Change Log for 6.00 discussion

[Charlie Beeler]

Steve by:
Maximum Engine Power Modifier x1
Maximum Engine Power Modifier x1.25
Maximum Engine Power Modifier x1.5
Maximum Engine Power Modifier x1.75
Maximum Engine Power Modifier x2
Maximum Engine Power Modifier x2.5
Maximum Engine Power Modifier x3
 
do you mean:
Maximum Engine Power Modifier +100%/fuel modifier x4
Maximum Engine Power Modifier +125%/fuel modifier x5.66
Maximum Engine Power Modifier +150%/fuel modifier x8
Maximum Engine Power Modifier +175%/fuel modifier x11.31
Maximum Engine Power Modifier +200%/fuel modifier x16
Maximum Engine Power Modifier +250%/fuel modifier x32
Maximum Engine Power Modifier +300%/fuel modifier x64

With these values I can come up with the same figures you have on the sample missile engines.   

I do run into issues trying to reverse engineer your Crusade missiles though.  From what I can determine it appears that the int() function has been dropped from the missile engine modifier calculation and the /4 has been dropped from the Fuel Efficiency Modifier. 

I’m still not matching your missile ranges, but I suspect that has to do with the difference between VB6’s calculations and Excel’s. 

What are the missile engine designs for both the Gladius ASM and the Dagger AMM.  Plus what engine tech, fuel consumption tech, and Max Engine Power Modifier tech were being used.  That will tell me a lot about what I’m doing from with my modeling.

Charlie

[Steve Walmsley]

Steve by:
Maximum Engine Power Modifier x1
Maximum Engine Power Modifier x1.25
Maximum Engine Power Modifier x1.5
Maximum Engine Power Modifier x1.75
Maximum Engine Power Modifier x2
Maximum Engine Power Modifier x2.5
Maximum Engine Power Modifier x3
 
do you mean:
Maximum Engine Power Modifier +100%/fuel modifier x4
Maximum Engine Power Modifier +125%/fuel modifier x5.66
Maximum Engine Power Modifier +150%/fuel modifier x8
Maximum Engine Power Modifier +175%/fuel modifier x11.31
Maximum Engine Power Modifier +200%/fuel modifier x16
Maximum Engine Power Modifier +250%/fuel modifier x32
Maximum Engine Power Modifier +300%/fuel modifier x64

It appears in the Create Research Project dropdown as:

Maximum Engine Power Modifier +0%   Fuel Consumption per EPH +0%
Maximum Engine Power Modifier +25%   Fuel Consumption per EPH +41%
Maximum Engine Power Modifier +50%   Fuel Consumption per EPH +100%
Maximum Engine Power Modifier +75%   Fuel Consumption per EPH +183%
Maximum Engine Power Modifier +100%   Fuel Consumption per EPH +300%
Maximum Engine Power Modifier +150%   Fuel Consumption per EPH +700%
Maximum Engine Power Modifier +200%   Fuel Consumption per EPH +1500%

Also, Missile engines can use up to double the current tech in terms of power boost, so 1.75 tech allows 3.50 boost for missile engines, which would be the following:
Maximum Engine Power Modifier +250%   Fuel Consumption per EPH +3100%

I do run into issues trying to reverse engineer your Crusade missiles though.  From what I can determine it appears that the int() function has been dropped from the missile engine modifier calculation and the /4 has been dropped from the Fuel Efficiency Modifier. 

I’m still not matching your missile ranges, but I suspect that has to do with the difference between VB6’s calculations and Excel’s. 

What are the missile engine designs for both the Gladius ASM and the Dagger AMM.  Plus what engine tech, fuel consumption tech, and Max Engine Power Modifier tech were being used.  That will tell me a lot about what I’m doing from with my modeling.

Engine tech is Ion. Max Engine Power Modifier was 1.75, which is 3.50 for missiles. I think fuel consumption is 0.6, although I'm not sure if I have researched that since the design so it might have been 0.7.

Gladius has 1.8 MSP warhead, 0.2 Fuel, 0.105 reactor, 0.395 thermal sensor, 2.5 engine. Engine has 5.25 Engine Power and Fuel Use Per Hour = 161.83 Litres
Dagger has 0.2 MSP warhead, 0.01 Fuel, 0.09 agility, 0.7 engine. Engine has 1.47 Engine Power and Fuel Use Per Hour = 108.1 Litres

Don't forget to account for fuel consumption changes based on missile engine size: +282% for Dagger and +60% for Gladius.

Steve

[Charlie Beeler]

I guessed the warhead correctly, but I didn't know about the thermal sensor.  I kept trying too make a size 3 engine fit the speed and range and it just wasn't working. 

Thanks for the feedback.

[LoSboccacc]

q:

how crew morale, bert capacity and life support stuff is handled for NPR/Precursor/Spoiler1/Spoiler2?

is it just abstracted away?

[Charlie Beeler]

Steve,

Is it too late to request a change to missile engine design? 

Like allowing more than single point precision?  It would help with mixing with the existing components that are designed at  4 point precision.

This next one is probably a bigger issue to impliment.  Add a total power modifier for installations of multiple engines.  Some value increase for "linking" multiples.  As it stands,  the use of say a .8msp engine vs 8 .1msp engines have the same useful power but the smaller engines burn between 4-5 times the fuel as the larger one. 

As has been noted the new fuel consumption means that missiles can be segnificantly longer ranged as well a faster per engine tech that previous game versions.  I'd like to suggest changing the Thermal and EM sensor base table values to match the Active Grav Sensor base table values.  this would not match the range extention that missiles have recieved, but it would help in reducing the hull spaces need for detection and missile fire control suites. 

[Konisforce]

Steve,

Is it too late to request a change to missile engine design? 

Like allowing more than single point precision?  It would help with mixing with the existing components that are designed at  4 point precision.

This next one is probably a bigger issue to impliment.  Add a total power modifier for installations of multiple engines.  Some value increase for "linking" multiples.  As it stands,  the use of say a .8msp engine vs 8 .1msp engines have the same useful power but the smaller engines burn between 4-5 times the fuel as the larger one. 

Just wanted to second this.  I love the depth that comes from not having a 'right' design for a particular application.  Maybe multiple engines could give an increased agility?  4 gimballed thrusters on the back of a missile would conceivably make it somewhat nimbler than a single equivalent-sized one.

[Zook]

Our missiles don't penetrate anyway, so we fill 'em with paint. Makes the Germans mad.

[Havear]

I still want a way to individually enable\disable engines, or at least "link" engines in the design and then enable\disable groups. With the fuel changes, it might make sense to attach a high-efficiency primary drive then several high-power military drives for combat maneuvering.

[bean]

This next one is probably a bigger issue to impliment.  Add a total power modifier for installations of multiple engines.  Some value increase for "linking" multiples.  As it stands,  the use of say a .8msp engine vs 8 .1msp engines have the same useful power but the smaller engines burn between 4-5 times the fuel as the larger one. 

This already happens.  There is a fuel-efficiency penalty for smaller engines.

[Bgreman]

This already happens.  There is a fuel-efficiency penalty for smaller engines.

I think that's his problem.  He is wondering why you'd ever use two size X engines when you could just use a size 2X engine and get the same power for less fuel consumption.

[Havear]

I'd use the smaller engines for smaller ships or to squeeze a *little* more speed out of an extra HS.

[UnLimiTeD]

While true, there is no reason to not always use the largest engine you can conceivable fit.
I suppose a minor maneuvering bonus for having multiple exhausts might be a way to counteract that.

[chrislocke2000]

While true, there is no reason to not always use the largest engine you can conceivable fit.
I suppose a minor maneuvering bonus for having multiple exhausts might be a way to counteract that.

I guess the other issue is leaving you exposed to single component loss shutting down your ship. Still my plan was exactly to have the minimum possible engines to maximise their efficiency.

[Steve Walmsley]

I think that's his problem.  He is wondering why you'd ever use two size X engines when you could just use a size 2X engine and get the same power for less fuel consumption.

Mainly because different ships use different amounts of engines. So if you design a size 20 engine, you can only use it on ships where the total engine power fits neatly in a multiple of size 20. Smaller engines make it easier to use the same engine on different designs. Alo large engines are more expensive in research terms so making one large engine for every design is very expensive.

Steve

[Charlie Beeler]

I think that's his problem.  He is wondering why you'd ever use two size X engines when you could just use a size 2X engine and get the same power for less fuel consumption.

Actually, the multiple smaller engines have a significantly higher fuel consumption rate not lower for the same propulsion output.  What I'm after is a benefit to using multiple engines where a larger single produces the same power for the same use of hull spaces.