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

  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
 
150k BHP Engine for Dreadnought

#1
Hey peeps,

I'm still pecking away at a Dreadnought build, tad big and a tad expensive... Just a tad. I'm just about at the point where the only task left is to shield it properly, but shielding a 259Lx31W ship takes a lot of engine power. I currently have about 161k BHP engine power. All fuel engines, about half of the total power is carburetor generated (and yes, half is injector, I'm not always environmentally friendly when I'm trying to generate that kind of power in such a small build). The odd thing is just how fast this thing chews through fuel. Even just sitting in place (which draws maybe 2k power to keep the beast stable) it still drains stupidly fast and I'm wondering either if I've miscalculated or if the build could stand an overhaul to use steam engines, which are confusing af and I've generally left alone; I just use small units for electrical power as real steam engines seem really inconvenient in terms of space. The tetris is ugly and annoying. Engines really aren't my thing so I figured I'd check with the masters of the craft. I'll post the blueprint here for your enjoyment. Even without the paint job or the shielding, the firepower on this thing... is a somewhat guilty pleasure of mine. At least when my beast isn't smoking up my bedroom from how hot it has to run. At some point I'll put the actual build up on the forums if it gets finished, but I'm dropping it here specifically for engine work.


.blueprint   Event Horizon Dreadnought.blueprint (Size: 1.48 MB / Downloads: 62)
“Immature artists imitate. Mature artists steal.”—Lionel Trilling
Reply

#2
Would love to see some pics in its current state, I know you would probably say download the BP, I dont know how well the pc can handle that size ship. I would probably use a mix of steam to charge batts when needed so it would be controlled with ACB's and as I do not know your current setup for forwards propulsion I think for big ships if you use dedi blades with extensions may also look a tad better and perhaps more speed due to the fact that you cannot place anything behind a propeller for 7-8 blocks and if you make a dedi blade with 7-8 extensions with motor driven on may use less power? not much but every drop may help
Reply

#3
Fuel is burned on a per-unit-of-power basis. The more power you consume, the more fuel you will nom, so when it gets big like that you are better off just using a larger more efficient engine as you will consume so much volume in fuel tanks its no longer worth it.
Reply

#4
(2017-11-18, 05:39 PM)SynthTwo Wrote: Fuel is burned on a per-unit-of-power basis. The more power you consume, the more fuel you will nom, so when it gets big like that you are better off just using a larger more efficient engine as you will consume so much volume in fuel tanks its no longer worth it.

That's exactly what I find odd. The thing only uses about 1000-2000 power to run the 16-20 large propellers on the sides that keep it balanced and high enough in the water when stationary. I'm tempted to add a blueline engine somewhere so as to reduce the need for that kind of power. My hope is that the fuel drain would be fairly slight when doing nothing more than sitting or moving and only become severe when in a combat scenario and only then really chew through the 800k fuel reserves. I've also had a bit of a bug where my vehicles will loose all of their fuel in build mode for no obvious reason, so I'll go from 80% fuel to 0 and all of my cylinders will overheat with a loud bang. When I investigate either the vehicle is sinking or the fortress (that happens a lot too...) is taking damage because it has no power. Could also be that the ship is drawing power from the injector engines before drawing from the carburetor engines. I'll take another look when I get a moment.
“Immature artists imitate. Mature artists steal.”—Lionel Trilling
Reply

#5
(2017-11-18, 01:11 PM)lordmuck Wrote: Would love to see some pics in its current state, I know you would probably say download the BP, I dont know how well the pc can handle that size ship. I would probably use a mix of steam to charge batts when needed so it would be controlled with ACB's and as I do not know your current setup for forwards propulsion I think for big ships if you use dedi blades with extensions may also look a tad better and perhaps more speed due to the fact that you cannot place anything behind a propeller for 7-8 blocks and if you make a dedi blade with 7-8 extensions with motor driven on may use less power? not much but every drop may help

I'll post some pics when I get the chance. I know what you mean about the size, the thing is about 32,000 blocks right now. My mac gets VERY grumpy with me when I'm working on it, even when it's the only thing in sight. I can tell you that I do use steam chargers for the batteries (got about 8 PACs total on the beams), and that I sympathize with how badly the thing looks. I've got something like 20-40 large props on the back of the ship... doesn't look too terribly good at the moment.
“Immature artists imitate. Mature artists steal.”—Lionel Trilling
Reply

#6
Ok, Imma post some pics and include some more deets:

The power source of the ship is a combination of ten carburetor engines and four injection engines:

10x Carburetor Engine:
  • 8,800 Power
  • 34 Cylinders
  • 88 Carburetors
  • 22 Superchargers
  • 108 Turbochargers
  • 107 FPS @ 100%
  • 7.1 fps @ 10%
  • 82 power per fuel minimum
   
   

4x Injection Engine:
  • 18,400 Power
  • 92 Cylinders
  • 92 Injectors
  • 242.9 FPS @ 100%
  • 17 fps @ 10%
  • 76 power per fuel minimum
   
   

Yeah... I know they're nothing too terribly spectacular. I notice in part that for some reason... The ship prioritizes using the 14 engines equally. I'd really like it to use the carb engines first and only draw on the injectors once that power is genuinely needed. I'll take a closer look at the sliders... By the by, here's some pics of the propulsion, the engine core, and the balance propulsion:
   
   
   

And here some photos of the build, including general shots and photos without the structural components:
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   

Quick and dirty deets:
  • 2m metal hull structure
  • 1m metal/heavy armor inner hull structure
  • all inner components are shielded with ERA
  • all electronics have local surge protectors
  • lots of smoke deployers
  • strong LAMs center, double core with one center on each side
  • sonar buoy deployment
  • needs shield installation still
  • max speed of 18m/s, slow but capable turning
  • 500mm advanced cannons with 4 barrels and about 16 rpm per barrel x4: 16 total 500mm guns with a total of about 120rpm. Fires 4m shells with double shaped charge head, 2x HE, inertial detonators
  • 150mm advanced cannons 1500 rpm rapid fire x2 with 20 armor piercing sabot shells
  • 4x AA APC cannons EMP
  • 4x piercing APC cannons
  • enough battery power to fire all eight PACs at once and maintain fire
  • 3x double simple laser turrets
  • ~120 Frag/EMP Lua guided missiles, vertical launch, fires in about 16 missile volleys. Very pretty to watch.
  • 3x torpedo turrets under the hull
  • huge redundancy for laser/munitions detection and target detection/tracking.
  • 3x A.I. cores
  • Steam Battery chargers + 160k BHP fuel engines for power.
  • propulsion is fully balanced and set, hydrofoil and propeller balance driven from PIDs

About 260m long, 30m wide, 41m tall (at the tallest), 800k fuel, 12k ammo, ~32000 blocks, currently 705k RP.

My goal was to build something roughly twice as powerful as my largest combat vehicle, which is cheaper but only somewhat less powerful than the Thyr. The hope for this build is to end up with something that makes the Thyr look like a joke and might be capable (in a pinch and with minimal support) of taking on two Thyrs simultaneously. I doubt it'll be capable of taking on two at once, but the current firepower:cost is pretty much what I wanted. Favorite test memory was against a Jacob's Delight. I had wrecked the entire hull by the time half of the first volley of missiles had hit. I know Jacob's Delight is a cheapo test target, but it was so much fun to watch... in slomo.
“Immature artists imitate. Mature artists steal.”—Lionel Trilling
Reply

#7
One possible issue... Just possible... Is that all of my exhaust is funneled into a single pipe... Mayhaps I need to have a few out the sides?
“Immature artists imitate. Mature artists steal.”—Lionel Trilling
Reply

#8
Some notes on syntax and standards:

just say how much power it has, maybe i'm must ill-informed but I've never seen BHP.

engines are usually rated in 2 ways: power per fuel (PPF) at 100% (or a fraction of that) and power per volume (or power per block).
fuel per second has no meaning in that if you give me the power per fuel I can calculate the fuel per second but if you just give me fuel per second I have to run a set of calculations to compare it to any other engine because fuel per second is a function of the load on the engine, the engine efficiency, and the power-output of the engine.

My notes on your ship's power system:
-I don't know what the PPF on your engines are but for a typical large 'battleship' engine you typically see 300-400 PPF (usually about 350) and close to 35-40 PPB. This represents the 'best' engine in the sense that it gets the most power, in the smallest space, for the best efficiency. Your engines look like 5x5xX engines so if they're much different from about 350 PPF at max load i'd consider swapping them.

-fuel injectors are the worst engine type. when steam came out a few of the engine masters did some comparisons. steam is generally more efficient AND produces significantly more power in far less space.

-for large ships you want to keep your engines operating at maximum load unless you are trying to have reserve power. You also want to scale power generation to your current need per engine. Since your ship only needs 2000 power to idle then you only want a single engine turned on. This allows it to run at, or nearly at max power, which is more efficient. Here's some sample math.
-take a 4400 power engine that gets 350 PPF at 100% and 200 PPF at 50%. At 2k power it is going to burn 10 fuel per second
-take 8 4400 power engines that get 80 PPF at 5% load. they will split that 2k power between them and each will then create 250 power at 80 PPF. combined they will burn 25 fuel per second.
So how do you balance power? There are 2 ways
-use ACBs to control individual engines, turning them off when you have power at certain levels and turning them back on when the power use increases
-use engines to charge batteries and then run everything off electric engines. You then just use ACBs that switch on enough engines to keep the battery charge up. this method is generally less complicated and more reliable than using ACBs only.

Exhaust into a single pipe could be a small issue if the pipe is damaged such that it becomes 'blocked' I generally don't vent my exhaust so it's down to preference I guess.

Additional notes:
-I would place repair bots internally, in a closed box. They repair faster especially in high-block battles where the system has difficulty pathfinding for the bots
-I would use laser shields instead of smoke. it's much cheaper.
-Do not bring forth an argument as fact that can be disproven with a 10 minute Google search.
Reply

#9
The simple 5x5x9 engines are claiming 400 PPF, but I'm checking them without any strain. There also appears to be a difference between power per fuel and power per fuel per second with the former being fairly low and the latter fairly high. Putting in ACB control to get them on and off should be simple enough, and I could run a simple blueline to handle the stationary mode. As for the injection engines, I'm not so much a fan either. I used the injections because I was running out of hull space and because steam is still more or less a complete mystery to me. I've never much liked how they change their power output depending on the power demand and their run-up time is really inconvenient, but I'm happy to give them another once-over. I have yet to see a post on the forums that makes any kind of real sense of them beyond my own noodlings. I threw together a simple 3x3x7 steam engine block capable of putting out about 6.2k power at 100% burn and with enough internal ACBs to allow the block to be turned on and off depending on set parameters. The entire grid is filled and I can't think of a better way of using the space in terms of the tetris. The size of the design should make it fairly capable of replacing the injection engines. That said, if you know of any posts that I've missed that have good suggestions for legit steam design other than simple battery charging I'd be more than happy to take a look.
“Immature artists imitate. Mature artists steal.”—Lionel Trilling
Reply

#10
(2017-11-19, 11:39 AM)St0rmWyvrn Wrote: The simple 5x5x9 engines are claiming 400 PPF, but I'm checking them without any strain. There also appears to be a difference between power per fuel and power per fuel per second with the former being fairly low and the latter fairly high. Putting in ACB control to get them on and off should be simple enough, and I could run a simple blueline to handle the stationary mode. As for the injection engines, I'm not so much a fan either. I used the injections because I was running out of hull space and because steam is still more or less a complete mystery to me. I've never much liked how they change their power output depending on the power demand and their run-up time is really inconvenient, but I'm happy to give them another once-over. I have yet to see a post on the forums that makes any kind of real sense of them beyond my own noodlings. I threw together a simple 3x3x7 steam engine block capable of putting out about 6.2k power at 100% burn and with enough internal ACBs to allow the block to be turned on and off depending on set parameters. The entire grid is filled and I can't think of a better way of using the space in terms of the tetris. The size of the design should make it fairly capable of replacing the injection engines. That said, if you know of any posts that I've missed that have good suggestions for legit steam design other than simple battery charging I'd be more than happy to take a look.

Engines should always be tested under load to get the actual PPF, This is because the actual performance depends on the amount of exhaust going into the turbos, and the heat of the cylinders (among other things) both of which change when you run the engine and are not accurately displayed at rest.

as for steam engines? i'd go into any of the larger 'meta' player battleships like Gladyon's emerald/topaz and rip a steam block from them. a pretty typical setup is rows of boilers connected to either a shaft or an electric generator. They're usually something like controller -> 3x boilers -> 1m pipe ->electric feed pipe/piston -> electric generator/shaft -> gear box. Then you just stack rows and rows of those on top of each other. It looks like a complex system, but it actually doesn't have much depth, unlike fuel engines which have many-many designs, usually to fit differing desired efficiency all the steam builds I know of are essentially the same engine, maybe with some fancy tetris to make them fit into a tighter, or really oddly shaped space. As for the 'changing power' when loaded, that's why steady-state testing is important. You have to load the engine when testing and once you determine the max output you treat it as an engine of that output, ignore everything below that, and try and only have it on when you're going to load it to it's capacity. That's the beauty of the very simple steam engine if have sketched above. each set of boilers might create 500 power, so you just keep adding that repeatable unit until you get what you need. essentially, instead of having one long engine block you have one long block of dozens of engines.

If you're hung up on the decision it may be worth it to do some steady-state cost tests of your ship to discover what the steam engine is really going to cost and if it's worth it to you. here's an example:
I determine the material/second cost of each of my ships before deploying them. the main contributors are usually
-fuel costs for engines
-ammo costs for weapons
-material costs for repairs.

all of these can be approximated and converted to a materials/second cost. For example:
-Maximum combat power draw = 10000, engine efficiency = 350 PPF -> 28.6 fuel/sec, fuel costs 1 mat/ 10 fuel to buy and 1m / 20 fuel to make (with my refinery) = engines cost 2.9 mat/s to run if i buy fuel
-ship has 30 ammo processors, assume they run at maximum load = 60 mat/s (ammo processors use 2 mat/s)
-repair benchmark: ship is at full power but has weapons off and is not moving, engage Tyre for 5 minutes and stop test -> calculate materials used and subtract the materials needed to run engines. run several tests with the same starting conditions and average the result. change starting conditions, run several tests and average the result. average the final result of each set of tests.

For your ship I would look at the following: current cost of the injector engines vs the same amount of steam. another angle to consider is repair costs saved from increased defense/offense vs the cost of the increased energy to power them. Likewise the cost of increased fire power vs the cost saved by reducing time in combat. These are generally harder to determine because you need to use a benchmark test which will differ from combat, however the difference is usually large enough to determine accurately enough from multiple tests to make a good decision.
-Do not bring forth an argument as fact that can be disproven with a 10 minute Google search.
Reply



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)