NQ suggests buffing engines, your thoughts?

[CptLoRes]

26 minutes ago, Cheith said:

As to take-off assist, sur you could have disposable rockets but it would be much easier just to add an afterburn capability to the atmospheric engines. More thrust, a lot more fuel.

Sure, but the primary use for JATO in this game would not be for take-off assist but instead to help cross the threshold into space.

[Cheith]

50 minutes ago, joaocordeiro said:

But never more expensive than ion fuel.

Rocket fuel should be H2 + O2 or CH4 + O2, Basically the most common elements in the universe. While ion fuel requires heavier and much rarer elements.

 

If a rocket tank has 1000 L inside and an Ion tank has 1000L inside, then the rocket fuel should be 100 times cheaper than Ion fuel.

Why? All ion fuel is really for is reaction mass. You need to throw something the other way from that which you wish to go - in this case a charged something to qualify as an ion. In principle it can be anything. H+ is an ion after all as is O-- . Not sold on the fuel aspect - the 'drive' certainly but not the fuel.

[Cheith]

32 minutes ago, CptLoRes said:

Sure, but the primary use for JATO in this game would not be for take-off assist but instead to help cross the threshold into space.

Not buying it. Afterburners could do the same thing without adding another item to the game and use the same fuel as the engines. So, seems logical to me.

[joaocordeiro]

Just now, Cheith said:

Why? All ion fuel is really for is reaction mass. You need to throw something the other way from that which you wish to go - in this case a charged something to qualify as an ion. In principle it can be anything. H+ is an ion after all as is O-- . Not sold on the fuel aspect - the 'drive' certainly but not the fuel.

This has nothing to do with the efficiency of the reaction/induction. 

 

Its about the price per liter. 

 

If both tanks are full with the exact same amount of liters, the rocket fuel is cheeper. 

[Cheith]

1 minute ago, joaocordeiro said:

This has nothing to do with the efficiency of the reaction/induction. 

 

Its about the price per liter. 

 

If both tanks are full with the exact same amount of liters, the rocket fuel is cheeper. 

What I am saying is there is no real reason for the ion thruster fuel to be more expensive. Now as today they use Xenon it likely is, but you don't have to use Xenon.

 

In fact for rocket fuel - if we are being picky, you need two tanks one per reactant and both need to be very flipping cold. After all you need to carry your own oxygen to get it to burn at that rate in a controlled fashion and you need to cool it to have enough.

 

But as this is all new stuff can't see anything happening anyway - they are pretty clear on not doing anything new that is not on their existing list (whatever that is these days).

[joaocordeiro]

Just now, Cheith said:

What I am saying is there is no real reason for the ion thruster fuel to be more expensive. Now as today they use Xenon it likely is, but you don't have to use Xenon.

 

Heavier elements are more efficient for ion engines. (i would have to research why, but im sure i already saw why some while ago) 

 

But even if we could happily use H2 as ion fuel without any consequence, at most we should have rocket fuel at the same price of ion fuel. 

 

And not this BS premium prices like rocket fuel is made of gold... 

[Cheith]

2 minutes ago, joaocordeiro said:

 

Heavier elements are more efficient for ion engines. (i would have to research why, but im sure i already saw why some while ago) 

 

But even if we could happily use H2 as ion fuel without any consequence, at most we should have rocket fuel at the same price of ion fuel. 

 

And not this BS premium prices like rocket fuel is made of gold... 

That I would agree with.

[CptLoRes]

9 hours ago, Cheith said:

Not buying it. Afterburners could do the same thing without adding another item to the game and use the same fuel as the engines. So, seems logical to me.

Jet engines even with afterburner would stop working as the air get thinner (as they actually do in-game), so from a realistic viewpoint there would still be a need for solid fuel rockets that does not need external oxygen to function.

 

The only type of jet engine that would maybe still function in the thin air conditions, would be a scramjet. But that is a high speed, low trust type of engine.

[Cheith]

4 hours ago, CptLoRes said:

Jet engines even with afterburner would stop working as the air get thinner (as they actually do in-game), so from a realistic viewpoint there would still be a need for solid fuel rockets that does not need external oxygen to function.

 

The only type of jet engine that would maybe still function in the thin air conditions, would be a scramjet. But that is a high speed, low trust type of engine.

True, but maybe - just maybe - one should stop trying to work around using the rocket engines you have. Either get enough thrust up with the atmos to keep you going until your space engines kick in OR us the rocket engines. I can agree the rocket engines need fixed but frankly I don't think you need a new type of rocket engine to do that.

Edited May 25, 2021 by Cheith
sp

[GraXXoR]

I think we don’t need disposable rockets.

Current liquid ones just need to be tier 2 since they have basically existed since WW2.

 

the rocket skills are also insanely “priced”. Isn’t it something like 3,000,000 XP to train rocket handling up to L5?

 

At least rocket fuel is a realistic weight, unlike the liquid metal our atmo fuel and space fuel is apparently made of on which bricks would literally float. 
 

I believe it should be more like this:

 

wings brakes and hover engines atmo engines. and atmo adjusters T1

atmo fuel T1. 

 

Rockets, retro rockets, rocket adjusters T2

Rocket fuel T2

space engines T3 space brakes, universal adjusters T3

space fuel T3

 

warp drive T4

warp fuel T4

 

anti grav T5

anti grav fuel T5

 

 

 

[Cheith]

4 hours ago, GraXXoR said:

I think we don’t need disposable rockets.

Current liquid ones just need to be tier 2 since they have basically existed since WW2.

 

the rocket skills are also insanely “priced”. Isn’t it something like 3,000,000 XP to train rocket handling up to L5?

 

At least rocket fuel is a realistic weight, unlike the liquid metal our atmo fuel and space fuel is apparently made of on which bricks would literally float. 
 

I believe it should be more like this:

 

wings brakes and hover engines atmo engines. and atmo adjusters T1

atmo fuel T1. 

 

Rockets, retro rockets, rocket adjusters T2

Rocket fuel T2

space engines T3 space brakes, universal adjusters T3

space fuel T3

 

warp drive T4

warp fuel T4

 

anti grav T5

anti grav fuel T5

 

 

 

I think my only quibble with that is T3 for space engines if only because space is such a big part of the game for many (not me yet because I am lazy, but others).

[GraXXoR]

7 hours ago, Cheith said:

I think my only quibble with that is T3 for space engines if only because space is such a big part of the game for many (not me yet because I am lazy, but others).

If they implemented rockets properly you could still get into space with rockets alone.  The fact is that making the L rocket T4 when an XL space engine is T2 is just wrong. 
 

especially since rockets are essentially only on or off and you can’t modulate their output power. 
 

(Though, technically, you can by pulsing them on and off rapidly with a Lua script, but that feels more like an exploit than intentional) 

[Cheith]

8 hours ago, GraXXoR said:

If they implemented rockets properly you could still get into space with rockets alone.  The fact is that making the L rocket T4 when an XL space engine is T2 is just wrong. 
 

especially since rockets are essentially only on or off and you can’t modulate their output power. 
 

(Though, technically, you can by pulsing them on and off rapidly with a Lua script, but that feels more like an exploit than intentional) 

I understand - I was more thinking of going to the moons, etc. While I am sure that is possible with rockets it would be a lot harder would it not? You kind of need the space engines to do anything more than just reach orbit do you not? Or at least do it manageably.

I accept I may be totally wrong on this, but that was my concern.

[Bazzy_505]

On 5/25/2021 at 2:16 PM, Cheith said:

True, but maybe - just maybe - one should stop trying to work around using the rocket engines you have. Either get enough thrust up with the atmos to keep you going until your space engines kick in OR us the rocket engines. I can agree the rocket engines need fixed but frankly I don't think you need a new type of rocket engine to do that.

 

Exactly, when done correctly space engines nicely light up and throttle up as atmos slowly die off.  Of course give  one calculates airfoils drop-off correctly ?  I haven't had much trouble with it the moment i really start paying attatention to these things and trained corresponding piloting skills

 

[Honvik]

 

Buffing engines yes but you need 'decay' thus more you use something and then repair it.  Eventually it slowly loves HP permamently and thus need to go buy a new one.

 

This would help the economy massively.  Likewise remove 'safe zones' that are excessive and bring that element of 'risk' back into the game.  In regards to doubling engines speed etc it would help with making more shapes/ships etc and reduce lag too.  They need to buff adjusters too and brakes.  ultimatley what we are asking for is buff components, reduce need for components, add decay and maybe just maybe you'll have more of a Civ game.

[Chaosdjinn]

I decided to look at this issue from a different angle.  To start with I think all the parts need to be buffed with number limits to keep from more powerful massive builds.  If you take a moment to look through both realistic ship design and fictional ship design you find that there are few ships with massive numbers of engines.  Most have less than 10.  So you can easily come to the conclusion that the engine technology was developed along the lines of size and power over sheer numbers.

 

So if the engines of these ships were developed to provide power with a minimal number of them.  One of the examples I looked at was the star destroyer.  The regular star destroyer has what appears to be 3 large engines and 4 smaller ones.  Now I do understand that the number of engines vary on fictional ships but I did not find any with more than 15 to 20 max.  Currently in the game you can make a ship with a small number of engines but the star destroyer is 1600 meters long.  This issue is true of many space ships they only have a few engines, even real ships like the space shuttle only has 3 main engines.  I realize that the shuttle has to have boosters to get into orbit but there are many fictional ships that take off and land using only a few engines.

 

So the massive number of engines used currently in the game are tooooo much.  At the same time if you limit the number of engines then they need to reflect the proper amount of power to be of use in the game.  That last word is the most important point I would like to make this is a very creative game but the creativity is somewhat limited by the current technology simulated in the game.  You should not have to have massive numbers of brakes or wings just to make something fly effectively.

 

So yes this entire system needs to be overhauled where ships with 50 plus engines are not required to go mining and hauling cargo to and from other planets.

[GraXXoR]

The problem arises from the unnatural disparity between volume and mass in this game. 
 

this game uses matter compression to squeeze an unfeasible amount of matter into tiny volumes. I think catalyst 3 is something like 100kg per L and one can fit 120kl in an L container making a 12kT single L container if one so wished., stringing 10 of them together for 120,000 T of cargo capacity per hub. 
 

10 L containers can fit on a small core without problem... and therein IS the problem: ships don’t need to be anywhere near the actual size limits one can build them in this game to carry a reasonable amount of materials.... OR one can overload them with compressed matter and suddenly one needs a wall of elements to move one’s ship.  
 

but then they don’t bother to implement physic such as stress, strain or load bearing requirement. 
 

 * disclaimer: these figures were pulled from my arse since I’m not in front of a PC. 

[Knight-Sevy]

4 hours ago, Chaosdjinn said:

I decided to look at this issue from a different angle.  To start with I think all the parts need to be buffed with number limits to keep from more powerful massive builds.  If you take a moment to look through both realistic ship design and fictional ship design you find that there are few ships with massive numbers of engines.  Most have less than 10.  So you can easily come to the conclusion that the engine technology was developed along the lines of size and power over sheer numbers.

 

So if the engines of these ships were developed to provide power with a minimal number of them.  One of the examples I looked at was the star destroyer.  The regular star destroyer has what appears to be 3 large engines and 4 smaller ones.  Now I do understand that the number of engines vary on fictional ships but I did not find any with more than 15 to 20 max.  Currently in the game you can make a ship with a small number of engines but the star destroyer is 1600 meters long.  This issue is true of many space ships they only have a few engines, even real ships like the space shuttle only has 3 main engines.  I realize that the shuttle has to have boosters to get into orbit but there are many fictional ships that take off and land using only a few engines.

 

So the massive number of engines used currently in the game are tooooo much.  At the same time if you limit the number of engines then they need to reflect the proper amount of power to be of use in the game.  That last word is the most important point I would like to make this is a very creative game but the creativity is somewhat limited by the current technology simulated in the game.  You should not have to have massive numbers of brakes or wings just to make something fly effectively.

 

So yes this entire system needs to be overhauled where ships with 50 plus engines are not required to go mining and hauling cargo to and from other planets.

exactly an increase in engine performance without a nerf in the amounts that one can use will make no sense.

One does not go without the other.

Increase power, increase the cost of crafting engines, limit certain elements by core size and above all limit the amount that can be used of engine and other elements.

[Fembot68]

You are all correct on rockets they should be cheap and  since they have been in use for at least100 years  not in this game!  Unless they want to give us fusion rockets which would have vastly better energy density.     

[Fembot68]

On 5/28/2021 at 9:19 AM, Honvik said:

 

Buffing engines yes but you need 'decay' thus more you use something and then repair it.  Eventually it slowly loves HP permamently and thus need to go buy a new one.

 

This would help the economy massively.  Likewise remove 'safe zones' that are excessive and bring that element of 'risk' back into the game.  In regards to doubling engines speed etc it would help with making more shapes/ships etc and reduce lag too.  They need to buff adjusters too and brakes.  ultimatley what we are asking for is buff components, reduce need for components, add decay and maybe just maybe you'll have more of a Civ game.

reducing the number of elements would be the only way I would even think of putting  in decay of elements.    Having to replace 70 engines per one ship is stupid. 

 

One place the people on this post keep forgetting or leaving out is core sizes and weight of even the smallest ships.    The Dragon Fly pocket speeder weighs 7    I said 7 tons!!! That's like a flying Adult male Elephant!!!!  this thing should be a few hundred kg at most.     This is only multiplied as the core size goes up.    we are talking a M core ship weighing 1.75 KT .    This is about the weight of 170 cars  are you serious ?    
 

[GraXXoR]

Most of my ship’s weight is warp core and fuel. Remember that fuel in this game is like liquid metal. You can float titanium, bricks, and granite boulders in it since it’s 5kg+ per litre. 
 

only rocket fuel is a reasonable weight at 0.8kg per litre. 
 

space engines are far more efficient than anything we have right now in real life, to be fair, though, so...

 

like I said earlier. Mass compression in this game allows for insane weights to be squeezed into those tiny containers, warping our perception of how much we’re carrying since elements compress down to just a few liters and there is no wasted space as there would be in real life. 

 

let’s take Catalyst 3. I think it’s about 70kg per litre or something. 
 

you can fit 1500L into a 1m x 1m cube.  That’s about 100T alone for something you could use as a stool!

 

Remember an XS square light in this game (size of a switch) weighs 70kg, too. 
 

a 5m x 5m panel of these tiny lights would weigh 28T. 
 

since small things weigh so much in this game, engines have to be “wallified” to lift it all. 
 

basically balancing is hard. 
 

[sHuRuLuNi]

5 hours ago, GraXXoR said:

an XS square light in this game (size of a switch) weighs 70kg

 

^^

[CptLoRes]

On 6/1/2021 at 4:55 AM, GraXXoR said:

Most of my ship’s weight is warp core and fuel. Remember that fuel in this game is like liquid metal. You can float titanium, bricks, and granite boulders in it since it’s 5kg+ per litre.

It should be obvious by now that NQ is pulling numbers out their ass trying to shape game play with easy solutions, and at the same time not considering if the decisions make sense as a whole.

[Vidagild]

In my opinion to make the current rocket boosters cost appropriate they need to be supplying more thrust and using less fuel, a 100% increase in base thrust and 25% reduction in fuel consumption makes them 50% less efficient than a large advanced military atmospheric engine where the current values make a medium rocket engine more than 6000% less efficient while costing the same to produce(because of the rocket fuel tank costs).

To put that in real terms the current boosters are literally balanced as the boosters used during the Apollo missions with the current basic atmospheric and space engines being closer to the expanse/halo levels of efficiency even with the extreme weight of the fuel itself being included.

 

Add to this that the boosters are on/off giving extremely limited thrust control and even had the pulse lengths limited in a 0.23 nerf they definitely give the #feelsbadman's right now.

[Vidagild]

On 6/1/2021 at 12:42 PM, Fembot68 said:

We are talking a M core ship weighing 1.75 KT
 

That is a light M core, a to scale firefly that could take-off and land in 1g came in at 4.7Kt unloaded made of aluminium and silicone