Posted by: DeMatt
« on: May 16, 2019, 08:12:15 PM »Quote from: Resident Evil link=topic=10395. msg114507#msg114507 date=1558021156
It's interesting how we approach things, and what we bring of ourselves to the game.Well, the way I see it, AFR as a statistic pulls double duty, both as the cost of regular maintenance ("disassemble the turbine so we can fluoroscope it"), and as the cause of newsworthy maintenance failures ("er, the turbine took care of the disassembly by itself. . . "). So a >100% AFR is not, in and of itself, bad - so long as the ship carries enough MSP to fix the inevitable. Thus, I prefer to use Maintenance Life as a guideline.
In comparison to your design, all my ships are over-engineered masterpieces of reliability. I personally find a quoted AFR of over 100% to be abhorrent, and the designs I come up with in the AFR 60-70% range are tolerable, but still high in my mind.
Would it surprise you to learn I worked as a Nuclear Safety Engineer. I expect an aircraft designer would approach reliability in much the same way I do
I will have to try and curb my enthusiasm for Engineering space of my ships.
RE
An important point of consideration: the Thea has a fuel endurance of 4 months. How much time is a Thea expected to idle somewhere that doesn't have maintenance facilities?
As to keeping AFR under 100%. . . unfortunately, larger ships have a greater AFR purely because they have more systems to keep operational. Try this experiment: start a new design, add just one of those Andrews power plants (to make it officially a Military ship), and then start adding Engineering Spaces. Eventually, you'll hit an AFR of 100% even though the "ship" is basically all maintenance shops.