1. 29th of June, 2018: We've switched hosts and configurations for SMD, please report any issues. StarMade wiki is currently down, we will be bringing that back up over the next few days.

    V2.(2?) Reactor Size / Chamber Size Optimization

    Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by MrGrey1, Feb 8, 2018.

    1. MrGrey1

      Joined:
      Feb 10, 2017
      Messages:
      150
      For all the Meta Masters...
      ReactorVChamber_Efficiency.png

      All cubed reactors. Left hand column gives base cube size.
      Yellow is odd sized reactors <= 10% excess chamber blocks.
      Orange is even sized reactors <= 10% excess chamber blocks.
      Red is the most efficient.
       
      • Like Like x 3
    2. jstenholt

      Joined:
      Jul 29, 2013
      Messages:
      1,095
      I'm not 100% on what this all means relatively, would it be possible to put e/s on this chart?
       
      • Like Like x 2
    3. MrGrey1

      Joined:
      Feb 10, 2017
      Messages:
      150
      The far right column is what matters, that's the percentage of chamber blocks that are excess for the given reactor size. So if you want an 'efficient' reactor to chamber ratio you go for one that doesn't have excess blocks. ie You pick one of the coloured lines. The lower the number in the right column the more efficient the block count of your reactor chamber system will be.
       
    4. NTIMESc

      Joined:
      May 18, 2015
      Messages:
      238
      I think the range for reactor levels is off by one. I know the in-game info says, for example Level 22 (4000-5000), but it's actually 4000-4999.

      Which also makes it seem wasteful to make reactors anything less than the limit for that level, as adding once more block then increases the required chamber size by quite a large amount for only 1 block's worth of power.
       
      • Like Like x 1
    5. Antikristianos

      Joined:
      Dec 9, 2015
      Messages:
      149
      i just think that the chambers are too big anyway...
      50% of reactor size for a chamber cmon... and ill nead how many of those 4-8 depending on what i want to do???
      they should just lower it back to 10% Rector size. i want more space in my ships...
       
      • Like Like x 2
    6. MrGrey1

      Joined:
      Feb 10, 2017
      Messages:
      150
      You are correct, I shouldn't have copied the numbers from the games interface. Damn. I new that because of the 10^3 reactor but hadn't clicked I should adjust the Max/count... revised and the final numbers are pretty much unchanged.

      ReactorVChamber_Efficiency.png
       
    7. Qweesdy

      Joined:
      Aug 23, 2013
      Messages:
      378
      Why?!?

      The most efficient sizes are all "1 less block than the next reactor level", like 59999 reactor blocks, 69999 reactor blocks, ...
       
    8. MrGrey1

      Joined:
      Feb 10, 2017
      Messages:
      150
      That's the most efficient size only if you disregard the integrity mechanic and are looking at only e/sec output compared to chamber blocks.
      My definition of efficiency includes integrity as well as e/sec.
      If integrity is considered then the most efficient shape is a cube.
      Excess chamber blocks count toward damage absorption in that your chambers will continue to function after taking x damage. ie you do not want pure maximum e/sec efficiency as any damage to chambers will render them inoperable. You want to know what the margins are so you can calculate your tolerances to your own personal liking based on both survivability as well as total power output.

      1. The meta is a cube.
      2. It is the best shape to calculate, scale and evaluate.
      3. It is the best shape for integrity. ie it is the most resilient shape a reactor can be built in.
      4. It is the best shape for me as I have an entire fleet of flying saucers and a cubic reactor in the middle of them has numerous benefits such as symmetry, resilience and general ease of use.
      5. The meta is a cube.
       
    9. NTIMESc

      Joined:
      May 18, 2015
      Messages:
      238
      What about instances like 10^3, where you could just remove one block, only lose a tiny amount of power, but cut your chamber size drastically?
       
      • Like Like x 2
    10. MrGrey1

      Joined:
      Feb 10, 2017
      Messages:
      150
      So obvious I'm facepalming I hadn't considered such a thing. Go for the highest % wasted and trim it down a level... for the other high % values I wonder if taking a whole slice of the cube turning it to a rectangle to maintain integrity, what the results would be like?... more testing required.... edit: I suppose that just comes back to rectangles with max count -1. equivalence.
       
      #10 MrGrey1, Feb 8, 2018
      Last edited: Feb 8, 2018
    11. Qweesdy

      Joined:
      Aug 23, 2013
      Messages:
      378
      As far as I know, as long as integrity is not negative it's completely irrelevant. A 4*4*108 shape has positive integrity and is the same as a 12*12*12 cube that also has positive integrity. By focusing on cubes you ruin efficiency for "number of chamber blocks" for no reason at all.
       
      • Like Like x 1
    12. NTIMESc

      Joined:
      May 18, 2015
      Messages:
      238
      Does integrity recalculate on damage to the reactor? I'm assuming is does, which I believe is what was meant by the this:
      Once your shields drop, a reactor with a higher integrity would give you time to call your loved ones.:-p
       
      • Like Like x 1
    13. MrGrey1

      Joined:
      Feb 10, 2017
      Messages:
      150
      ~~ Yup, my understanding of integrity has been flawed it appears.. Thanks for setting me straight. ~~

      EDIT: I'd like to correct this. I had a misunderstanding of my misunderstanding... ;p confusing and double guessing myself... a higher integrity means more damage taken before failure.Integrity is dynamic in that it recalculates when the reactor is damaged. As such a reactor that has a higher integrity will last longer under fire, all else being equal.
       
      #13 MrGrey1, Feb 10, 2018
      Last edited: Feb 13, 2018
    14. HiHaasi

      Joined:
      Mar 12, 2016
      Messages:
      2
      moin kinnings,

      bei dem was ich bisher hier rausgelesen/übersetzten konnte, sind das alles nur halbe wahrheiten.
      bisher gab es seitens starmade-wiki's oder anderer veröffentlichungen von schine keine genauen informatioen über das neue energie-system.
      daher poste ich hier mal ein bischen was.

      * Die Anzahl der benötigten Chamber-Blocke ist primär abhängig vom Reactor-Level, nicht von der Anzahl oder Form der Reactor-Blocke.
      * Das Recator-Level steigt in einer logaritmischen Art und Weise, somit auch die benötigte Anzahl der Chamber-Blocke (siehe differentReactorblocks / neededCamberblocks -Verhältnis).
      * Die Anordnung der Chamber-Blocke hat keinerlei Anwirkungen auf irgendwas
      * Eine Höhere Anzahl von Chamber-Blocken hat nur Auswirkung auf die jeweilige Funktion (Skill) dre Chamber-Gruppe - vorallem dessen Energieverbrauch
      * Interessant ist Reactor Level 0, hier werden an für sich kein Chamber-Blöcke benötigt. Jedoch muss man min 1 Chamber-Blcok verbauen um die jeweilige Funktion(Skill) frei zu schalten

      Starmade - ReactLevel and neededChamber.png

      Für mich ist die Diskusion, ob die Cube-Form die beste Bauform ist, überflüssig in Zusammenhang mit der gesamten Chamber-Mechanik .
      Dies wird vorallem deutlich wenn man sich entsprechende Zahlenreihen (cube vs. minReactBlocks) anschaut (diese sind völlig unterschiedlich und keine Gemeinsamkeiten) und die Sprünge bei den verhältnissen ( siehe ReactLevel 9, 10 und 11)

      An der Stelle sei schon mal gesagt, dass die Integrität fehlerhaft (sehr auffällig bei den Thruster) errechnet wird und nicht alles was 8 Ecken hat gleich das Optimum ist ;)
       
    15. MrGrey1

      Joined:
      Feb 10, 2017
      Messages:
      150
      Anyone see a pattern here? Looks like an efficiency sweet spot with reactor/chamber size with reactors at sizes of 199, 1999, 19999 etc.
      reactor_chamber_optimum.png
       
    Loading...