Posted by: Lav
« on: April 18, 2012, 10:15:42 PM »And are engines still going to be one engine type per ship?
Good question! I'd like to know as well.. intriguing suggestions for dual engine designs above.
Good question! I'd like to know as well.. intriguing suggestions for dual engine designs above.
Posted by: Girlinhat
« on: April 18, 2012, 09:39:52 PM »I'd love multiple engine types as well, but I can see where that would be a whole can of worms to implement. It would be extremely fun to have a small cruise engine mounted on a warship, very efficient and slow as it "marches" through systems, but then turning on the main thruster as it "charges" into battle. And civilian ships could be mounted with normal drives and "emergency escape" drives.
Also, how will hyperdrive play into the new engine designs?
Also, how will hyperdrive play into the new engine designs?
Posted by: TheDeadlyShoe
« on: April 16, 2012, 03:52:26 PM »Hmmm... I like most of the new system, but I see little reason to design anything other than the largest possible commercial drives. Currently the only ships I build that use a single commercial drive are low tech survey ships. I expect that will depend on the RP premium, naturally...
Is there still going to be a military/commercial jump drive distinction?
And are engines still going to be one engine type per ship?
//throwaway idea: the amount at which you can vary the power/fuel consumption of an engine is inverse with the engines size. Meaning you can modify a smaller engine to be overpowered with less technology than a larger engine. So an advance in power technology would either let you build a larger engine with the same power boost (=more fuel efficient) or a same size engine with a larger power boost (=more boost).
Is there still going to be a military/commercial jump drive distinction?
And are engines still going to be one engine type per ship?
//throwaway idea: the amount at which you can vary the power/fuel consumption of an engine is inverse with the engines size. Meaning you can modify a smaller engine to be overpowered with less technology than a larger engine. So an advance in power technology would either let you build a larger engine with the same power boost (=more fuel efficient) or a same size engine with a larger power boost (=more boost).
Posted by: UnLimiTeD
« on: April 15, 2012, 06:45:35 AM »Will we be able to add multiple engines and switch them on and off?
I totally want to make my cruisers with slow cruise engines and a bunch of small combat thrusters.
Steve, regarding the "maneuverability", and fully aware that in a non-newtonian environment such a thing doesn't actually exist, couldn't you add a tiny bonus, like 0.5 power, to the ships speed per engine used? That aside;
Will higher powered engines still have a higher chance to explodonate?
I totally want to make my cruisers with slow cruise engines and a bunch of small combat thrusters.
Steve, regarding the "maneuverability", and fully aware that in a non-newtonian environment such a thing doesn't actually exist, couldn't you add a tiny bonus, like 0.5 power, to the ships speed per engine used? That aside;
Will higher powered engines still have a higher chance to explodonate?
Posted by: metalax
« on: April 14, 2012, 04:55:33 PM »In both v5.60 and v5.70, the conventional engine is just a much lower power version of the TN engines. It has 0.2 power per HS compared to 5 power for the Nuclear Thermal Engine.
Steve
Ahh, yes I was tired and forgot to factor in the increased size of current comercial engines. Was just remembering that with equal percentage of tonnage in engines commercial are half the speed.
Posted by: Havear
« on: April 14, 2012, 01:49:27 PM »Ton per ton the old rules had fighter engines with a higher power to weight ratio with better fuel usage for the same power modifier. The new rules make engines a much trickier proposition and much deeper: system defense fighters could have a 1HS engine with lower power for greatly improved range, while short ranged interceptors could use a 2 or 3 HS engine for superior performance and a slight efficiency increase for drastically reduced range. I might design an F-2 sensor fighter (carries the active sensor for the F-1s, no armament and same speed + slightly greater endurance) with a larger, lower-power engine and extra fuel storage to act as a sensor fighter\tanker. Ooh, can't wait until the update.
Posted by: Rastaman
« on: April 14, 2012, 01:31:08 PM »One of my current fighter designs in 5.60 uses exactly the above engine. It is now 255 tons at 14705 km/s, will be 285 tons with 12105 km/s (possible armor increase not considered). The range is the same.
If I put another 50 ton engine on it, it is 335 tons and 20600 km/s! With doubled fuel capacity: 350 tons and 19700 km/s. 5.70 has fighters of much higher performance. Even with only 30% thrust increase tech.
With more thrust increase, given no changes in missile engine tech, it will be possible to design fighters which outrun their own (NATOvsSoviet-esque NATO standard) missiles.
If I put another 50 ton engine on it, it is 335 tons and 20600 km/s! With doubled fuel capacity: 350 tons and 19700 km/s. 5.70 has fighters of much higher performance. Even with only 30% thrust increase tech.
With more thrust increase, given no changes in missile engine tech, it will be possible to design fighters which outrun their own (NATOvsSoviet-esque NATO standard) missiles.
Posted by: Havear
« on: April 14, 2012, 01:18:47 PM »Sorry, figured it out. I had hoped I deleted it before someone responded 
Anyway, here's my notes if anyone's interested.
Using this engine:
With this in the old rules I get an 18.58 hour cruise time, a speed of 13,800 km/sec, and a range of 894,240 megaklicks.
If I take the new engine design specs, for a 60 power engine (3x) I have a 15.25 hour cruise time, a speed of 12,000 km/sec, and a range of 658,800 megaklicks.
To compare, a 40 power engine (2x) has a whopping 105.22 hour cruise time a speed of 8,000 km/sec, and a range of 3,030,336 megaklicks.
Anyway, here's my notes if anyone's interested.Using this engine:
Code: [Select]
FTR Internal Confinement Fusion Drive E780
Power Output: 69 Explosion Chance: 60 Efficiency: 78 Thermal Signature: 11.04
Engine Size: 1 HS Engine HTK: 0
Cost: 26 Crew: 5
Materials Required: 6.5x Duranium 0x Neutronium 19.5x Gallicite
Development Cost for Project: 260RP
Fuel Capacity 10,000 Litres Range 0.9 billion km (18 hours at full power) 13800 km\sec
Power Efficiency -30, Power Increase 15%, Exp 12%
Fuel Efficiency 4, Fuel Usage x0.6
Thermal Reduction: Signature 16% NormalWith this in the old rules I get an 18.58 hour cruise time, a speed of 13,800 km/sec, and a range of 894,240 megaklicks.
If I take the new engine design specs, for a 60 power engine (3x) I have a 15.25 hour cruise time, a speed of 12,000 km/sec, and a range of 658,800 megaklicks.
To compare, a 40 power engine (2x) has a whopping 105.22 hour cruise time a speed of 8,000 km/sec, and a range of 3,030,336 megaklicks.
Posted by: schroeam
« on: April 14, 2012, 12:58:42 PM »I'm trying to crunch the numbers in the example. Where does the 1.4142 come from in
1.4142/100= 141%, or 41%> the original 100%
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: April 14, 2012, 12:51:04 PM »As any engine over 50% becomes military in the new system, will it no longer be possible to have the equivelent of the current high power/low efficiency conventional engines?
In both v5.60 and v5.70, the conventional engine is just a much lower power version of the TN engines. It has 0.2 power per HS compared to 5 power for the Nuclear Thermal Engine.
Steve
Posted by: metalax
« on: April 14, 2012, 12:23:44 PM »As any engine over 50% becomes military in the new system, will it no longer be possible to have the equivelent of the current high power/low efficiency conventional engines?
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: April 14, 2012, 11:57:08 AM »So will 500 1HS engines provide the same thrust as a 500 HS engine?
Max Engine Size is 50 HS. 50 1 HS engines would have the same power as 1 50 HS engine but they would use twice as much fuel.
Steve
Posted by: Havear
« on: April 14, 2012, 11:32:38 AM »From what I can tell, yes, but at a reduced fuel efficiency (or more accurately, without the fuel efficiency bonus associated with size).
Posted by: MehMuffin
« on: April 14, 2012, 11:05:58 AM »No bonus. If someone has designed a 1 HS engine they may decide to use two of those for a fighter rather than designing a new 2 HS engine, especially if they are building the engines with construction factories.So will 500 1HS engines provide the same thrust as a 500 HS engine?
"Any engine that exceeds 50% base engine power or is smaller than 25 HS is classed as military for maintenance purposes."
It's the last sentence before "Changes Relating to Fuel".
Steve
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: April 14, 2012, 10:53:00 AM »One question: Why would anyone build a twin-engine fighter?
Is there a maneuverability bonus or anything?
No bonus. If someone has designed a 1 HS engine they may decide to use two of those for a fighter rather than designing a new 2 HS engine, especially if they are building the engines with construction factories.
Quote
Ok, got an another one:
I didn't quite get how an engine will be marked military. Where in the text do I find it? Read it twice, still somewhat clueless.
"Any engine that exceeds 50% base engine power or is smaller than 25 HS is classed as military for maintenance purposes."
It's the last sentence before "Changes Relating to Fuel".
Steve
