|
Post by Enderminion on May 27, 2017 22:40:48 GMT
fyi no formating its automatic, would have been nice if that was said anywhere
|
|
|
Post by deskjetser on May 27, 2017 22:49:10 GMT
Enderminion I added it to the instructions in the post, it wasn't clear enough amongst the first paragraph.
|
|
|
Post by deskjetser on May 28, 2017 23:52:28 GMT
29/5/2017 Motor repository beta v1.1
- Reorganised motor table to have all required information in one group for easier filling.
- Added overall difference comparison in comparison sheet.
- Added weighted average converter in built into propellant sheet for easy adding of new bi-propellants.
- Added unit converter for quality of life.
You can add any propellants that are not there already, as it is completely expandable. It is critical you convert your units however to use the same as the table, and you do not need to format your entries! To add bi-propellants the density needs to be the weighted average of the two components and same story for the cost. To add a motor: - Fill in all the blue columns in the motors sheet using the correct units without formatting.
- Once complete, the black columns will auto-fill if you have correctly entered your data.
- To compare your motor go to the Motor finder/comparison sheet.
- Search for your motor in motor slot 1 or 2 by providing the relevant info.
- Complete the same for the motor you want to compare.
- You can now compare your motors stats!
Visit it here: docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1o8ggi5-HgEHX7ql4oAJVVCK7MiySgCs44I8TnBhh7sM/edit?usp=sharingPlease do not edit entries that are not your own, and have fun! Thanks to all the people on discord who helped me test this!
|
|
|
Post by 17hellion76 on Jul 22, 2017 23:37:14 GMT
OK guys... I admit it... I suck at making engines. Anyone have a nice NTR/MPD Combo for Cap Ships their willing to share? I need some charity Hopefully using Methane fuel, but I'm willing to switch if something else is better. Here's the drive at the core of my fleet, based on an old NTR someone else posted on this forum. Note that while it is superior to stock drives it burns through fuel at a faster pace, so if you have to get into CQB with enemy ships don't burn the drive nonstop, use it in short bursts to avoid wasting all of your Delta-v. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Jul 23, 2017 1:00:06 GMT
OK guys... I admit it... I suck at making engines. Anyone have a nice NTR/MPD Combo for Cap Ships their willing to share? I need some charity Hopefully using Methane fuel, but I'm willing to switch if something else is better. Here's the drive at the core of my fleet, based on an old NTR someone else posted on this forum. Note that while it is superior to stock drives it burns through fuel at a faster pace, so if you have to get into CQB with enemy ships don't burn the drive nonstop, use it in short bursts to avoid wasting all of your Delta-v. welcome to the forums fuel burn is almost never an issue with NTRs unless you have extremly high neutron flux, ten tons a second is fine if you have custom tanks (Use Vanadium Chromium Steel for best mass ratio). useing Titanium Diboride in control rods gets you a higher max operating temperature also how do you know how fast fuel is burned? their is no indicator other then it won't last six months.
|
|
|
Post by 17hellion76 on Jul 23, 2017 1:37:29 GMT
Here's the drive at the core of my fleet, based on an old NTR someone else posted on this forum. Note that while it is superior to stock drives it burns through fuel at a faster pace, so if you have to get into CQB with enemy ships don't burn the drive nonstop, use it in short bursts to avoid wasting all of your Delta-v. welcome to the forums fuel burn is almost never an issue with NTRs unless you have extremly high neutron flux, ten tons a second is fine if you have custom tanks (Use Vanadium Chromium Steel for best mass ratio). useing Titanium Diboride in control rods gets you a higher max operating temperature also how do you know how fast fuel is burned? their is no indicator other then it won't last six months. Thanks for the advice, I'll try that out! By fuel I meant coolant, most of my ships using this drive can burn for about 5-10 minutes. I'm using Reenforced Carbon Carbon for coolant tanks right now, but I just checked VCS and wow you're right the fuel/weight ratio and cost have both been dramatically improved.
|
|
|
Post by apophys on Jul 23, 2017 2:09:39 GMT
I'm using Reinforced Carbon-Carbon for coolant tanks right now, but I just checked VCS and wow you're right the fuel/weight ratio and cost have both been dramatically improved. I use selenium tanks for any propellant that is denser than water; otherwise diamond tanks. I am more concerned about cost than mass. RCC is terribly expensive and I find no reasonable use for it anywhere.
|
|
|
Post by Durandal on Jul 23, 2017 2:52:58 GMT
I've found amorphous carbon to be exceptionally light and reasonably cheap. After a quick comparison I find it to mass less than selenium and cost far less than VCS.
Whether you accept shooting gas-filled coal balloons at your foe is up to you I guess.
|
|
|
Post by 17hellion76 on Jul 23, 2017 2:58:42 GMT
I'm using Reinforced Carbon-Carbon for coolant tanks right now, but I just checked VCS and wow you're right the fuel/weight ratio and cost have both been dramatically improved. I use selenium tanks for any propellant that is denser than water; otherwise diamond tanks. I am more concerned about cost than mass. RCC is terribly expensive and I find no reasonable use for it anywhere. I understand that sentiment, it does hurt me to see the cost of crew modules (the only thing I use RCC for now) but ships I built end up being cheaper than the stock models I made them to replace so the fact that their crew modules are expensive is OK as long as they're lighter. My primary focus when I look at modules is saving Delta-v, not cost efficiency. How do diamond or selenium modules hold up in combat?
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Jul 23, 2017 3:16:08 GMT
I use selenium tanks for any propellant that is denser than water; otherwise diamond tanks. I am more concerned about cost than mass. RCC is terribly expensive and I find no reasonable use for it anywhere. I understand that sentiment, it does hurt me to see the cost of crew modules (the only thing I use RCC for now) but ships I built end up being cheaper than the stock models I made them to replace so the fact that their crew modules are expensive is OK as long as they're lighter. My primary focus when I look at modules is saving Delta-v, not cost efficiency. How do diamond or selenium modules hold up in combat? IIRC the lightest crew module is magnesium and the cheapest is Potassium (2.34cm) that is of course if you don't armor them at all. for the most part you want to stop things with ship armor not module armor
|
|
|
Post by apophys on Jul 23, 2017 3:21:54 GMT
I understand that sentiment, it does hurt me to see the cost of crew modules (the only thing I use RCC for now) but ships I built end up being cheaper than the stock models I made them to replace so the fact that their crew modules are expensive is OK as long as they're lighter. My primary focus when I look at modules is saving Delta-v, not cost efficiency. How do diamond or selenium modules hold up in combat? Magnesium or calcium make excellently balanced crew module material. Make the module as tall as possible for best savings. (Polyethylene is lightest, but only holds up at all at maximum height.) No modules hold up well in combat, with the custom-built weapons we use (like 100 km/s flak railguns, or 1 Mm-effective lasers). But even if they did, it would be more efficient to make them unarmored and pack all the mass savings as armor around the ship. That way you can also use materials more suited for the purpose. If you want an armored bulkhead, you can use a "radiation shield" of your desired armor material. Selenium happens to be the most cost-effective laser armor (though it is quite heavy for such a purpose). See David's fantastic spreadsheet.
|
|
|
Post by 17hellion76 on Jul 23, 2017 3:29:14 GMT
I understand that sentiment, it does hurt me to see the cost of crew modules (the only thing I use RCC for now) but ships I built end up being cheaper than the stock models I made them to replace so the fact that their crew modules are expensive is OK as long as they're lighter. My primary focus when I look at modules is saving Delta-v, not cost efficiency. How do diamond or selenium modules hold up in combat? IIRC the lightest crew module is magnesium and the cheapest is Potassium (2.34cm) that is of course if you don't armor them at all. for the most part you want to stop things with ship armor not module armor Since we're talking structural material, is there a good replacement for Aluminium as part of the hull armor? I'm using it right now as a portion of my whipple shields. Are there preferable metals?
|
|
|
Post by apophys on Jul 23, 2017 3:41:43 GMT
Since we're talking structural material, is there a good replacement for Aluminium as part of the hull armor? I'm using it right now as a portion of my whipple shields. Are there preferable metals? Cyborg's testing shows that aluminum is a pretty good whipple shield. Note: some people don't have whipple shields and instead try to ricochet bullets off a harshly sloped, thick armor surface (like boron fiber or diamond). I don't use kinetic armor at all though, since between nuke+flak ("brimstone") missiles and flak railguns, kinetic weapons are capable of penetrating any amount of armor at less cost than the armor. Lasers will start damaging before kinetics, so it is more important to armor against them, in my opinion. Decent kinetic armor is poor laser armor. I've found amorphous carbon to be exceptionally light and reasonably cheap. After a quick comparison I find it to mass less than selenium and cost far less than VCS. Diamond is strictly superior to AC for this purpose. As I mentioned, I use diamond tanks for propellants less dense than water.
|
|
|
Post by treptoplax on Jul 25, 2017 1:06:39 GMT
Since we're talking structural material, is there a good replacement for Aluminium as part of the hull armor? I'm using it right now as a portion of my whipple shields. Are there preferable metals? Cyborg's testing shows that aluminum is a pretty good whipple shield. Note: some people don't have whipple shields and instead try to ricochet bullets off a harshly sloped, thick armor surface (like boron fiber or diamond). I don't use kinetic armor at all though, since between nuke+flak ("brimstone") missiles and flak railguns, kinetic weapons are capable of penetrating any amount of armor at less cost than the armor. Lasers will start damaging before kinetics, so it is more important to armor against them, in my opinion. Decent kinetic armor is poor laser armor. I've found amorphous carbon to be exceptionally light and reasonably cheap. After a quick comparison I find it to mass less than selenium and cost far less than VCS. Diamond is strictly superior to AC for this purpose. As I mentioned, I use diamond tanks for propellants less dense than water. I do prefer AC to diamond or VCS for drop tanks as it gives a bit of laser resistance. YMMV, I have not tested this scientifically.
|
|
|
Post by Rocket Witch on Jul 28, 2017 13:47:24 GMT
Make the module as tall as possible for best savings. Depending on the armour over that increased length this may cost more rather than save. This effect is most noticeable in missiles engines, which easily reach a point where the mass of the armour shrouding a lengthening nozzle is more detrimental to delta-v than the increased velocity provided. There seems to be an ideal length-width ratio for a (armoured) ship that may be around 1.5, which is shown most readily by the mass ratios of various lengths of cargo modules as these are also unpressurised. For ships we do have to consider that they are in part made up of pressure vessels which benefit most from infinite length (I think, and given a cylindrical shape which is the only option the game provides), so unlike cargo modules which have an ideal aspect ratio of 1, I imagine it's a bit longer for ships depending on the ratio of armour versus pressure vessel shells.
|
|