Aurora 4x
VB6 Aurora => Advanced Tactical Command Academy => Topic started by: xenoscepter on March 11, 2019, 06:09:59 PM
-
So, perhaps it is just me and how I design my ships, but I've noticed something interesting about older engines.
The fact of the matter is, that the lower the technology of the engine; the less fuel it uses per HS.
Now; I'll preamble by saying I get that there is a MASSIVE discrepancy between the output of higher tech engines and lower tech ones, but that's not my point here.
I've finally sat down and begun to really learn the game, and this particular fact stuck out to me: You only need to go so fast to get so far when you are performing mundane tasks.
So, when considering HS with regards to deployment time, module weight and fuel storage; I noticed that Old Tech engines, Nuclear Pulse in particular, are simply "fast enough" for most mundane things like colony ships, fuel tankers, freighters, supply ships, shuttles, salvage craft, survey ships and even troop transports or picket ships. (although those last two are more a taste thing, but it's both doable AND useful)
So, what do you all think? I think Conventional Engines can even be useful in this way for really light craft. (Think a thousand tons or so)
It seems to me like a good weight saving measure since these ships don't need to go faster than "fast enough"
-
So, perhaps it is just me and how I design my ships, but I've noticed something interesting about older engines.
The fact of the matter is, that the lower the technology of the engine; the less fuel it uses per HS.
Now; I'll preamble by saying I get that there is a MASSIVE discrepancy between the output of higher tech engines and lower tech ones, but that's not my point here.
I've finally sat down and begun to really learn the game, and this particular fact stuck out to me: You only need to go so fast to get so far when you are performing mundane tasks.
So, when considering HS with regards to deployment time, module weight and fuel storage; I noticed that Old Tech engines, Nuclear Pulse in particular, are simply "fast enough" for most mundane things like colony ships, fuel tankers, freighters, supply ships, shuttles, salvage craft, survey ships and even troop transports or picket ships. (although those last two are more a taste thing, but it's both doable AND useful)
So, what do you all think? I think Conventional Engines can even be useful in this way for really light craft. (Think a thousand tons or so)
It seems to me like a good weight saving measure since these ships don't need to go faster than "fast enough"
That is unfortunately not how it works. The engine use fuel per hour consumption which then translates to fuel used per km traversed. So an older engine with a worse fuel efficiency will use more fuel per distance traveled.
They might use less fuel per hour but they also is much slower so they still will use more fuel per distance traveled versus a faster engine with better fuel efficiency.
So... if you reduce the speed on a ship you don't reduce the fuel use when you count the distance traveled with a ship.
-
That's not how I meant it either.
You only need to go so far, so fast with ships that are doing certain tasks. Thus the absolute hull space needed for say 6 months of travel time is fixed. To put it another way, if I only have to go 3 million kilometers and how long it takes me to get there is a non-issue, then an absolute value exists with regards to how much Hull Space (or tonnage) I need to get there.
Or, put another way; if I just need to pop over to Venus, I only need X amount of speed in km/s to catch up and X amount of fuel to make the trip; let's say enough for a single round trip. Since both values for that trip to Venus are fixed values which don't need to be exceeded, my ship with a Nuclear Pulse Engine can make that speed for less fuel than my Magneto-Plasma version, because the Magneto-Plasma eats more fuel per Hull Space, requiring more Hull Space for fuel to create an amount of speed that is wasted on my little put-put over to Venus.
Basically, if I only need X speed and Y distance, where X and Y are fixed values which do not need to be exceeded, I could use Nuclear-Pulse, Ion or whatever "lower tech" engine in place of a higher tech one to save Hull Space since I don't need the speed of a better engine, nor do I need the range which it would afford me by the merit of said higher speed.
Yes, I know the argument can be made that a higher tech engine gives more of X and Y for less Hull Space by virtue of said speed, but a Cargo Module still weighs a fixed amount, as do Sorium Harvesters, Asteroid Miners, Salvage Modules, Jump Gate construction modules and so on and so forth. Which brings me to the second part of my OP, where the Hull Space itself has a certain fixed value by merit of it's role. A Sorium Harvester will always weigh AT LEAST as much as one Sorium Module; a Cargo Freighter will always weigh as much as at least one Small Cargo Module; etc.
So, with Engine Power Boost tech, and fuel consumption tech, as well as the lower tech engines being less fuel hungry per HS; I posit that it is useful to use lower tech engines for ships that have:
A - A role which demands a certain minimum tonnage which is non-negotiable. I.E. Cargo Modules, Cryo modules and others that don't benefit from size-reductions through tech like weapons, power plants, FCS, Sensors etc as being mandatory to accomplish their mission.
B - Only need to go a certain distance, presumably inter-system, but Jump Drive enabled is valid: so long as the ship is only operating within a certain number of km or time period.
C - Doesn't need to be there under a time crunch. One month or three doesn't REALLY matter for a Colony Ship. Although faster could be better, it doesn't HAVE to go faster to get the job done.
Just for some clarity, I was in the laundro-mat when composing the first piece.
So, in light of this, does my assumption have any merits to it at all?
-
No... but that is not how it work.
If you have an engine of say size 50 that is Nuclear Pulse like this one with a fuel consumption of 0.7...
Engine Power: 200 Fuel Use Per Hour: 12.38 Litres
Fuel Consumption per Engine Power Hour: 0.062 Litres
Engine Size: 50 HS Engine HTK: 25
Thermal Signature: 200 Exp Chance: 5
Cost: 50 Crew: 25
Materials Required: 50x Gallicite
Commercial Engine
Then I get a new Ion Engine size 50 with a fuel consumption of 0.6...
Engine Power: 300 Fuel Use Per Hour: 15.9 Litres
Fuel Consumption per Engine Power Hour: 0.053 Litres
Engine Size: 50 HS Engine HTK: 25
Thermal Signature: 300 Exp Chance: 5
Cost: 75 Crew: 25
Materials Required: 75x Gallicite
Commercial Engine
The Ion Engine will carry the same tonnage of load for less fuel, in addition to that it will also do it faster... the speed at which it carries the cargo does not matter since reducing the speed will never decrease the fuel spent over the same distance. So if the Ion Engine above had the same fuel consumption ratio at 0.7 it would use up exactly the same amount of fuel just deliver the cargo faster.
If you deliver something faster you also need less ships in general. You are going to burn the same amount of fuel but you can deliver the same amount of goods with less ships over the same amount of time.
Example
If you need to deliver 1.000.000 people to a new colony and you have two ships both of which can carry 50.000 people but one can deliver those twice as fast (including loading and unloading just for the sake the example). Both ships are the same size and burn the same amount of fuel per distance traveled (have the same fuel consumption ratio and same size engines). The faster ships can do it in half the time or you need twice the amount of slower ships to do it in the same amount of time.
Not caring about the time it takes to deliver a certain amount of goods is only important if you have more ships than you know what to do with.
Exchanging old engines for new ones is important. You want better fuel consumption ratios and you also can make ships with a lower power to size ratio to lower fuel consumption considerably but have overall speed remain roughly the same. This is because lower the amount of fuel that your commercial design use is very important. It is generally better to have more ships than less but faster that burn more fuel per tonnage of delivered goods.
-
And this engine...
Engine Power: 210 Fuel Use Per Hour: 5.33 Litres
Fuel Consumption per Engine Power Hour: 0.025 Litres
Engine Size: 50 HS Engine HTK: 25
Thermal Signature: 210 Exp Chance: 3
Cost: 36.75 Crew: 17
Materials Required: 36.75x Gallicite
Commercial Engine
Which has the same power as the older Nuclear Pulse engine but lower power to weight ratio to save more fuel is way better to use. It is done with the same 0.7 fuel consumption rate as the Nuclear Pulse above.
It will basically use up almost 60% less fuel than the Nuclear Pulse engine delivering the same amount of cargo. It also is much cheaper to build. So it is even worth scrapping the old engines just to build these ones instead for the resources you get back.
-
Cool beans, thanks for the explanation!
-
I use old engines for my training fighters, because it's cheaper and less TN-consumable, ans it's no need to have any performance with training wing. Cannot see any other purpose.
-
Cool beans, thanks for the explanation!
It is not always straight forward when you start to delve into how the mechanic works. :)
In general fuel economy is the most important thing to consider on commercial engines and ships. While it is important for military ships as well I would not redesign engines on military ships just for the purpose of fuel efficiency changes.
In essence I try to have speed remain roughly the same for commercial engines but continually reduce the fuel consumption on them. The speed at least rise very slowly for each tech level gained, instead I lower the power to weight ratio. This make the engines cheaper (faster to research, build and less resources).
Since lower power also mean cheaper engines you can often put an extra engine or two on the ships as you go along without increasing the overall cost of the ships but will increase speed.
For military engines you have other concerns...
-
Below 1.0, cost and crew requirement scale quadratically with power multiplier. Purpose-built low-power engines are much more attractive than obsolescent ones. This also means building new engines of the same performance and scrapping the old ones costs very little.
One strange case in which old tech may make a little sense is using engines as a damage sponge - 25HtK for 5BP (the minimum cost of an engine) is a bargain. But if you like bloated cheap ships, you probably want to research low-power multiplier until you can do it at your current engine concept.
-
I use old engines from scrapped ships for my fuel harvesters, as once they make it to the sorium site on the gas giant they don't have to move again.
standard disclaimer: Still on my first playthrough. Any observations or advice given may be of questionable value. . .
-
thats fine if they're efficient though fuel use will be excessive the larger the harvester gets.
-
I use old engines from scrapped ships for my fuel harvesters, as once they make it to the sorium site on the gas giant they don't have to move again.
standard disclaimer: Still on my first playthrough. Any observations or advice given may be of questionable value. . .
I would suggest that a fuel harvesting ship shouldn't forever be immobile at its target gas giant. Set up a colony (i.e. a fuel depot) on one of the gas giant's moons and set up automated secondary orders on the harvester to unload 90% of its fuel at the nearest colony every time it fills up. The primary order should of course be "move to gas giant with Sorium." The fuel harvester will do its thing without you having to worry about it and you can have a dedicated tanker or your other ships come get the stockpiled fuel whenever it's convenient.
My favored fuel harvesting ship is 55,000 to 60,000 tons with around 25 sorium harvesters and about a million liters of fuel capacity. It has a single 50 HS commercial engine of whatever I have going. This grants the ship a speed of somewhere around 180 km/s to 300 km/s, assuming early to mid tech, which is more than enough for what it needs to do.
I feel that this setup is far more efficient that constantly having to babysit engine-less fuel harvesting stations.
-
I would suggest that a fuel harvesting ship shouldn't forever be immobile at its target gas giant. Set up a colony (i.e. a fuel depot) on one of the gas giant's moons and set up automated secondary orders on the harvester to unload 90% of its fuel at the nearest colony every time it fills up. The primary order should of course be "move to gas giant with Sorium." The fuel harvester will do its thing without you having to worry about it and you can have a dedicated tanker or your other ships come get the stockpiled fuel whenever it's convenient.
My favored fuel harvesting ship is 55,000 to 60,000 tons with around 25 sorium harvesters and about a million liters of fuel capacity. It has a single 50 HS commercial engine of whatever I have going. This grants the ship a speed of somewhere around 180 km/s to 300 km/s, assuming early to mid tech, which is more than enough for what it needs to do.
I feel that this setup is far more efficient that constantly having to babysit engine-less fuel harvesting stations.
Whereas I would suggest a single tanker on a repeating run of 'fill from harvester fleet, unload fuel at nearby colony' is a far better method. In VB6 Aurora I would have no problem with performing an occasional SM Mode 'equalize fuel' on my harvester fleet rather than fiddle my load orders if necessary.
Though I agree with putting at least a single, max size commercial engine on all my 'production' auxilliaries like asteroid miners, terraformers, fuel harveters, etc., rather than rely on engineless barges.
-
Whereas I would suggest a single tanker on a repeating run of 'fill from harvester fleet, unload fuel at nearby colony' is a far better method. In VB6 Aurora I would have no problem with performing an occasional SM Mode 'equalize fuel' on my harvester fleet rather than fiddle my load orders if necessary.
Well, of course I respectfully disagree that using an auto-tanker is better. Unless your ratio of harvesters to tankers to time and distance is darn near perfectly balanced, one of two things is going to happen. 1) Either your tanker(s) making trips to the sorium site are going to sit around fiddling their thumbs waiting to be topped off, or 2) they ARE going to be topped off, which means your harvesters almost certainly still have fuel in them. In the latter case you therefore risk having harvesters doing nothing either because their tanks are still full, or they fill up while the tanker is farting around. Neither scenario is efficient. Furthermore if your tanker is leaving the sorium site with less than 100% fuel, that also is not efficient.
So again, why worry about any of that? Why fiddle with SM? Why tie down strategically important ships (the tankers) on a mundane task? It's not necessary, and those tankers probably have important stuff to do elsewhere anyway. Just use a local moon as a depot and your tankers can come pick up that gas whenever you think you might need it. Done. No further steps needed. And if you end up with 100 million liters of fuel on that moon, who cares? It'll still be there when you need it.
Heck, with this setup you don't even need tankers to be a part of the operation's supply chain, as long as the gas giant is not out of the way (and a properly located sorium operation shouldn't be).
I should also mention that since fuel drop-off or collection orders don't cause an interrupt, and also since fuel harvesters tend to collect fuel at varying rates depending on commander skill, I've found it best to keep each Fuel Harvester as its own task group.
Just my .02
-
Well, it's generally option 1, because if it's 2 then it's time to add another tanker to the run. . . because I'd rather have a (small-ish) tanker sitting around waiting for a load than a harvester not harvesting. At 200 km/s, that's what, a five-day round trip? Not to mention at that speed it's entirely too easy to fall behind orbital velocity and never arrive.
I admit, my views are probably biased by my desire for a robust and varied commercial fleet. I don't use mass drivers because I would rather have freighters delivering minerals than chunks of TNE flying through space.
-
Option 3:
Have a mid sized tanker offloading fuel from the harvesters to a nearby fuel dump which the megatankers then pickup from.
-
Option 3:
Have a mid sized tanker offloading fuel from the harvesters to a nearby fuel dump which the megatankers then pickup from.
Why? The process I've described doesn't need the help of an auxiliary tanker. In relative terms the distance between a gas giant and any of its moons is negligible for any fuel harvester that has an engine.
-
Usually I use space stations for my Sorium Harvesters; adding Fuel Storage modules to it and going to unload them with a tanker if they get too full. That way the Harvester is also the fuel base and has added utility later... although it needs a Tug.
-
Option 3:
Have a mid sized tanker offloading fuel from the harvesters to a nearby fuel dump which the megatankers then pickup from.
Why? The process I've described doesn't need the help of an auxiliary tanker. In relative terms the distance between a gas giant and any of its moons is negligible for any fuel harvester that has an engine.
In general it would be cheaper to move stuff with a small tanker than the entire station, but at the same time I don't think it matter much which way you do it.
In C# I will probably have harvesting stations which I tug in place and a fuel station to which the harvesters unloads the fuel from its own relatively small fuel tanks. I would then collect fuel there once in a while or simply use it as a fuel station. You are going to need specific tanking equipment now anyways so no point in just dumping it in a colony anymore, you might just have it in a separate fuel station.
In VB6 I also just deploy them as stations and tug them in place, they all have their own fuel tanks. I then send a tanker there to collect the fuel once in a while, these small tankers are very cheap to run.
I rarely find much reason to put engines on anything that stay in one place 99.9% of its lifetime.
I also feel it is a bit of a cheat to use colonies this to simply dump fuel... you still should need to house the fuel in some form of tanks. That is why I don't like to do this unless I have a proper base with infrastructure on it, but this is a role play restriction on my side.
-
I also feel it is a bit of a cheat to use colonies this to simply dump fuel... you still should need to house the fuel in some form of tanks. That is why I don't like to do this unless I have a proper base with infrastructure on it, but this is a role play restriction on my side.
Or you can just assume, as I do, that any world that you have designated as a "colony" will have at least a token presence of personnel and/or support equipment, even if the game does not represent this.
-
Or you can just assume, as I do, that any world that you have designated as a "colony" will have at least a token presence of personnel and/or support equipment, even if the game does not represent this.
Yes, the 'unmanned' AutoMine explanation works just fine for me here. (Though since I'm using tankers I rarely end up using just a 'fuel dump' instead of a proper Colony with Infrastructure and Population.)
-
I only have one sorium harvesting site at the moment (Saturn) and there is a civilian mining colony on Mimas, so that became my de facto fuel dump for my prototype harvester.
I'm at Ion engine tech, my production sorim harvesters have 20x harvester modules, 4M fuel capacity, and 2x 50HS commercial Nuclear Pulse engines, so they move at 325 m/s. That is sufficient to get them to the harvesting site, and to/from Mimas if needed but they have enough tankage to be on-station for several years before needing to be emptied. And so far it hasn't been an issue as I've sent a tanker out to tap them whenever they get full. I can see that it may become a bit management-heavy as my empire expands but as there is only 400K sorium available on Saturn I'll probably have to set up fuel or sorium shipments from other systems before management becomes annoying.
-
Partially obsolete engines may be useful for tanking shots. Engines cost a minimum of 5BP, for 25HtK that's much cheaper than armour. They can also be repaired in space.
A somewhat advanced engine with low power multiplier would be better (0.1 power hits the minimum cost for Internal Confinement Fusion, because costs/crew scale quadratically below 1.0 power), if that's worth the tech investment. If you want to be silly, you can get a fully operational junk star for the cost of a small flotilla: A megaton of engines on a habitat, a few 100k of low-tech beams, just a tiny bit of sophisticated weaponry to avoid being kited.