox 1:1 stabilizer:reactor ratio, taking reactor block count divided by 8 then inverse cube and get the nearest cuboid to those dimensions, rounding up to odd.
Place your reactor, turn your y-axis angle to 45', set all your plains on, and place one group of stabilizers down so that the plains mirror all eight stabilizer groups with a gap of 3 between each group and at a distance from the reactor so as you have 100% stability. At that point it should be showing you 4/6 dimensions used.
From there just remove/replace the stabilizer groups increasing one of the gaps between them by one each time. (Basically just moving the stabs out in one dimension by one block at a time.) Each time you do this shift the other reactor alignment sliders, one at a time to 45'. To start with this will result in your dimensions falling from 4/6 to 2/6 and getting worse overall stabilization. But keep doing it and there will come a point where the dimensions go from 4/6 to 6/6. The stabilization will be way over 100% so you can now move the stabilizer groups back toward the reactor to reduce the stabilizer buffer as desired.... and Bob's your uncle. You've (ab)used the reactor alignment mechanic to achieve a 6 dimensional reactor in a configuration that results in the smallest possible total dimensional volume of the power system... which happens to be a long rectangular box.
ps. I found the easiest reactor size to demonstrate /test this with was the 199 reactor. the stabilizers can be nice 3x3x3 blocks and you don't have to do much to get to the 6/6 break point. Ie: reactor 199 @ 5x5x8(-1) and 8x stabilizer groups of 3x3x3 for a ratio of 199:216
- Joined
- May 18, 2015
- Messages
- 287
- Reaction score
- 165
It looks like you just need to rotate two reactor axes to 45deg, then keep the angle of the stabilizer streams higher than 4 or 5 degrees in order to get the 6 side bonus.
You can also get 100%(+1.8%) with a 50x7x7 box with 122 integrity, and save 1195 m^3.
I didn't have to do any strange fiddling; just set the axes, and place the stabilizers. I think it just checks the distance between groups, and their angle from the reactor center of mass.
*4 or 5 degrees is is just my best guess at the minimum given the 1m resolution of the cubes. I estimate my small ship was about 6.3deg, and your biggest ship looks to be about 4.25deg.
You can also get 100%(+1.8%) with a 50x7x7 box with 122 integrity, and save 1195 m^3.
I didn't have to do any strange fiddling; just set the axes, and place the stabilizers. I think it just checks the distance between groups, and their angle from the reactor center of mass.
*4 or 5 degrees is is just my best guess at the minimum given the 1m resolution of the cubes. I estimate my small ship was about 6.3deg, and your biggest ship looks to be about 4.25deg.
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2013
- Messages
- 684
- Reaction score
- 1,247
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2017
- Messages
- 666
- Reaction score
- 928
I've noticed that multiple stabilizers in almost any form are more effective than a single big one. Even a several stab cubes back to back with no angular difference seem to be much more efficient than an single stab group.
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2017
- Messages
- 666
- Reaction score
- 928
At most you can maybe make your ship 1-3% more efficient by exploiting it. While it's definitely a bug it's not really game breaking compared to other issues.
- Joined
- May 18, 2015
- Messages
- 287
- Reaction score
- 165
I don't quite see how this is a bug or an exploit. Isn't this expected behavior?
Would it improve things if there was a much smaller tolerance for the stabilizer groups to be non-orthogonal to one of the reactor planes?
Would it improve things if there was a much smaller tolerance for the stabilizer groups to be non-orthogonal to one of the reactor planes?
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2013
- Messages
- 684
- Reaction score
- 1,247
Without the weapons update i am not going to fret too much about balance, right now it is bad though (just try charging a jump drive).
In my eyes this "exploit" could be the first step into a learning curve for new players - like the dimensional power lines from the past.
There are enough downsides (vulnerabilities) and i hope that it isn't going to be "fixed".
In my eyes this "exploit" could be the first step into a learning curve for new players - like the dimensional power lines from the past.
There are enough downsides (vulnerabilities) and i hope that it isn't going to be "fixed".
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2017
- Messages
- 350
- Reaction score
- 775
3.7% vs 32.3% stabilization buffer with a size 200 reactor and 8x 3^3 stabilizers all else being equal, (except for Y dimension which is 3 taller of course.)
EDIT:
Well it leads to a certain shape being considerably more powerful then other shapes... an issue the reactor dimensions patch was actually supposed to fix. So the dimensions patch has really only morphed the issue it was intended to resolve.
Last edited:
Valiant70
That crazy cyborg
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2013
- Messages
- 2,189
- Reaction score
- 1,167
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2014
- Messages
- 621
- Reaction score
- 448
There will always be better things than others until schine stops to think that they can fine tune the fixed numbers that they give us instead of homogeneous formulas. Especially when talking about ship's shapes. And well, there will always be better shapes than others cuz, you know. The ability for the ship's shape to be able to take hits and move around matters a lot when engineering your and that can't be changed.
A vertical ship will always be thin while a horizontal one will be more bulky (compared to the vertical one) because they don't use the same basic idea to survive.
A vertical ship will always be thin while a horizontal one will be more bulky (compared to the vertical one) because they don't use the same basic idea to survive.
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2015
- Messages
- 150
- Reaction score
- 78
what no one seems to see is that this still achives the goal to make any shape possible without the need do go extreem long in one singular direction.
you just found the new meta for placing reactor and stabilizer blocks... that does not neccisarily make any other placement less viable.
and you still have to place other systems in your ship...
another flaw of this placement is that the valuable parts of your ship are verry close together and thus easier to hit...
you just found the new meta for placing reactor and stabilizer blocks... that does not neccisarily make any other placement less viable.
and you still have to place other systems in your ship...
another flaw of this placement is that the valuable parts of your ship are verry close together and thus easier to hit...