Jump to content

Recommended Posts

No introduction. Just sit back and scream.

 

Fuel is a item that can be put in engines and be used to produce thrust.

There are also different kinds of fuels as well, each with different attributes.

 

THRUST/FORCE is how much thrust is produced.

MINIMUM/MAXIMUM HEAT is the range where the fuel is stable (below the minimum heat threshold, there is a severe debuff to THRUST/FORCE, and above it the fuel becomes explosive)

COMPRESSION is how much fuel can be crammed into a voxel/storage unit.

LUMINOSITY is how much light is produced.

NOISE is obviously how much noise is produced.

STABILITY is how much the fuel can be generally handled (G-forces/acceleration, heat, pressure, has access to oxygen, reactive, ect)

FUEL TYPE is where the fuel is liquid, gas, solid, antimatter, hopes and dreams, whatever makes your engine run.

 

ENGINES also greatly influence this.

MAXIMUM/MINIMUM HEAT are temperatures where it can operate safely.

FUEL TYPE ACCEPTABILITY determines what kind of fuel can be put in (No solids in the gas, please!). Some engines can be hybrid.

FEED RATE is how much fuel can flow through it.

FLASH HIDER is how much the luminosity is dampened.

SILENCER silences the noise considerably.

 

Lets discuss. ^VOID^

 

 

 

FUEL

Stats

THRUST FORCE is how much thrust is produced. It is controlled by a percentage, 0% being off, 50% at normal power, and 100% at max safety levels, and 200% for overdrive.

FUEL TYPE is what kind of fuel can be put in (No diesel in gas, or antimatter in hydrogen thrusters)

FLOW RATE is a bottleneck. The higher the number the better. (An engine without enough "feed rate." will not be able to use the thrust at 100%.)

GAS/RESIDUE is how much greenhouse gases is produced (for potential future updates.)

 

Fuel Types

Classical

ELECTRIC is considered a fuel for all electronics. Used for most engines (Steam-Punk lovers don't need them)

GAS is a type of fuel type that has a loveable flow-rate but is generally more violent when it explodes.

LIQUID is a fuel type which has a normal flow rate, but generally burns quickly instead of exploding. Usually has the most Thrust:Cost ratio.

SOLID is a fuel type which has very little flowrate, but has sheer power. Usually resistant to burning/exploding.

PHOTON is a fuel type which involves directing photon to produce thrust (photons have mass). Overheats somewhat quick.

GRAVITATIONAL is a fuel type which is extraordinarily dense, which is controlled by electrical currents. (Similar to Space Engineer's gravity drive.) The fuel and electricity is used up to produce thrust, preventing voiding the Law of Thermodynamics. Much more effective for "slingshot maneuvers" and known for it's usage in artificial gravity.

 

Biofuel

Biofuel is fuel that can be grown in vats, requiring immense amounts of sunlight and nutrients extracted from soil.

ALGAE can be used for compact fueling, and certain types can be eaten with extremely high calories:volume ratio. Must be put in a type of liquid to be mobile.

FUNGAL is much more potent than algae, but can grow almost anywhere (space-fungus anyone?). Produces harmful spores that can be protected from.

BACTERIAL is the "Mix" of Algae and Fungal. Can grow in most places, and quite compact.

WASTE/METHANE can be harnessed from various animals.

 

 

Antimatter

ANTIMATTER is a fuel which completely decimates any Avatar close enough to it.

ELECTRICAL ANTIMATTER produces shockwaves of EMP out of it's thrust exhaust, but does not need energy to run and will never overheat, staying at a frosty 0.0001 Kelvin. Sometimes put near supercomputers due to the sheer cooling power, if one is careful.

GAS ANTIMATTER (Anti-Hydrogen for example) is a fuel that has no limit to flow-rate, but causes faster overheating.

LIQUID ANTIMATTER warps the looks around the engine, and still has the highest thrust:cost ratio.

SOLID ANTIMATTER is actually needed for Warp-Drives and Stargates. Using it on an engine causes constant "teleportation fractures" (random warping from a few meters, but never hitting anything) if it is overheating.

 

*removed ANOMALY FUEL due to well, it's a shit idea*

 

 

ENGINE

Stats

OVERDRIVE EFFICIENCY indicates how long the engine can run before overheating.

FUEL TYPE is what kind of fuel can be put in.

ENGINE TYPE also determines what must be done before the engine can start/go above 50% power.

NOISE is generally how much noise is made.

Components

NOZZLE decreases FLOW RATE but increases THRUST RATE.

COMBUSTION TANK increases the amount of fuel that can be loaded.

COLORIZER allows the trail to be any color you want.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright two things. First, I think this is too complex. Too many variables, too many factors. Some of these variables might affect others, which may I turn cause other values to change... Like, the feed rate would cause higher luminosity and noise, and then the flash hider might have to change... Such variables make for a coding nightmare. I personally feel that half of these are unnecessary forever. The other half are alright though.

 

The other thing is that engines may take fuel in different ways; electricity, radiation-ish from the sun... Fuel and energy is something Ive been looking for answers for for a long time and there still arent many. But we don't know for sure that all energy sources for engines will be voluminous fuel. 

 

Despite those things, I would love for energy and fuel to be able to get really complex. I personally would like it to be that anyone can slap some engines on some voxels and fly around just fine, but then those willing can really really try, and do some math, and trial and error, and work with the complex engine system to create a very efficient ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitely too complex.  I don't think NQ is aiming to make a ship design system that's so complex you need an Master's degree just to start. Sure, your idea is realistic, and that's great, but the dev team has a thousand other, more important things to focus on besides realistic fuel/engine interactions.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's so complex about different engines and fuels with multiple variables? It's as simple as you make it.

 

I don't deem it far-fetched at all to have different engines and fuels for different situations. It's nothing new in sci-fi-survival games at all.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the others, there's too much there. I would just have everything derive off of a single operating parameter: command input. A number between 0 (off) and 1 (fully on).

 

Want good thrust/fuel efficiency? There's a sweet spot, the location depends on the engine.

Want the most power? Turn it up to 1.

Overdrive? Turn it up past 1, but you may overheat (meaning the engine will begin taking damage)

Want to be quiet? Turn it down as low as you can, you generate less noise the less you burn.

 

As for fuel variety, I suggest having a few different types of fuel for engines. For reactors, they will share some of those fuels and have a few of their own.

If we have engines that use electricity, then just substitute the word power for fuel in this post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so maybe instead of all agreeing these are too many variables, which I can't really agree on, let's use the forums in a productive way and actually think about it a bit deeper.
I can't see exactly how too many or too complex is a bad thing by itself. I do see however that some of them are rather unnecessary for gameplay in the end.

Luminosity and noise are factors that I'd not necessarily need to see included. Noise doesn't need to be realistic in a game as long as it sounds well. In fact, realistic sound models in games are often really weird for a player at first and take time to get used to.
Luminousity is a nice idea itself, but I don't think it enriches the game enough to make an effort to implement. It'd rather a nice gimmick for polish when different fuels with different heat ranges burn at different colors and make for different lighting effects.

Stability would imo rather be an annoying aspect instead of a valuable one, although in terms of realism actually quite important. But I'd hate to have to think about what my cargo and components can handle when flying.

Simmilarly, Flash hiders and noise dampeners on engines wouldn't be neccessary then as well. Maybe implement simmilar features to increase stealth aspects and make it more difficult to get scanned. In that case, simple upgrade modules for the elements would be enough.

But with the features heat, compression, fuel type, acceptability and feed rate, a rather plain system could be improved into an enriching experience with different possibilities for all possible sectors, be it industry, design, racing, war or transport. How well can your fuel handle long distances with high heat? Could you increase it and make it explode when shooting an engine or fuel tank? Which fuel needs to be chosen for which tasks?
These are all aspects that improve important parts of content for a majority of players, I'd love to see that. How much time would be needed to actually implement it is another question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Thokan said:

 

I don't deem it far-fetched at all to have different engines and fuels for different situations. It's nothing new in sci-fi-survival games at all.

 

 

 

First of all, DU isn't a survival game. Not even a little. The very beginning might be a little like a survival game because of the lack of resources, but that's not how things are going to be for very long.

 

However, JC did mention multiple engine types for space, atmosphere, and FTL, though how granular that will be remains to be seen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Orginal[

Treibstoff, elektrische Energie, Antimaterie oder etwas neues für Überlichtgeschwindigkeit, braucht Behälter.

Daher finde ich, das am Anfang des Spiels auf solche Dinge verzichtet werden sollte, da diese ohne Probleme später integriert werden können.

Einfach Energie zum betreiben aller Antriebsarten. Die Eigenschaften der Antrieb hängt ja an den Antrieben.

 

Am Anfang könnte man ja Energie auch als Zahlungsmittel verwenden, damit entfällt auch der Behälter für Energie.

Die Sonnenenergie könnte geerntet werden, so wie es auf der Erde von Bauern gemacht wird.

Die erlösen aus ihren Erträgen auch Zahlungsmittel.

 

Fosieleenergie wird direkt in Energie umgewandel. Damit können auch komplexere Methoden später eingeführt werden.

Es muß an Anfang nicht immer gleich eine perfekte Simmulation sein!

]Orginal

 

google-englisch[

Fuel, electric energy, antimatter or something new for super light speed, needs containers.

Therefore, I find that at the beginning of the game on such things should be omitted, since these can be integrated without problems later.

Simple energy to operate all drive types. The characteristics of the drive depends on the drives.

In the beginning you could use energy also as a means of payment, so the container for energy also does not apply.

The solar energy could be harvested, as it is made on the earth by farmers.

They also receive cash from their income.

Fosiele energy is converted directly into energy. This allows even more complex methods to be introduced later.

It does not always have to be a perfect simmulation at the beginning!

]englisch

 

mfG Die Waldfee

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the fuel types should be somewhat similar to RL fuels. So, we have 4 properties of drive types: Fuel type, Fuel Consumption, Efficiency/ISP/Exhaust velocity, and Radiation. Please note that the tier number indicates the kind of skill required to work the engines relative to each other.

 

Chemical Rockets(T1): Consumes Liquid Hydrogen and Liquid Oxygen, which can be extracted from water. High thrust and high fuel consumption

 

NERVA(Nuclear Solid Core)(T2): Consumes Liquid Hydrogen and Uranium(from planetary crusts), half of fuel consumption and thrust of Chemical. Medium Radiation

 

Ion Drives(T2): Consumes Noble Gases, commonly found in planetary atmospheres, and LOTS of electricity. low thrust and high efficiency. Radiation depends on the power source. 

 

Fusion Drives(T3): Consumes Liquid Hydrogen, thrust levels between Nuclear and Ion. Very high efficiency, but generates LOTS of radiation, expensive, and cannot be used in atmospheres.

 

Nuclear Gas Core(T2): Like the NERVA but better.

 

Antimatter Drives(T4): Consumes Antimatter from antimatter collectors in space. Very high efficiency and medium thrust, but cannot be used in atmospheres and requires special storage for fuel containment which must be constantly supplied with electricity. If there is no power, and the container batteries have been depleted, the container will explode, killing all players in a small radius. They needed to figure out how to contain antimatter more safely because the French lords of the universe didn't want players making antimatter bombs that other players cannot defend against they didn't want the Arkship blowing up in the case of power failure. Emits high radiation.

 

Exotic Drives(T4): You need Negative Mass(or whatever) to fuel this, which needs to be fabricated in a special facility requiring lots of electricity. FTL, high radiation.

 

Honestly, the OP's system makes me cringe.... (No Offence)

 

For more info about the additional drives, I recommend Atomic Rockets

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/07/2017 at 11:50 PM, Vorengard said:

 

First of all, DU isn't a survival game. Not even a little. The very beginning might be a little like a survival game because of the lack of resources, but that's not how things are going to be for very long.

 

However, JC did mention multiple engine types for space, atmosphere, and FTL, though how granular that will be remains to be seen. 

 

Yeah, I know. What I mean though is that the game is heavily themed off of sci-fi survival games but on a MMO scale - which consequently negates most of the survival aspect. I get what you mean, and totally agree.

 

Yes, that's what I easily can see added - not complicated at all. The OP's text is just very intricate and complex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Thokan said:

 

Yeah, I know. What I mean though is that the game is heavily themed off of sci-fi survival games but on a MMO scale - which consequently negates most of the survival aspect. I get what you mean, and totally agree.

 

Yes, that's what I easily can see added - not complicated at all. The OP's text is just very intricate and complex.

Well... More Fuel = More Jobs.

Countries will fight over fuel, and why should a video game be any different?

Fuel is a driving force, the essence that all is mechanical.

The more fuel types we have, the more specialization, the more jobs, the more production, the more wars, the more cash, the more everything.

Catch my drift?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Kuritho said:

Well... More Fuel = More Jobs.

Countries will fight over fuel, and why should a video game be any different?

Fuel is a driving force, the essence that all is mechanical.

The more fuel types we have, the more specialization, the more jobs, the more production, the more wars, the more cash, the more everything.

Catch my drift?

 

I get it. Crafting ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fuel types though doesn't mean we shouldn't go overboard with having 500 types. I say 5-6 main types and possibly some more sub-types. Also, the OP retracted this original fuel system, but I imagine they will be put in anyway, just without telling anyone, since it will have to go in the code anyway. 

 

An important detail is that most rocket drive systems run on two things: Propellent/Reaction Mass AND fuel. Basically, Propellent is the stuff that gets pushed out the back of the rocket engine so Newton pushes the rocket forward.  Fuel is the stuff that makes the propellent get propelled out the back. The misconception comes from the fact that most of our rockets, which are chemical rockets, use combustable liquid/oxidzer mix, But, for example, on a NERVA driven rocket, the fuel is Uranium(or whatever is used to run the nuclear reactor) and the propellant is whatever goes in the tanks like Hydrogen.

 

Lastly, no offence, but the OP's new fuel system makes me criiinnnngeeeeee..... Really, electrical antimatter? that's not a thing. And the state of the antimatter doesn't really change its capabilities. Fungal fuel? you burn mushrooms and try to use that heat to propel the propellent? And bacterial fuel? just yuck.... and makes no sense...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, now that the OP has changed...
I would have Antimatter and Biofuel each just be a single fuel. There's no need for so many of those.

 

On 7/9/2017 at 10:34 PM, Kuritho said:

ENGINE TYPE also determines what must be done before the engine can start/go above 50% power.

What? Just set the power to whatever you want and the engine will respond. No special behavior is needed.

 

On 7/9/2017 at 10:34 PM, Kuritho said:

NOZZLE decreases FLOW RATE but increases THRUST RATE.

No, an increase in flow rate increases thrust. (Thrust Rate ????)

 

On 7/9/2017 at 10:34 PM, Kuritho said:

COMBUSTION TANK increases the amount of fuel that can be loaded.

We already know that there are independent fuel tanks. Engines having internal tanks is unnecessary.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Velenka said:

Well, now that the OP has changed...
I would have Antimatter and Biofuel each just be a single fuel. There's no need for so many of those.

 

What? Just set the power to whatever you want and the engine will respond. No special behavior is needed.

 

No, an increase in flow rate increases thrust. (Thrust Rate ????)

 

We already know that there are independent fuel tanks. Engines having internal tanks is unnecessary.

 

 

Please be patient with me I'm not smart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see complexity being bad for this kind of game... If you really want to see specializations in game, you'll have to make complex models for engines and fuels that would allow someone to be considered as a engine expert...

otherwise you'll just have builders, commercials and fighters... not really diverse...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, QuantumTunelling said:

I don't see complexity being bad for this kind of game... If you really want to see specializations in game, you'll have to make complex models for engines and fuels that would allow someone to be considered as a engine expert...

otherwise you'll just have builders, commercials and fighters... not really diverse...

 

Exactly this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand the desire for complexity, but complexity isn't inherently valuable. If we're going to have multiple fuel types, there needs to be a reason for it. Just tossing in new options that don't really result in different outcomes is not valuable complexity, or a good addition to the game. 

 

EVE was the perfect example. They used to have 8 different types of each module, 90% of which never got used because there were 2 clear "best" options. DU needs to avoid making the same mistake by not adding pointless complexity. If these fuels aren't going to add realvariety (and I mean legitimate differences, not just a few percentage points either way to different stats), then we shouldn't have them. All good gameplay needs to have a legitimate reason for existing, and "I want it to be hard" is not a good reason. That will only make the barrier higher for new players, and that's bad for growth.

 

 

So what does make good complexity and variety? I would say something like the Factorio fuel/power system, where you can burn coal directly to power extractors, or you can burn coal to make electricity, or you can set up a solar power system, and so on. Burning coal directly (for DU, old fashion rocket fuel) is really cheap and simple, but high maintenance (refilling fuel bays over and over) and requires a lot of fuel. Using coal to power steam engines (in DU, perhaps nuclear reactors) is more expensive to set up (reactors require a lot of resources to build), but they use fuel more efficiently and are less maintenance in the long term. Finally, setting up a solar power network (for DU, perhaps Antimatter, or whatever) is advanced, requires lots of space, and is very resource intensive, but it lasts forever and requires no fuel input once it's up and running.

 

A similar system would be good for DU because it would allow people to invest the proper level of resources and complexity to suit the needs of each ship. A cheap, throwaway patrol ship or scout, for example, doesn't need a complex and expensive reactor system, but a capital ship would really need one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My thoughts on this, a partial response to vorengard, is we need variety, not complexity.  

 

It doesnt have to go into detail of each fuel having 20 stats to monitor.  But, have more than 2 types which 1 is a clear winner, like the eve example.  

 

I did like how you relate it to factorio and some of its systems, and mods bring this out even more.  Also Minecraft FTB mods. Look at the varity of fuel types available.  some more complex than others and most times there wasnt a clear best for all players.  

 

 

there should be some fuels that are cheap and easy to make but poor performance, Tier 1 This could be in terms of energy density or burn rates for isp, depending how DU will design it.  these could include renewable forms like a fuel made from biomass and easy to find like unrefines coal or oil equavilents.  

 

Then there should be step ups,T2 ,  an obvious way to go once established. pretty much any alliance will wanna produce these asap. And could be a specilazation for someone to resel.  Refined oil and biofuel is an example.  More setup required to make but higher emergy density, better burn rates, etc. 

 

Then theres the high end high setup line. Weather it be some exotic fuel specific to DU or compact fusion reactors for electric engines like an EM drive.  

 

Note there could be several fuel types of each tier with different processes to produce. This gives a tier for noobs to use when starting out so they arent forced to rely on existing players to get started. Then a good balance fuel for established players and corps to go for once established.  The a top tier that requires high investment to get that little bit extra out of. Something the larger corps and alliances may wanna invest into.  I look at it similar to eve as the top tier meta, T2, and faction/officer mods.  

 

 

Now I didnt mention solar as it is a power source not a fuel. But if we have electric engines these could be used to.  And solar could stretch to every tier, just better quality solar panels as you have better tech.   Also for pure power, wind and hydro are obvious choices.  Fission reactors for nuclear I would put in a T2 level. Not to complex but requires infrastructure for maintaining a safe reaction.  From this, thermo electric RTG devices could be produced.   And for a T3 power, fusion reactors are complex to get a net power output but safe and can be compacted in size more.  

 

And if we want to go further, quantium taps, or ZPM as many may know them from stargate, could produce enormous amounts of power but also extremly dangerous as current theories require 2 micro singularities to extract power from them. One slipup and you destroy yourself. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

QuantumTunneling Speaking here (new account for a new name...)

 

I have to say that i love Factorio and i really like the way they model efficiency with the different ratios, and that is what i call complexity (and a good one)

I get your point about complexity don't need to be there just because people want it to be hard, but you have to accept that when you start the game, you'll still be able to play, but you wont nail your fuel efficiency straight away...

 

Again if there is no complexity where do you need to pay someone for a service if it's cheaper to do it yourself... especially when it leads to the same result...

we are talking about a game wich will be about hundreds of players within a corporation... do you really want to have 5 different jobs? I mean realize that jobs will be set by players and only players... There needs to be variety, yes but variety without complexity? pointless

 

Also an engine design that would save 5% fuel at the expense of complexity wouldn't have a place on a small beginner ship, but for large ships where we talk about hundreds to tousands of tons of fuel.... that could end up being quite usefull...

 

Also what about black hole engines? This was already a thought with real physics and they could make sense,

I'll make it simple... Basically you have a small black hole enclosed into a chamber with an exit, black holes produce hawkings radiations wich can be used as a source for thrust...

However there is a catch, when you create your black hole you can't destroy it, so you have to put in the right amount of fuel for the right distance and hope that nothing goes wrong...

here is the wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_starship

Again I don't expect to see it anywhere near the release date of the game but it's still an option to consider...

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...