Not a member yet? Why not Sign up today
Create an account  

  • 5 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
 
Guaibee's Useful (and experimental) Fuel Engine Platform

#11
Hey Guaibee, just wanted to say that I like the work you put in it, it's nice to see somebody collecting engine designs and learning from them. I very much appreciate the work and will definately use your platform as reference when building ships Smile Thanks!
Reply

#12
(2016-12-27, 08:16 PM)Krougal Wrote: Yeah, I am never sure where it is safe to move the exhaust around. My own tinkering with the blueline (trying to shrink or extend) was disasterous, so I had left it alone, but I typically rotate it and pipe it out the bottom of the hull.
Thanks! This is much more useful.

I'm probably better at fixing/modifying/improving engine designs than at actually coming up with new ones, as everything came from taking apart other people's engines and trying to piece them back together in a slightly different way (for better or for worse). Now with the linear exhaust-inline chains being the optimal setup, there are ways to manipulate the arrangements such that the exhaust enters and leaves any of a few turbos in the chain and still have them go through every inline. Sometimes it takes a long time to figure out, but it's satisfying to see them work Big Grin

(2016-12-27, 11:25 PM)Eagle Wrote: Hey Guaibee, just wanted to say that I like the work you put in it, it's nice to see somebody collecting engine designs and learning from them. I very much appreciate the work and will definately use your platform as reference when building ships Smile Thanks!

It's always glad to see good use of the platform and the designs on top Big Grin I was very confused trying to build my first engine (at the last days of supercharger spam) and the changes didn't really help, and there came a day when I was very very annoyed by my own inability and decided to figure some stuff out (the Unified Engine Raft was a good place to start investigations). It was quite the learning experience, and hopefully they haven't gone to waste.
[Image: 50157_s.png]
[Image: 50157_v.png]
Reply

#13
(2016-12-28, 02:43 AM)Guaibee Wrote: I'm probably better at fixing/modifying/improving engine designs than at actually coming up with new ones, as everything came from taking apart other people's engines and trying to piece them back together in a slightly different way (for better or for worse). Now with the linear exhaust-inline chains being the optimal setup, there are ways to manipulate the arrangements such that the exhaust enters and leaves any of a few turbos in the chain and still have them go through every inline. Sometimes it takes a long time to figure out, but it's satisfying to see them work Big Grin

So had any luck scaling it up to a 7200hp model?
1288ppf really seems the best bang for the buck unless you need really high power density and then it seems like something in the 400s is what you have to settle for, while the "green" engines are just too low power density to be practical (I did experiment with half-Phouch and half-Fooks).

And then there's small jet aircraft where it seems there is no getting away from the dual injector 1 cyclinder.
Reply

#14
1288PPF is achieved when each carburettor has exactly 2 max efficiency inlines attached, and I guess it fits nicely into a 5x5 cross section; 400PPF is for ~1 max efficiency inline per carb, so it's kind of optimal for the high power criss-cross cylinder/carb setup where the central carb only has one open face for turbo attachment.

For small jet aircraft, there is no escaping from injectors if you want high-ish power in a small space (either 2 injectors on a cylinder or 1 injectors to 2 cylinders, depending on the space available).
As for scaling up the engines, the blueline-replacement is extendable (the engine in front of it on the platform being an example), the power won't be a multiple of 3600 (but rather 3200n+400, because the extra 400 power is from the head alone... it may be doable if I manage to put the head arrangement to the tail and pipe them through) but as usual the PPBB should still increase with length.
Engine tetris at 7x7 cross section is a bit more difficult for high power ones, if that is the meaning of scaling up (where you want the cylinders and carbs all bundled up together to maximise power density, but still leave a face open for inlines), I'll have to experiment a bit to see if it's at all viable.
[Image: 50157_s.png]
[Image: 50157_v.png]
Reply

#15
I don't really think you need to extend engines since you can share exhausts, you get good results just tiling them together. Pipe the exhaust of one engine into the next in a long line. This has the benefit of being several smaller engines so they ramp quicker. Also makes it slightly less susceptible to damage as more engine blocks to break, of course though, hit a pipe and the vast majority of the cylinders are going to overheat anyway in either type.
Reply

#16
Sometimes it may be worth it to eek out that tiny bit more PPBB with a larger extended engine, but a lower maximum power for each fuel engine generator is quite beneficial for the ultra-efficient engines down at the Green zone.

New update:
a new 7x7x6 engine in the Green zone, and other engines in there have been separated into smaller generator units, so that with the way fuel usage is calculated, now they all consume no fuel at all under full load;
and additions to Magenta and Yellow zone, and other fixes to existing designs.
[Image: 50157_s.png]
[Image: 50157_v.png]
Reply

#17
(2016-12-28, 09:11 PM)Aner-Dyfan Wrote: I don't really think you need to extend engines since you can share exhausts, you get good results just tiling them together. Pipe the exhaust of one engine into the next in a long line. This has the benefit of being several smaller engines so they ramp quicker. Also makes it slightly less susceptible to damage as more engine blocks to break, of course though, hit a pipe and the vast majority of the cylinders are going to overheat anyway in either type.

Well the thing I've found with multiple engines is the fuel efficiency tends to drop. For example I had a ship with 2 bluelines, and I did some tinkering with the engine settings to try to make the 2nd engine run only when the LAMS needed power. In the end it turned out to not be worth the trouble. Granted it is a bit hard to gauge the effect of the ramp-up so you are probably right. Nice job on my new engine of choice Smile
Reply

#18
Small inline engines usually have just enough exhaust to get to the designed fuel efficiency at full load, so at lower rpm the fuel efficiency is likely to drop. With more engines and no ACB to turn them on sequentially, the multiple engines share the load and result in worse fuel efficiency. I guess the subsequent engine drive can be controlled to turn on/off when the first engine is running at full load, and so on.
Anyway, a new update coming up (again full of fixes and improvements, with a couple new engines thrown in).
[Image: 50157_s.png]
[Image: 50157_v.png]
Reply

#19
(2017-01-01, 02:18 PM)Guaibee Wrote: Small inline engines usually have just enough exhaust to get to the designed fuel efficiency at full load, so at lower rpm the fuel efficiency is likely to drop. With more engines and no ACB to turn them on sequentially, the multiple engines share the load and result in worse fuel efficiency. I guess the subsequent engine drive can be controlled to turn on/off when the first engine is running at full load, and so on.
Anyway, a new update coming up (again full of fixes and improvements, with a couple new engines thrown in).

Well the Blueline I think actually got slightly higher ppf at mid rpm, or maybe it was just where it was in the acceptable range. I might have been using some other engine at the time, maybe with some superchargers (probably the 2800hp 5x5x5 I used to use) but anyway....I didn't try chaining the exhausts from 1 to feed the other.

At any rate, I can't really recommend it (trying to make different engines be on/off) because in battle it can become very impractical. So like 1 engine gets taken out and the ship is dead in the water because the ACB can't adjust itself for that, even though 1 engine is perfectly fine. Especially since the laser pumps either draw 0 or as much as possible.
Reply

#20
The segmentation of ultra-efficient engines at Green zone opened up new possibilities for achieving 0 fuel consumption, combined with suggestions/requests for 2 width/height engines, led to the creation of two engines using the same concept:
Fuel consumption is considered 0 for an engine if the fuel use per second is lower than 0.05; thus the PPF requirement is lower for smaller engines. The 'Doormat' is a 7x2x3n engine that exploits this, and achieves 0 fuel usage despite having only 3 turbos per carb and at ~3k PPF (at 12 length); the 'Carpet' is a 5x2x3n engine with slightly higher power density while requiring quite a bit more length for 0 fuel usage (21 length at ~4k PPF), achieving 6.667PPBB, highest of all the ultra-efficient engines.
Although these two engines have less than 5K PPF at the shortest useful length, the 0 fuel usage achieved is sufficient for their placement into the Green zone. Further rearrangements may occur when other engines are found to also achieve 0 fuel usage by this method.
The 2 engines, among other fixes, are up on the latest update.

After tinkering a bit with ACB settings, the contribution of a 0-rpm engine to the total power fraction makes it very complex and probably impractical for the sequential activation of several engines for achieving redundance, but it should remain useful for constantly varying power demands as long as the engine ramps up quickly enough.
[Image: 50157_s.png]
[Image: 50157_v.png]
Reply



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)