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

  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
 
Dear St Nick, All I wan't for Christmas

#11
IIUC, there are diminishing returns to ever-larger beam parts--structural blocks (without an associated class) are vastly cheaper on the CPU than functional blocks, and because of the existence of 4m beams, most designs are less than 50% structural blocks by blockcount. Halving the number of structural blocks would thus reduce blockcount by 25%, and vehicle-size related lag by a much smaller proportion.

I do agree that fuel engines are in a bad state--being mostly 1x1 blocks they have a poor blockcount:cost ratio (and unlike structural blocks, fuel engine blocks are expensive--I think some of the most expensive outside of AI or lighting/animation-intensive blocks). Meanwhile, they do not reward that cost with meaningful tradeoffs--optimal engine design is just an exhaust-routing problem to hit one of a few efficiency breakpoints as compactly as possible. That said, I think simple "engine expansion" blocks is a move in mostly the wrong directions--that would destroy almost all differentiation in fuel engines. If the tradeoffs are broken fix them, don't remove them. (I am working on a concrete proposal for overhauling fuel engines--top points on my list are larger blocks to keep the blockcount of larger engines down and a change to how forced induction works to better balance the alternatives, making a more meaningful tradeoff between cost/size/efficiency and making superchargers and natural aspiration relevant again.)
Allr andask.
Reply

#12
What I'd like to see is huge block variations for engine parts.

So everything works the same, but is scaled up. The 1x1x1 cylinder becomes a 3x3x3 cylinder, and produces 27x more power. This way we could build sensible engines with a few hundred blocks for large ships, instead of having to rely on long engines with thousands of tiny parts.
Reply



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)