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

  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
 
Make steam engines need smokestacks

#21
(2018-04-12, 10:00 AM)Eagle Wrote:
(2018-04-12, 08:58 AM)Unhinged mechanic Wrote:
(2017-07-12, 01:47 PM)Eagle Wrote: +1 for the Smokestack suggestion. Although A closed loop option (nuclear powered?) is very interesting, especially for stealth- or spacecraft.

Efficiency should be slightly better then fuel engines with a good refinery, but slightly less space efficient.
What? No. Efficiency should still be poorer than fuel engines, what else would be the point to fitting a fuel engine anymore on a large ship? Like modern day navies, the choice should be between a normal dieselfuel setup, or a gasturbine engine (in our case steam) that will power the ship. The first has a lower powerdensity but is cheaper to run, the latter more powerdense but more expensive. FtD should be no different.

What would be the point of even having steam engines in the game if fuel engines take up less space AND are more efficient?

Your realisim argument is silly. Not only would steam engines being more efficient than internal combustion engines be BY FAR the least unrealistic thing in this game, but the reason that navies stopped using steam (and they haven't, not entirely), had little or nothing to do with fuel efficiency, and a great deal more to do with steam engines being difficult to maintain, heavy, and potentially extremely dangerous (the amount of energy contained in a steam boiler running at full power is enormous. If it wasn't full of water, the boiler would melt).

I think we got lost in translation here. The sentence "Efficiency should be slightly better then fuel engines with a good refinery, but slightly less space efficient." is quoted from the OP, and below that is my reply. I don't at all think that the efficiency of steam should be greater than ICEs, quite the opposite.

No, I understand perfectly. You are saying that steam engines should be less efficient with both fuel and space, and I'm saying that if that were the case they would have no point.
A great nation is not a nation that rules the world. A great nation is a nation that realizes they don't have to.
Reply

#22
That's not what I said -_-
Procrastination level is over 9000
Reply

#23
Just going to intervene to make sure the argument doesn't escalate:

Eagle proposed that "The first [fuel engine] has a lower powerdensity but is cheaper to run, the latter [steam engine] more powerdense but more expensive. FtD should be no different."

I think that the realism argument makes some sense for determining which one takes which role.
(2017-04-20, 06:54 PM)Hikari Wrote: I made something that has an impact of a type 1a supernova. The projectile already breaks laws of physics by going way past the speed of light.

2000mm HE Dakka Enthusiast
Reply

#24
Steam engines take hours to get started IRL, that's one of the major reasons behind the shift to IC engines... I don't think we can really duplicate that :p
Poke my boat! mostly pre-2.0 learning & catalogue thread - Update: Heavy & light tanks 07/04/18 for 2.1. 6 ships made 2.0 aware. No more post-processing! finally! but now I can't read the forum.
Reply

#25
We could probably duplicate steam engines tendency to explode if we wanted to.
A great nation is not a nation that rules the world. A great nation is a nation that realizes they don't have to.
Reply

#26
Indeed, current steam engines are, well...

They are at least more complete then fuel engines were in the days of "drumstick engines," but they are still rather incomplete.

+1 for needing smokestacks.

However, perhaps make it like fuel engines, where you still get at least partial effect if you just put the exhaust pointing into the hold, and for full effect it needs to be pointing out of the vehicle.

For practicality purposes, lets say that smoke stacks increase the rate at which a boiler can burn fuel (and that without it, a boiler would be like 5% as burnable as they are now). Adding more smoke outputs increases the rate of burn (to diminishing returns), and thus also the rate at which steam pressure builds.


There could also be air intake parts, which basically serve to increase the amount of air that goes into a steam engine (and which also increase burn rates, but with a separate diminishing return to the smoke stack one).


There could also be a part that is, um, a steam engine version of a turbo or supercharger? That is, a part that suppoedly compresses the air before it enters the burning chamber. Did they ever try to do that in real life? Like, try to compress the burn area to match the pressure of the steam, so that the steam and smoke could be combined and both drive a turbine or something? Or maybe just to increase the burn rate or burn temperature? I mean, it sounds like a recipe for making them explode more often, but...
.
Your giant expensive powerful warship of doom can be destroyed by dropping an anvil on it. One day, I will finally have enough engines to actually make a ship without stopping to make more engines.
Reply

#27
(2018-07-09, 07:21 PM)KuramaFox Wrote: There could also be a part that is, um, a steam engine version of a turbo or supercharger? That is, a part that suppoedly compresses the air before it enters the burning chamber. Did they ever try to do that in real life? Like, try to compress the burn area to match the pressure of the steam, so that the steam and smoke could be combined and both drive a turbine or something? Or maybe just to increase the burn rate or burn temperature? I mean, it sounds like a recipe for making them explode more often, but...
.

There were inlet blowers for burners.

Water or methanol for that matter injection was a case in internal combustion engines, AFAIK there were no steam exhaust systems like you proposed.
Reply

#28
I agree with the smokestack idea in general and more specifically with KuramaFox about smoke stacks being required for better efficiency/functioning but not required for the steam engine to work. Fuel engines still work without exhausts so that would make that dynamic equal.

And I also think the boilers should blow up when damaged. Possibly even pistons doing damage to anything immediately next to them when they break. Because they're a moving mechanical part I figure they might cause a little damage. Nothing excessive though.

And in the end I still wish I could make an marine turbine mod to throw in a modern style naval engine. Arguably that's where steam is at in the game but it doesn't quite scratch the itch. And that engine idea would definitely be balanced out by requiring an intake and exhaust system to function effectively.
My DeviantArt Page Full of Shenanigans
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
[Image: ljhYQd1l.jpg]
Reply

#29
Eh, the only part that would need to blow up or cause damage when destroyed would be the boilers, honestly. An explosion mechanic is all well and good anyway. Supposedly, there are some issues with exploding parts that are the reason why there isn't, say, larger ammo blocks than 1x1x1, but if those get ironed out then it would be possible to apply them to the boilers too.
.
Your giant expensive powerful warship of doom can be destroyed by dropping an anvil on it. One day, I will finally have enough engines to actually make a ship without stopping to make more engines.
Reply



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)