Aurora 4x
VB6 Aurora => Aurora Suggestions => Topic started by: alex_brunius on February 26, 2013, 05:53:40 AM
-
No matter what flavour of engine you use for an identical power output you consume the same amount of fuel per Engine Power Hour. What this means is that a conventional engine is as fuel efficient as a Magneto-plasma drive, just you can generate more power in the same space. There is no improvement in fuel efficiency as your engine tech improves.
That's actually not quite right.
Let's assume you devote 33% of your ships weight to engines. A more advanced engine that can provide the same power output for half the weight will lead to a more fuel efficient design as your ship just got 16.5% lighter without losing anything.
The lighter ship will go faster but consume the same amount of fuel per hour, thus being more fuel efficient. The bigger engines you use in your designs the bigger this effect will be.
-
That's actually not quite right.
Let's assume you devote 33% of your ships weight to engines. A more advanced engine that can provide the same power output for half the weight will lead to a more fuel efficient design as your ship just got 16.5% lighter without losing anything.
The lighter ship will go faster but consume the same amount of fuel per hour, thus being more fuel efficient. The bigger engines you use in your designs the bigger this effect will be.
Actually Alex he is quite correct.
Ian is talking about the amount of fuel to produce a single point of engine power for movement. The only thing that changes the power/fuel ratio is fuel efficiency.
What you're describing is power production per hull space. Here there is an impact on fuel efficiency based on actual engine size and any power boost modifier. Note that the fuel/power ratio is not changed from one engine tech to another.
-
alex is correct in terms of practical ship design, as Ian cited 'identical power output'. higher tech engine will produce the same power for less tonnage and therefore greater efficiency.
-
Perhaps more to the point, if you decrease engine power modifier, you get FAR better fuel efficiency. A magneto-plasma drive with the same specs as a nuclear pulse drive will have >5x the fuel economy. At least if your min power modifier holds out. You do get better fuel economy with better drive tech! If you insist on using high power modifiers, that's your problem -- the game gives you options. Speed or fuel economy. Pick one, or split the difference.
-
alex is correct in terms of practical ship design, as Ian cited 'identical power output'. higher tech engine will produce the same power for less tonnage and therefore greater efficiency.
Nope. At least as it concerns Ian's initial statement that Alex is refuting. On the face of it Ian's statement is accurate, engine tech does not change the fuel required to produce a given amount of propulsion points.
No matter what flavour of engine you use for an identical power output you consume the same amount of fuel per Engine Power Hour.
Ian's talking about the fuel required to produce propulsion points not propulsion points per hullspace. These are very different design issues that are fundamental to v6 engine changes.
per Steve in the V6 changes topic
The initial consumption rate starts at one litre per Engine Power Hour (which is one point of engine power for one hour).
Ther are several factors that do affect the fuel/propulsion point ratio, but base engine tech isn't one of them.
-
it's not 'per hullspace', it's 'per ship' that matters re: fuel efficiency. less tonnage = greater efficiency, ++ what Nightstar said.
it's practical impacts on ship design that matter, given that engine tonnage varies between 15-40% of ship weight usually.
-
it's not 'per hullspace', it's 'per ship' that matters re: fuel efficiency. less tonnage = greater efficiency, ++ what Nightstar said.
it's practical impacts on ship design that matter, given that engine tonnage varies between 15-40% of ship weight usually.
What's your point? It's not directly relevent to what was Alex was refuting in Ian's statement.
Yes, higher based engine tech allows for smaller engines producing the same propulsion points. Without using the Fuel Consumption tech the more advanced drive techs are actually less efficient if built to produce the same power, smaller engines by design formula use more fuel for the same power production. By formula design larger engines are more fuel efficient not smaller, the efficiency increases by 1% per engine hs.
Comparison of Conventional and Nuclear Thermal engines producing 5 propulsion points. (all other factors being equal)
Conventional is 25hs and burns 3.75 liters per hour.
Nuclear Thermal is 1hs and burns 4.95 liters per hour.
By contrast, if the engine is left the same size and all other factors stay the same then you have the same fuel efficiency and only get someplace faster.
-
Try keeping engine size AND power constant, not just one or the other. Even the original comment is silly. There are multiple tech paths to follow in aurora, if you follow only ONE engine tech, you get only one sort of boost. Consider buying tech like fuel consumption to be a cost of building high-tech engines.
Fun fact: Fancy high tech nuclear reactors? They aren't any more efficient than coal really: http://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_01.html They just produce a heck of a lot more energy per unit space. Well, that and use better fuel. You can't run a nuclear reactor on coal! Aurora seems to be following reality pretty well, given that all engines use refined sorium.
Anyway, back to the main topic: I'd like a task for shipyards that auto-builds slipways, in a similar way to continual capacity expansion. Constantly expanding my FAC SYs gets annoying.
-
Try keeping engine size AND power constant, not just one or the other. Even the original comment is silly. There are multiple tech paths to follow in aurora, if you follow only ONE engine tech, you get only one sort of boost. Consider buying tech like fuel consumption to be a cost of building high-tech engines.
<snip>
Please read the full topic. you'll see that these points have already been covered. The origin of the sub-discussion is that fuel consumption per propulsion point is constant as far as drive tech advancement is concerned. (ie the baseline for all drive techs is 1 liter per power hour)
-
*RE-EDIT* we're in a new thread - posting my stricken post :D
@charlie beeler: What you are not taking into consideration is that fuel efficiency is how much fuel it takes to get somewhere, not how fast you burn it or what EP you get.
Ion drive, 96 EP: 8 HS, 0.644 fuel/eph
magneto-plasma, 96 ep: 6 HS, 0.658 fuel/eph
Magneto-plasma, 96 EP: 8 HS, 0.314 fuel/eph.
a ship mounting 10 of these engines would, with Magneto-Plasma 1, be directly 500 tons lighter and require 20 less crew. If we assume it started with 25% engines then it would be 320 HS vs 300 HS. The difference in tonnage more than wipes out the nominal difference in fuel efficiency.
alternatively, it could mount 500 tons more payload (more payload pushed per fuel) or be higher speed and same efficiency.
there's really no comparison with the power reduction MP drive though, it's just better. Cheap too!
To be fair, lets run it with bigger engines:
1 600 EP ion drive, 50 HS, 0.35 fuel/EPH. 200 HS ship.
1 608 EP MP drive,38 HS, 0.434 fuel/EPH. 188 HS ship.
1 600 EP MP Drive, 50 HS, 0.17 fuel/EPH. 200 HS ship.
MP1 comes off poorly in this comparison, definitely seeing some efficiency loss. MP2 continues to dominate.
-
*RE-EDIT* we're in a new thread - posting my stricken post :D
@charlie beeler: What you are not taking into consideration is that fuel efficiency is how much fuel it takes to get somewhere, not how fast you burn it or what EP you get.
Ion drive, 96 EP: 8 HS, 0.644 fuel/eph
magneto-plasma, 96 ep: 6 HS, 0.658 fuel/eph
Magneto-plasma, 96 EP: 8 HS, 0.314 fuel/eph.
a ship mounting 10 of these engines would, with Magneto-Plasma 1, be directly 500 tons lighter and require 20 less crew. If we assume it started with 25% engines then it would be 320 HS vs 300 HS. The difference in tonnage more than wipes out the nominal difference in fuel efficiency.
alternatively, it could mount 500 tons more payload (more payload pushed per fuel) or be higher speed and same efficiency.
there's really no comparison with the power reduction MP drive though, it's just better. Cheap too!
To be fair, lets run it with bigger engines:
1 600 EP ion drive, 50 HS, 0.35 fuel/EPH. 200 HS ship.
1 608 EP MP drive,38 HS, 0.434 fuel/EPH. 188 HS ship.
1 600 EP MP Drive, 50 HS, 0.17 fuel/EPH. 200 HS ship.
MP1 comes off poorly in this comparison, definitely seeing some efficiency loss. MP2 continues to dominate.
You might want to look at your own numbers.
Just using your last 3 examples and 1m liters of fuel:
Ranges are 51b/km, 44b/km, and 153b/km.
Your last one is an anomoly due to the extreme fuel consumption modifier you used.
-
Extreme? That's a .75 power modifier. Zero tech minimum is .5. Calling that an anomaly is ridiculous. If you CHOOSE to use high power modifiers, yes, your fuel economy doesn't get any better. Here's the secret: That's a CHOICE. You don't have to.
Another way to look at it is that higher techs give you much better fuel economy, not power. It's just turned into extra power by default, since that's what most people prefer.
-
No its not an anomaly, it's a direct consequence of technological progress leading to greater efficiency via the method Nightstar outlined. You get the same power, in the same size, with far greater efficiency.
Basically under the new scheme you get a choice with new engines: higher speed or higher efficiency, and any mix of the two. This is only false when you are maxing out your engine boost techs one way or the other, in which case all you get is higher speed.
i could as easily say that the 50-38 hs drive comparison is an anomaly, but it's not. The size of the engine matters hugely at the high end, and almost not at all at the low end. I chose 96 EP because it was similar to old military drives while being easy to even out with MP.
*EDIT* This thread is stickied btw xD
-
Same size, same modifier, same ship. Results in more power, which in the same ship results in higher speed and faster fuel consumption but an identical range.
Same size, same power, same ship. Results in drastic fuel efficiency increase, which in the same ship results in an identical speed but a practically doubled range.
Same modifier, same power, same ship size. The more advanced engine actually loses a small amount of range with this configuration, since the larger, more primitive engine gains that in fuel efficiency. The maths in my test case work out that said range is 95% of the larger. The ship with the modern engine did gain all of those hull spaces as potential component space.
Same modifier, same power, same ship components. With the engines and ships in my test case, by saving out on the space of the larger engine the new ship gained a 12% speed boost and a ~7% increase to range.
Also of note is that reduced modifier/reduced size cases saved a handful of crew in the modern engine's favor, and all other cases had crew parity.
In conclusion, this is... very interesting.
Overall speed is so crucial to survival in trans-newtonian combat that I had never considered new engine tech as a means to anything but a speed increase.
But that way lies stagnancy in range with tech, completely ignoring fuel efficiency research.
Matching engine power through size ratios won't always be practical by the nature of our engine size options, but that just means you'll have to check the numbers of what you can actually achieve.
The option to increase component density for a slight reduction of range at the same speed doesn't strike me as very desirable, except perhaps for system defense ships whose range need not be large. I'm sure somebody's situation says differently.
Increasing speed AND range, albeit marginally, while retaining all other functionality of a ship? The size difference makes this ill-suited for refitting a ship, but as an option for a standalone class upgrade it's very interesting.
Now, putzing the power modifiers to get the same power in the same space with drastically increased fuel efficiency? That holds all sorts of potential for survey ships, freighters, and other such applications where speed is less of a concern than in combat.
edit: Just cludged together a spreadsheet for easy comparison.
Using a 2000-ton ship with 500 tons dedicated to engine space, 500 to fuel storage and a base modifier ion drive as base...
Replacing the ion drive with a magneto-plasma drive of the same size and same power modifier results in:
33% speed increase, no change to range or available mission space.
Replacing the ion drive with a magneto-plasma drive of the same size and same total power results in:
105.28% range increase, two less crew, no change to speed or mission space
Replacing the ion drive with a magneto-plasma drive of the same modifier and same power wasn't possible with the available size increments, so the closest sizes above and below the target power were used and resulted in:
One notch lower:
6.67% decrease in speed, 3.23% decrease in range, but requires three less crew and frees up 3 HS for mission space.
One notch higher:
6.67% increase in speed, 2.17% decrease in range, requires two less crew and frees up 2 HS.
Using those same engines, but leaving the extra space unused results in:
One notch Lower:
0.9% speed increase, 4.62% range increase, three less crew.
One notch higher:
12.28% speed increase, 2.97% range increase, two less crew.
Then I toyed with replacing the ion drive with a magneto-plasma drive with the same size but with modifiers between base and the one necessary to match the original drive's power(.75).
.85 power:
13.33% increase in speed, 50.12% increase in range, one less crew.
.9 power:
20% increase in speed, 30.13% increase in range, one less crew.
I'm going to investigate more of those intermediate modifiers
edit: And so I did
(http://i.imgur.com/hUjDs47.png)
These are increases from replacing an ion drive with a magneto-plasma of the same size into the same ship
-
First my apologies, I was in a hurry and did not do the detailed analysis of TheDeadlyShoe's designs and conclusions that I should have.
@Conscript Gary, I have not read your post in detail so this post is not addressing yours.
@TheDeadlyShoe, in my haste I misread what tech you'd applied to your MP2. I mistook the drop in EPH to be from use of 30% Fuel Consumption tech and not the Minimum Engine Power Modifier you did use. Either way it is anomalous to this discussion because it uses tech that is outside of scope.
Too reiterate the topic scope.
- Engine Drive tech advancement does not modify fuel efficiency
- Are smaller engines using higher drive tech more efficient
Since Fuel Consumption, Maximum Engine Power Modifier, and Minimum Engine Power Modifier tech specifically make changes to fuel efficiency they are outside of scope.
With your first engine series you did find that by advancing the drive tech and using a smaller pct change in the engine size efficiency modifier than the decrease is ship mass pct change the final range actually increased. Engine efficiency changed 2% while ship mass changed 6% which accounts for the increased range.
The second series with the single large engines actually reversed this. Engine efficiency changed 12% while ship mass changed 4% which accounts for the decreased range.
I will modify my conclusion to this: One can gain a small measure of fuel efficiency with advancing drive tech's if and only if the new ships have a greater mass percentage change than the fuel efficiency percentage change of the new engines for the same power output. This will most likely only apply to ships using multiple small engines.
-
Now you're just being thickheaded.
If changing power modifier is out of scope, so is changing engine size, as that also effects efficiency. Therefore the ONLY engine comparison in scope is a 600 EP drive vs a 800 EP drive. Or proportions to that effect. Since comparing fast ships to slow ones is also ridiculous, we have no useful comparisons in scope. In fact, even that drive is out of scope, because it requires several hundred RP (tech) that isn't included in the previous drive's cost.
You're focusing on such a narrow scope as to ignore all the practical realities. This is silly.
-
Now you're just being thickheaded.
If changing power modifier is out of scope, so is changing engine size, as that also effects efficiency. Therefore the ONLY engine comparison in scope is a 600 EP drive vs a 800 EP drive. Or proportions to that effect. Since comparing fast ships to slow ones is also ridiculous, we have no useful comparisons in scope. In fact, even that drive is out of scope, because it requires several hundred RP (tech) that isn't included in the previous drive's cost.
You're focusing on such a narrow scope as to ignore all the practical realities. This is silly.
Before making such a statement... go back a read the original post that is the focus of the discussion.
- Ian posted that fuel efficiency per EP does not change as drive tech advances
- Alex posted that he believed this to be incorrect based on using smaller engines for the same EP on smaller ships represents improved fuel efficiency
That defines the scope of what I requested be splitoff from the main suggestions thread. The point was too discuss this specific contention, not overall drive efficiency vs power output.
-
Within that scope, power mods do still count. You get massively increased fuel economy for the same speed at higher tech. Can't just ignore those cause you feel like it.
But, even ignoring those, on any ship with several engines, you can ditch an engine, and get better fuel efficiency that way. Smaller may not work if you have only one large engine, but otherwise less engine still works.
So yeah, I still think you're being silly.
-
That's your opinion.
Professionally I daily have to parse project criteria from vague user statements.
-
Before making such a statement... go back a read the original post that is the focus of the discussion.
- Ian posted that fuel efficiency per EP does not change as drive tech advances
- Alex posted that he believed this to be incorrect based on using smaller engines for the same EP on smaller ships represents improved fuel efficiency
That defines the scope of what I requested be splitoff from the main suggestions thread. The point was too discuss this specific contention, not overall drive efficiency vs power output.
Charlie,
Ian did post "that efficiency per EP does not change as drive tech advances". But he did this in the context of a suggestion that efficiency should be tied to the base engine tech. The reason that many players find this unreasonable is that as has been shown by this thread, efficiency is not only it's own tech branch, but can also be modified by design considerations regardless of tech level. The statement that efficiency should be tied to base engine tech is equivalent to complaining that you have to research multiple tech lines to make any of the weapon systems work instead of researching a single tech and getting a working weapon as was done in Starfire.
Yes it is a true statement, but it misses the point that this is not a bug, an oversight or an unintended consequence; but a deliberate design choice that Steve made to allow more than one way to solve the tactical problems
-
Charlie,
Ian did post "that efficiency per EP does not change as drive tech advances". But he did this in the context of a suggestion that efficiency should be tied to the base engine tech. The reason that many players find this unreasonable is that as has been shown by this thread, efficiency is not only it's own tech branch, but can also be modified by design considerations regardless of tech level. The statement that efficiency should be tied to base engine tech is equivalent to complaining that you have to research multiple tech lines to make any of the weapon systems work instead of researching a single tech and getting a working weapon as was done in Starfire.
Yes it is a true statement, but it misses the point that this is not a bug, an oversight or an unintended consequence; but a deliberate design choice that Steve made to allow more than one way to solve the tactical problems
I'm fully aware of that. Please note that this seperation topic starts with Alex's reply post.
-
You poor thing.
Anyway, perhaps I should rephrase. While you're right about smaller engines not necessarily being more fuel efficient, this is irrelevant to the real discussion: Higher tech engines being more fuel efficient.
This quote, right at the very top of the topic:
No matter what flavour of engine you use for an identical power output you consume the same amount of fuel per Engine Power Hour.
It's dead wrong. Alex's post is true anyway, barring external things like having to use smaller engines.
-
Now look at the entire quote. Ian is very specific in drive tech progression is what is being addressed. That fundamental statement is correct. Nothing about advancing the drive tech, drive tech only, improves fuel efficiency. Only other implementation factors effect fuel efficiency.
The devil is in the details.
For clarity here is the entire original post....
No matter what flavour of engine you use for an identical power output you consume the same amount of fuel per Engine Power Hour. What this means is that a conventional engine is as fuel efficient as a Magneto-plasma drive, just you can generate more power in the same space. There is no improvement in fuel efficiency as your engine tech improves.
This doesn't seem quite right. Almost like (in wet navy terms) as saying a reciprocating steam engine is as efficient as a high pressure steam engine is as efficient as a diesel engine is as efficient as a nuclear reactor.
With the recent changes to fuel requirements it is surely not beyond the realms of possibility to increase engine efficiency as the tech improves.
-
I can comment on the numbers when I'm at a proper computer, but the graphs at the bottom of each sheet should get the basic point across: (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgGB7QZWHHH2dFB3NVN5TklqN016LXg2TXVKajU5TFE) that when sizes are fixed and all efficiency techs are equal, upgrading an engine to the next level of propulsion tech can result in an increased speed with no change in range (as is typically done), an increased range with no change in speed, or some happy medium. All within the bounds of the base power modifier tech (base minimum modifier is 0.5 modifier right? Has to be, otherwise you couldn't make commercial engines)
-
interesting discussion at any rate. going through the math was informative.
-
Now to address the original argument I made a copy of that spreadsheet and held power modifiers constant but varied engine size from 20 to 1 (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgGB7QZWHHH2dEUwM2RhaWsyUmc1LUlJSXQyZkZLc2c&usp=sharing).
Now, let's compare between these two methods of engine upgrade. 1) Using a lower power modifier in the same engine size and 2) Using the same power modifier in a smaller engine.
I'll only consider cases here where the speed after the upgrade does not go down, though the full data for all modifiers and sizes below the datum are available in the aforementioned spreadsheets here (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgGB7QZWHHH2dFB3NVN5TklqN016LXg2TXVKajU5TFE&usp=sharing) and here (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgGB7QZWHHH2dEUwM2RhaWsyUmc1LUlJSXQyZkZLc2c&usp=sharing). I'll only walk through the ion -> magneto-plasma upgrade in this post, but again the rest of the charts are in the docs.
1) Reducing power output in a fixed engine size though reduced power modifiers
(http://i.imgur.com/INxA1OI.png)
At an equal power modifier, a speed increase of 33% is attainable with no change in range
At an equal power output, a range increase of 105% is attainable with no change in speed
2) Reducing Power output at a fixed power modifier through reduced size engines
(http://i.imgur.com/dCNBmOn.png)
At an equal size, a speed increase of 33% is attainable with no change in range
At a nearly equal power output, a range increase of 0.57% is attainable with a speed increase of 0.9%
I think those numbers speak for themselves
-
Charlie Beeler, I've got to admit, you've made me a little upset due to your attitude toward this discussion. You obviously think you are right and that IanD's statement is correct, and you blatantly disregard many good points by other members simply because they do not fall in to what you consider to be the realm of the discussion. They were, however, relevant. If the engines had the same fuel efficiency, then they would be completely identical.
In any case, both you and IanD are incorrect in any case, and like you said yourself. . .
The devil is in the details.
For my analysis I will gladly adhere to your rules. Power / Efficiency Modifiers will remain at 1. Fuel Consumption will remain at 1, and engine size will remain a constant 10HS.
However, trans-newton engines are very special. They don't exist in the real world obviously, and exhibit very strange characteristics. The most important characteristic is that they constantly require fuel to maintain their speed. This is very much like a commercial airliner, or an automobile, and very much unlike a traditional spacecraft. This implies that Trans-Newton engines are affected by some kind of Trans-Newton drag.
Now I'm by no means an expert in physics, I have the basic understanding that to maintain speed while under the effects of drag, a force of identical magnitude of the drag must be applied from the other end.
So, in Aurora terms, that TN engine that sports a 500km/sec top speed, is constantly accelerating at 500km/sec^2, and being pushed back by drag at 500km/sec^s
Now, let's look again at the original quote.
No matter what flavour of engine you use for an identical power output you consume the same amount of fuel per Engine Power Hour. What this means is that a conventional engine is as fuel efficient as a Magneto-plasma drive, just you can generate more power in the same space. There is no improvement in fuel efficiency as your engine tech improves.
This doesn't seem quite right. Almost like (in wet navy terms) as saying a reciprocating steam engine is as efficient as a high pressure steam engine is as efficient as a diesel engine is as efficient as a nuclear reactor.
With the recent changes to fuel requirements it is surely not beyond the realms of possibility to increase engine efficiency as the tech improves.
hxxp: en. wikipedia. rg/wiki/Fuel_efficiency
Fuel efficiency is a form of thermal efficiency, meaning the efficiency of a process that converts chemical potential energy contained in a carrier fuel into kinetic energy or work
Now, let's take a look at Conscript Gary's excellent spreadsheets.
A Size-10 Nuclear Thermal Engine can push our 2000-Ton craft 50 billion kilometers at a rate of 1,250km/sec using only 500,000 liters of fuel.
A Size-10 Nuclear Pulse Engine can push our 2000-Ton craft 50 billion kilometers at a rate of 2,000km/sec using only 500,000 liters of fuel.
We already know how much "carrier fuel" we transferred into "kinetic energy or work", it was 500,000 liters in both cases. But how much work did each engine do?
Let's use Joules.
J=N*m
N = Newtons of force applied
m = meters the force was applied for.
So, so how many Newtons?
N = kg*A
kg being the weight of the object
A being the acceleration in m/s^2
Our 2000-ton craft weighs 2,032,093kg (Long Ton, it's not written tonnes and Steve is from London, you could use Short or Metric tons, result will be the same)
Our NTE is accelerating at 1,250,000m/s^2, providing 2,540,116,250,000 Newtons of force
Our NPE is accelerating at 2,000,000m/s^s, providing 4,064,186,000,000 Newtons of force
J=N*m
We burned for 50,000,000,000,000 meters, so
J=N*50 trillion
Our NTE converted 500,000 liters of fuel into 127. 005812 Yottajoules of work.
Our NPE converted 500,000 liters of fuel into 203. 2093 Yottajoules of work.
(1 Yottajoule = 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules)
This means that a Nuclear Pulse Engine is 60% more fuel efficient than a Nuclear Thermal Engine.
This increase in fuel efficiency allows us to go faster, or go farther, depending on your needs. If the engines had the same fuel efficiency, then they would literally be identical. Your only chance to change anything would be to change the power modifiers, size, and other stuff.
Now where you and IanD get mixed up, is that Fuel Efficiency is not the same as Fuel Economy. I'm going to quote our ever-reliable source, wikipedia.
hxxp: en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_automobiles#Fuel_economy_statisticsWhile the fuel efficiency of petroleum engines (the ability to transform the chemical energy of the fuel into power) has increased since the beginning of the automotive era, this has not necessarily resulted in greater fuel economy or less fuel consumption. The mass, shape, and size of a car, also affect fuel economy and so does the automobile's design, which may be to produce more power and speed rather than greater economy and range.
In conclusion, IanD is completely wrong. Engine Technology advancement is directly increasing fuel efficiency. Fuel economy, however, is a different issue, and depends on the design of the engine. But we wern't talking about fuel economy were we?
-
I'd rather stick to the definition of fuel efficiency used by the game, that of how much fuel is consumed per unit of engine power. Semantics just bog down an argument.
In which case yes, propulsion technology has no bearing on the liters of fuel required to produce an hour of engine power.
Engine size, power modifier, and fuel consumption tech do. Should propulsion technology be included in that list? I would lean towards saying no. Those three existing factors provide plenty of room for playing with efficiency in my opinion. Fuel tech lets you use less fuel with no bearing on speed. Engine tech lets you go faster with no bearing on fuel usage. Two sides of the same coin.
(also I stuck some spiffy color-coding to the results on those spreadsheets)
edit: And then I got curious as to the gains/lack thereof from matching power from differing engine sizes and made yet another spreadsheet. (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgGB7QZWHHH2dHpkQ1J2NVd4Njd4TXQ1cHc4SzJJRXc&usp=sharing)
(http://i.imgur.com/jF3qMOs.png)
Holding power modifier, fuel consumption tech and ship components fixed, and using smaller engines to match the old in power output. Engine ratio is 0.25. Results in:
Increased fuel consumption to the order of ~20% with a size-50 starting engine that peters off to parity at smaller sizes.
Increased range to the order of ~15% with a size-50 starting engine that peters off by size-21.
Decreased range starting at size-20 engines, ending at around a ~5% loss for miniature engines.
Those trends were fairly consistent across upgrades, which fits the math, so I wondered how the engine ratio factored into things, with several fixed starting engine sizes.
(http://i.imgur.com/bVQf5uQ.png)
Engine ratio (Total size / Engine size) has no bearing on fuel consumption, as expected by the math.
But as the ratio of engine-to-ship increases, the less possible it is to increase your range with a size-based upgrade.
So unless you consider ~5-15 HS less of a target cross section to be worth having no upgrade in speed, barely any upgrade in range, and an increase in fuel usage, it's not a terribly viable upgrade method.
-
Rod-Sterling, so happy that your upset. It made you look deeper into the subject didn't it.
I do thank you for an excellent example of bypassing the point.
Whether the proper term is efficiency or economy, they are habitually used interchangeably on this board for discussing engine fuel use, Ian's statement that drive tech advancement does not change the fuel needed to cover a set distance is quite correct. The key points are that only drive tech changes are specified and that the engine size is constant. I infer, yes this may be incorrect, that Ian's intent is refitting existing ships with new drive techs.
Your analysis related to joules for thrust is a nice touch that has nothing to do with movement in Aurora. The basis of Aurora drives is that it is inertialess and does not adhere to Newtonian physics. Kinetic energy does not apply. No acceleration. So all that detail work is irrelevant to the discussion.
Within Aurora fuel consumption has a baseline of 1 liter produces 1 engine propulsion point per hour. This does not change from one drive tech to another, period. This function is what Ian's post is pointing out. Not advancing tech for Fuel Consumption. Not Maximum or Minimum Power Modifiers. And specificly not different sized engines. All of those do have a direct effect on fuel consumption.
-
Your analysis related to joules for thrust is a nice touch that has nothing to do with movement in Aurora. The basis of Aurora drives is that it is inertialess and does not adhere to Newtonian physics. Kinetic energy does not apply. No acceleration. So all that detail work is irrelevant to the discussion.
Ofcourse it does have everything to do with movements in Aurora.
The ship is moving faster which we all agree is off great value, to acomplish this while still not burning any more fuel is indeed an increase in efficiency, but that extra efficiency is spent on increasing speed.
You are ignoring the merit and value of this speed gain and the fact that it in practice easilly can be interchanged for a huge increase in fuel efficiency if the designer of the next generation engine chooses to do so.
As many have already pointed out a next gen engine with the same power output, size and same fuel effeciency tech would have significantly better fuel efficiency/fuel economy. In the Aurora the universe this is what matters when we build our ships.
I acknowledge your theoretical point, but what we are trying to say is that it doesn't matter because in practice more advanced engines will let you design more fuel efficient engines without losing anything, both through a design using a lower fuel burn ratio, or through a design using less space. If More advanced engines also gave you a direct bonus to fuel efficiency then that tech line would become even more powerful and overpowered, it already lets you design better engines (in whatever area you choose to improve) for Starships, Fighters, FACs and Missiles, I think it's powerful enough.
-
As many have already pointed out a next gen engine with the same power output, size and same fuel effeciency tech would have significantly better fuel efficiency/fuel economy. In the Aurora the universe this is what matters when we build our ships.
Actually an engine that is identical in those three regards will consume the same amount of fuel for every hour of thrust it delivers. If mounted in the same frame, the one with the more modern engine tech will indeed go faster. It will also burn fuel faster. And since those are directly proportional, it will be able to travel the same distance, just in varying amounts of time.
Engine tech does increase the baseline of thrust you can deliver, but doesn't affect how much fuel is consumed for each EPH.
-
You people keep reading the words "power output" as "power modifier". ;) To keep the same power output, you need to reduce power modifier.
-
Ofcourse it does have everything to do with movements in Aurora.
Actually no it doesn't. This is a falisy that many new players fall into because there isn't really a published outline of baseline game concepts, it's left up to the veterans of the board to pass these concepts on. In this case it is that movement is inertialess and reactionless. This results in no acceleration or turn mode concerns like so many other space simulations. This was done to keep the support programming very simple.
The ship is moving faster which we all agree is off great value, to acomplish this while still not burning any more fuel is indeed an increase in efficiency, but that extra efficiency is spent on increasing speed.
You are ignoring the merit and value of this speed gain and the fact that it in practice easilly can be interchanged for a huge increase in fuel efficiency if the designer of the next generation engine chooses to do so.
Actually I'm ignoring nothing. What I've taken issue with is what and how you counter posted Ian's conclusion.
Specifically, you quote Ian's first paragraph
No matter what flavour of engine you use for an identical power output you consume the same amount of fuel per Engine Power Hour. What this means is that a conventional engine is as fuel efficient as a Magneto-plasma drive, just you can generate more power in the same space. There is no improvement in fuel efficiency as your engine tech improves.
and then attempt refute his observation by
That's actually not quite right.
Let's assume you devote 33% of your ships weight to engines. A more advanced engine that can provide the same power output for half the weight will lead to a more fuel efficient design as your ship just got 16.5% lighter without losing anything.
The lighter ship will go faster but consume the same amount of fuel per hour, thus being more fuel efficient. The bigger engines you use in your designs the bigger this effect will be.
Now I will admit that at first blush it appears that Ian is talking about fully developed ship engines and not just the engine drive tech. But, when the entire statement is taken into account it becomes obvious that the subject is engine drive tech to the exclusion of fuel consumption and power modifier tech's. By specifying only drive tech as the subject, variable engine size is no longer factored into the conclusion. This is further reinforced when he specifies "more power in the same space". At this point it is very clear that one underlying tech is the subject and not implementation of the various tech's available for engine design.
At this point if you had stated you understood these limitations and where then expanding to engine design to point out that additional tech changes to fuel consumption were not needed I'd have had no problem. But you instead state that Ian's obeservation/conclusion is in error and go outside the scope he set in making it in the first place.
As many have already pointed out a next gen engine with the same power output, size and same fuel effeciency tech would have significantly better fuel efficiency/fuel economy. In the Aurora the universe this is what matters when we build our ships.
Never said differently. As outlined above it's also off point.
I acknowledge your theoretical point, but what we are trying to say is that it doesn't matter because in practice more advanced engines will let you design more fuel efficient engines without losing anything, both through a design using a lower fuel burn ratio, or through a design using less space. If More advanced engines also gave you a direct bonus to fuel efficiency then that tech line would become even more powerful and overpowered, it already lets you design better engines (in whatever area you choose to improve) for Starships, Fighters, FACs and Missiles, I think it's powerful enough.
It's not theoretical, it's fundimental Aurora mechanics and the rebutals are off point. As a seperate discussion about engine design and tech impact on fuel consumption you would be correct.
-
Yep. An engine's power output depends on engine tech, power mod, and size. Everything but efficiency tech.
And on the other side of the coin, an engine's fuel efficiency on an EPH basis depends on efficiency tech, power mod, and size. Everything but engine tech.
I would almost call it elegant, but I just might be too deep in the math of it, heh.
-
Fuel economies isent that the same as a car and how mutch power you can get out of 1 l of gas example my car with 100 hp use 1 l of gas to go 100 km in 1 houer.
10 years later you do get 200 hp from 1 l of gas and travel 100 km in 30 minuts.
In this way you save time. But on the other hand you could still save some other way her
You take out 100 hp and use 0. 5 l of gas and travel 100 km in 1 houer.
So other you save time or range.
Asking for more power and less fuel use aren't feasible 1 unit of energy is 1 unit and not 2 .
No way I'm going in to all this physic equations
e=mc2 and what ever more equations you whant to use.
What everything comes down to is how mutch fuel do you use to get the same amount of energy out of the engine.
Or the revers how mutch energy do you get out from the same amount of fuel. What you ater decide to do with that energy is up to you more speed or range or more tonnage moved is up to you.