Forums » Suggestions
I wasn't around the last time I heard that ships could be customized with different engines, but apparently the problem with it was that small ships like the Valk could strap on the engine of a Prom, and zip around like a [insert euphemism]. But after playing Mechwarrior for the SNES, it struck me that it shouldn't be impossible to balance the engines.
The way they do it is by making heavier engines progressively less efficient. A 2000 kg engine would yield about 200 N, while a 2500kg one might only give 220 N. This a way a ship that weighs 2000kg without an engine would actually be faster with the lighter engine. However, a heaver ship that weighs say, 4000kg to begin with would be faster with the heavier engine. While shopping for your ship, you'd notice a curve, and especially a point where the heavier engines become so heavy that they weigh you down more than they help.
The way they do it is by making heavier engines progressively less efficient. A 2000 kg engine would yield about 200 N, while a 2500kg one might only give 220 N. This a way a ship that weighs 2000kg without an engine would actually be faster with the lighter engine. However, a heaver ship that weighs say, 4000kg to begin with would be faster with the heavier engine. While shopping for your ship, you'd notice a curve, and especially a point where the heavier engines become so heavy that they weigh you down more than they help.
doesn't make sense.
you're telling us that shoving a 440 cubic inch ford camino engine into a honda civic will be slower than the original engine?
or that the civic's tranny will blow up after 5m?
i think you have it reversed. same engine, different chassis will affect speed.
or perhaps you mean more like shoving a freightliner truck engine into a pinto will yield faster start times but slower top speed (and an explosion on rear-ending)?
you're telling us that shoving a 440 cubic inch ford camino engine into a honda civic will be slower than the original engine?
or that the civic's tranny will blow up after 5m?
i think you have it reversed. same engine, different chassis will affect speed.
or perhaps you mean more like shoving a freightliner truck engine into a pinto will yield faster start times but slower top speed (and an explosion on rear-ending)?
The idea has merit.
Just because you don't get it, uppercase, doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. It does make sense.
[ If you read up a bit on Tsiolkovsky's rocket equation / delta-v, / specific impulse, you realise that (in real astronautics), engines are heavy (mass) and that is a real engineering problem. But I digress - that is too technical for this.]
When I look at the ships stats, the key thing that determines acceleration is the Thrust / fully_laden_mass. Think of it at the power:weight ratio. (There is also an equivalent for rotational acceleration : Turning Torque / mass*length*inertia_tensor). Therefore, having greater Thrust is the key advantage, but only insofar as is increases your power:weight ratio.
Using his numbers, then:
the light ship is 2000kg unladen
the light engine is 2000kg and yields 200kN of Thrust (*)
the heavy engine is 2500kg and yields 220kN of Thrust
therefore the ship with the light engine will have a mass of 4000kg, a power:weight ratio of 50 and and acceleration of 50m/ss
the same ship with a heavy engine will have a mass of 4500kg, a power:weight ratio of 48.89 and an acceleration of 48.89m/ss
That same heavier engine, however, would be the better choice for a larger ship with an unladen weight of 4000kg.
You'd have to play around with the numbers, but I think this would result in very heavy engines with a substantial part of the total mass.
It's interesting you bring cubic inches into this (quite apart from the fact that it's not a Metric measurement). Because I think you're onto something there. Heavy duty engines should require a bigger ship frame, and chew up more cubic meters inside the ship. So, the larger ship has to trade off: lighter (smaller) engine, more cargo space; or heavier (larger) engine, less cargo space.
For example, maybe a Centaur is allocated 50cu internal space, to spend as you like on equipment (including storm radar extender, scanner, etc); the Atlas, 35cu, the Hog 20cu, and so on.
I for one would be up for that last one. It opens the door to custom crafted ships ....
I doubt that last one will be offered tho :-(
But, think about SuperMegaMynt idea, it has merit.
* strictly speaking all the Thrust forces in VO are labelled in N, but if you work it out they are 1000 times too small.
Just because you don't get it, uppercase, doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. It does make sense.
[ If you read up a bit on Tsiolkovsky's rocket equation / delta-v, / specific impulse, you realise that (in real astronautics), engines are heavy (mass) and that is a real engineering problem. But I digress - that is too technical for this.]
When I look at the ships stats, the key thing that determines acceleration is the Thrust / fully_laden_mass. Think of it at the power:weight ratio. (There is also an equivalent for rotational acceleration : Turning Torque / mass*length*inertia_tensor). Therefore, having greater Thrust is the key advantage, but only insofar as is increases your power:weight ratio.
Using his numbers, then:
the light ship is 2000kg unladen
the light engine is 2000kg and yields 200kN of Thrust (*)
the heavy engine is 2500kg and yields 220kN of Thrust
therefore the ship with the light engine will have a mass of 4000kg, a power:weight ratio of 50 and and acceleration of 50m/ss
the same ship with a heavy engine will have a mass of 4500kg, a power:weight ratio of 48.89 and an acceleration of 48.89m/ss
That same heavier engine, however, would be the better choice for a larger ship with an unladen weight of 4000kg.
You'd have to play around with the numbers, but I think this would result in very heavy engines with a substantial part of the total mass.
It's interesting you bring cubic inches into this (quite apart from the fact that it's not a Metric measurement). Because I think you're onto something there. Heavy duty engines should require a bigger ship frame, and chew up more cubic meters inside the ship. So, the larger ship has to trade off: lighter (smaller) engine, more cargo space; or heavier (larger) engine, less cargo space.
For example, maybe a Centaur is allocated 50cu internal space, to spend as you like on equipment (including storm radar extender, scanner, etc); the Atlas, 35cu, the Hog 20cu, and so on.
I for one would be up for that last one. It opens the door to custom crafted ships ....
I doubt that last one will be offered tho :-(
But, think about SuperMegaMynt idea, it has merit.
* strictly speaking all the Thrust forces in VO are labelled in N, but if you work it out they are 1000 times too small.
like the 440 block engine, all engines of that era were expressed in raw cubic inch. i merely used the number car aficionados would recognise.
an engine that doesn't produce enough power to move itself is not an engine.
thus the argument stands. the bigger the engine shouldn't make a tiny ship slower than a slightly slower engine on the same chassis.
and it's not like we talking about piston size here where mass & inertia can hinder on a cam shaft's speed--compare motorcycle engines: 600cc run much faster than 900c but have less torque. they compensate. but a 1000cc will outrun a 600 and a 900 in no sweat.
we're talking jet propulsion: engines that have no moving parts (well, in theory).
as for physical size, currently, engines have no size attributes so unless that is changed in the game mechanic, it's moot. we could (should?) probably talk about "engine quality" or "engine throughput" rather than size.
a porsche 911's 3.5l engine will produce more power than a 4.3l vortec engine and yet is smaller. so, we can assume all engines can git the same housing.
an engine that doesn't produce enough power to move itself is not an engine.
thus the argument stands. the bigger the engine shouldn't make a tiny ship slower than a slightly slower engine on the same chassis.
and it's not like we talking about piston size here where mass & inertia can hinder on a cam shaft's speed--compare motorcycle engines: 600cc run much faster than 900c but have less torque. they compensate. but a 1000cc will outrun a 600 and a 900 in no sweat.
we're talking jet propulsion: engines that have no moving parts (well, in theory).
as for physical size, currently, engines have no size attributes so unless that is changed in the game mechanic, it's moot. we could (should?) probably talk about "engine quality" or "engine throughput" rather than size.
a porsche 911's 3.5l engine will produce more power than a 4.3l vortec engine and yet is smaller. so, we can assume all engines can git the same housing.
UC, engine size is not at stake here so much as engine weight. Remember also that these are gravitic pulse engines or some such, and powering them could very well be a progressively less efficient and most definitely be nothing like a car engine =) In fact, we already know that they are progressively less efficient at higher velocities, it would make sense that they would also be progressively less efficient at larger output lvl's.
This means that a bigger engine will still always be more powerfull, but the power/weight ratio will be lower on the heavier engine. Thus a lighter engine will be more practical on a lighter ship, and a heavier engine more practical on a heavier ship.
I'm not sure how hard this would be to balance, but it's worth thinking about =)
This means that a bigger engine will still always be more powerfull, but the power/weight ratio will be lower on the heavier engine. Thus a lighter engine will be more practical on a lighter ship, and a heavier engine more practical on a heavier ship.
I'm not sure how hard this would be to balance, but it's worth thinking about =)
Engine maximum sizes would be neat, and could help balance things a little a better. Split up in three categories, small, medium, and large, it'd ensure that you wouldn't get combinations that were too weird, like a a 'Moth engine on a Centurion. There would still of course be light, large engines, and heavy, small engines, but to a lesser degree than if every ship could equip every engine.
Also, the limited size could very well be an explanation for why the denser engines are progressively less efficient. As you try and cram more and more stuff into the same amount of space, the output will of course be greater, but will probably be more expensive to manufacture, and difficult besides.
Also, the limited size could very well be an explanation for why the denser engines are progressively less efficient. As you try and cram more and more stuff into the same amount of space, the output will of course be greater, but will probably be more expensive to manufacture, and difficult besides.
Hey UC
I happen to be a motorsport aficionado; I do recognise the 440 cubic inch reference [ as a quintessentially american big-block V8, sounded beautiful :-) ]
You know as I do, that smaller displacement normally-aspirated 4-stroke petrol engines are more efficent than larger displacement engines of the same basic design. By efficient I mean both that they have a higher power output per cubic centimeter of displacement; and they have a higher power:weight ratio. (This scaling relation also holds true for other types of internal-combustion engines).
To give a motorbike example, the 250cc does not acheive twice the power of the 125cc, but less; and the 500cc does not acheive twice the power of the 250cc, but less. They all have significantly higher power:weight and power:displacement ratios than F1's 2.4L
(but considerably less than much simpler engines of 5cc made for model aeroplanes...)
But all this about internal combustion engines is a digression...
[nice forum-chatting with you, tho :-) ]
What is being suggested for VO: a selection of engines (like batteries) with different power:weight ratios (and possibly tradeoff of other factors too: power drain? ...).
I just thought the idea merited further thought :-) rather than
> " doesn't make sense "
Having limits on the housing size/layout to acutally "fit" in a spaceframe, is reasonable; you need some mechanism to avoid fitting a "big-block" in a Centurion X-p doh!
I doubt that the G.S. Devs will introduce this suggestion to basic ship selection and equipping;
However it becomes very reasonable to expect something similar to be designed into the "crafting" of new ships - Crafting is apparently on the way ... :-))
I happen to be a motorsport aficionado; I do recognise the 440 cubic inch reference [ as a quintessentially american big-block V8, sounded beautiful :-) ]
You know as I do, that smaller displacement normally-aspirated 4-stroke petrol engines are more efficent than larger displacement engines of the same basic design. By efficient I mean both that they have a higher power output per cubic centimeter of displacement; and they have a higher power:weight ratio. (This scaling relation also holds true for other types of internal-combustion engines).
To give a motorbike example, the 250cc does not acheive twice the power of the 125cc, but less; and the 500cc does not acheive twice the power of the 250cc, but less. They all have significantly higher power:weight and power:displacement ratios than F1's 2.4L
(but considerably less than much simpler engines of 5cc made for model aeroplanes...)
But all this about internal combustion engines is a digression...
[nice forum-chatting with you, tho :-) ]
What is being suggested for VO: a selection of engines (like batteries) with different power:weight ratios (and possibly tradeoff of other factors too: power drain? ...).
I just thought the idea merited further thought :-) rather than
> " doesn't make sense "
Having limits on the housing size/layout to acutally "fit" in a spaceframe, is reasonable; you need some mechanism to avoid fitting a "big-block" in a Centurion X-p doh!
I doubt that the G.S. Devs will introduce this suggestion to basic ship selection and equipping;
However it becomes very reasonable to expect something similar to be designed into the "crafting" of new ships - Crafting is apparently on the way ... :-))
hah!
Not having read up on Tsiolkovsky (yet...), I'm all for engines playing a critical role in the outfitting of a ship.
I do not think that cargo space should have anything to do with how ships can be outfitted, though. Let's keep those two characteristics separate. Not that engine size should not matter, though, this would be fun as well.
I do not think that cargo space should have anything to do with how ships can be outfitted, though. Let's keep those two characteristics separate. Not that engine size should not matter, though, this would be fun as well.
The rocket engines are based on fuel and whatnot. More fuel is more thrust over time, but more weight for the rocket to work with. It doesn't really apply to internal combustion engines and definitely not to gravitic drives.
However, having engines reintroduced as parts with a significant part of the mass of a ship, spaceframe interior space allocations(For weapons ports, engines, and cargo room), and differing power to weight ratios per engine are all good ideas and would do much to make ships much more customizable for a specific pilot. As with everything, it'll need balance, but it could add a ton of depth to the game's fighting. Mix that in with our large/small hardpoint system and we could end up with some very interesting setups as well as a way to easily shove gadgets and gizmos into the spaceframe(Some will need hardpoints, others just space. And possibly some extra wiring for a meager cost)
Whether or not cargo room is included in spaceframe calculations doesn't matter to me. However, having to choose between purchasing various cargo bay modules to fit into the spaceframe or EWAR or countermeasures or etc. would be quite interesting. You wouldn't know if that Behemoth you've been tracking for a few sectors is a cargo boat, or a comedy EWAR boat. Again, forcing players to make choices like that will help diversify ship layouts, and ultimately, enrich VO's combat system.
However, having engines reintroduced as parts with a significant part of the mass of a ship, spaceframe interior space allocations(For weapons ports, engines, and cargo room), and differing power to weight ratios per engine are all good ideas and would do much to make ships much more customizable for a specific pilot. As with everything, it'll need balance, but it could add a ton of depth to the game's fighting. Mix that in with our large/small hardpoint system and we could end up with some very interesting setups as well as a way to easily shove gadgets and gizmos into the spaceframe(Some will need hardpoints, others just space. And possibly some extra wiring for a meager cost)
Whether or not cargo room is included in spaceframe calculations doesn't matter to me. However, having to choose between purchasing various cargo bay modules to fit into the spaceframe or EWAR or countermeasures or etc. would be quite interesting. You wouldn't know if that Behemoth you've been tracking for a few sectors is a cargo boat, or a comedy EWAR boat. Again, forcing players to make choices like that will help diversify ship layouts, and ultimately, enrich VO's combat system.
If we're talking cargo modules, okay. But there should be limits according to the ship frame, so that they cannot exceed set amounts that vary from ship type to ship type.
I think the variants as we have them now should persist, for those who do not have time or inclination to do such tweaking.
I think the variants as we have them now should persist, for those who do not have time or inclination to do such tweaking.
If someone could pull up the numbers from the engines in the past, that'd be a real help.
No, there was pretty much only a choice between the heavy engine(for anything combat) or the effecient engine. They were balanced, but it wasn't a very diverse system.
Then I think it'd be good if the chasis of a ship affected stats to a certain degree, by just adding or subtracting a little bit of thrust, power drain, turbo etc. If that were the case, here's my suggestion for all the engine numbers. Basically I just tried to take the lowest common denominator for every ship variant's stats.
Thrust...Turbo...Drain...Size...Weight
140 N - 150 m/s - 46/s - 06 m - 1200 kg
180 N - 220 m/s - 55/s - 10 m - 2600 kg
220 N - 210 m/s - 50/s - 10 m - 3400 kg
300 N - 200 m/s - 50/s - 12 m - 5100 kg
380 N - 200 m/s - 50/s - 18 m - 7200 kg
440 N - 200 m/s - 55/s - 18 m - 8400 kg
550 N - 220 m/s - 50/s - 26 m - 12000 kg (But moths being so bulky would turbo 60m/s less with any engine anywho.)
Thrust...Turbo...Drain...Size...Weight
140 N - 150 m/s - 46/s - 06 m - 1200 kg
180 N - 220 m/s - 55/s - 10 m - 2600 kg
220 N - 210 m/s - 50/s - 10 m - 3400 kg
300 N - 200 m/s - 50/s - 12 m - 5100 kg
380 N - 200 m/s - 50/s - 18 m - 7200 kg
440 N - 200 m/s - 55/s - 18 m - 8400 kg
550 N - 220 m/s - 50/s - 26 m - 12000 kg (But moths being so bulky would turbo 60m/s less with any engine anywho.)
So basically, judging from the mere size, a bus would only be able to fit the 140 N engine? We already have EC variants that have 210 N of thrust.
Or did you mean that for each variant, these are the least powerful engines available, and you can fit engines with varying characteristics, while retaining the same size?
Or did you mean that for each variant, these are the least powerful engines available, and you can fit engines with varying characteristics, while retaining the same size?
I think what he's trying to say is that any ship with a length the size listed would be able to equip such an engine. So a bus, being 10 meters long (according to vo-wiki) could fit the first three engines. Kind of odd that an engine would take up the entire space of your ship though.
Why does it have to be only one engine? Why not break it into two separate engines, the main engine that gives standard maneuvering force, and the turbo engine that powers when turbo is activated.
First off, it would explain why we can’t turn when using the turbo. Power can only go to one engine at a time.
Second, it would give more built in configuration options for ships. Traders would pick a heavy turbo that gave them the best chance of running quickly, while fighters that don’t use turbo much could elect to run with a very small, or non-existent one and reduce mass for agility. Obviously many combinations would be possible.
Third, more options for types of turbo would be possible. Currently all turbos apply 3XN of the standard thrust directly forward. By tweaking both the N and the top speed, many possibilities open up. Everything from high N light weight high energy consumption for combat, to heavy weight high N less drain on battery. This leads to the fourth item.
Fourth, it would allow the building of a turbo line that had the ability of long in sector travel. Incarnate along time ago asked about changes to thrust and turbo here ( http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/13242#166688 ) with the intent that “Why do I want to make it easier to move within sectors? Well, for one thing.. there's a tremendous amount of "space" that is currently unused, that I would like to make use of. Sectors tend to have one and only one point of interest (station, wormhole, etc).”
A series of turbo engines that had extremely high N output (2500N), were very massive,(50,000KG) and a greatly increased the top speed to the 2,000ms+ range you could facilitate the use of the massive amount of space available. Theses settings would accelerate in a strait line at about the same speed as current turbos on a light ship (2000KG starting weight), but make fighting difficult to impossible, so you would only outfit them when you planned on making these types of trips.
Call them dark matter drives, or black hole drives, or something that explained the mass/size ratio.
First off, it would explain why we can’t turn when using the turbo. Power can only go to one engine at a time.
Second, it would give more built in configuration options for ships. Traders would pick a heavy turbo that gave them the best chance of running quickly, while fighters that don’t use turbo much could elect to run with a very small, or non-existent one and reduce mass for agility. Obviously many combinations would be possible.
Third, more options for types of turbo would be possible. Currently all turbos apply 3XN of the standard thrust directly forward. By tweaking both the N and the top speed, many possibilities open up. Everything from high N light weight high energy consumption for combat, to heavy weight high N less drain on battery. This leads to the fourth item.
Fourth, it would allow the building of a turbo line that had the ability of long in sector travel. Incarnate along time ago asked about changes to thrust and turbo here ( http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/13242#166688 ) with the intent that “Why do I want to make it easier to move within sectors? Well, for one thing.. there's a tremendous amount of "space" that is currently unused, that I would like to make use of. Sectors tend to have one and only one point of interest (station, wormhole, etc).”
A series of turbo engines that had extremely high N output (2500N), were very massive,(50,000KG) and a greatly increased the top speed to the 2,000ms+ range you could facilitate the use of the massive amount of space available. Theses settings would accelerate in a strait line at about the same speed as current turbos on a light ship (2000KG starting weight), but make fighting difficult to impossible, so you would only outfit them when you planned on making these types of trips.
Call them dark matter drives, or black hole drives, or something that explained the mass/size ratio.
If I remember right, turbo applies the exact same thrust to the ship, however, the top speed is just increased and the whole logarithmic acceleration dealie kicks in and you accelerate relatively faster.
I'm not sure where you got the 3XN bit.
I'm not sure where you got the 3XN bit.
I don't see an EC class ship, 10m in length, fitting an engine that is as long as itself. It just doesn't add up.
All I meant was that your ship had to be atleast that long to equip the engine in question. Meters isn't really a measure for that sort of thing anyways.
But ugh, PsyRa's idea is brilliant. It would explain why light ships tend to have innefficient but fast turbos, where heavier ships have effecient, but slow ones.
The simpliest way I see of portraying that is if the one engine determined thrust, and the second determined max speed, at the price of energy efficiency. Both those adding weight, they ultimately determine acceleration. That being said, one can see a 3 point system of balance that seems to fit well with the ships in VO, since a series of a ship will generally have two, but lack one of those aspects. This is especially true for the Warthog.
But ugh, PsyRa's idea is brilliant. It would explain why light ships tend to have innefficient but fast turbos, where heavier ships have effecient, but slow ones.
The simpliest way I see of portraying that is if the one engine determined thrust, and the second determined max speed, at the price of energy efficiency. Both those adding weight, they ultimately determine acceleration. That being said, one can see a 3 point system of balance that seems to fit well with the ships in VO, since a series of a ship will generally have two, but lack one of those aspects. This is especially true for the Warthog.