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

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.

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.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)