Changes to Engine Design and Fuel Consumption for v5.70

[Havear]

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:

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% Normal
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.

[Rastaman]

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.

[Havear]

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.

[metalax]

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.

[UnLimiTeD]

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?

[TheDeadlyShoe]

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).

[Girlinhat]

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?

[Lav]

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.