Energy production/use

[Resan]

So... just to make sure I understand energy production/use correctly.

Using starting tech:

The stats for Fission Reactor FS100 is:
- Energy Output 59
- Energy Storage 105
- 7,62 fuel units per 1000 energy

So energy output is per second?

Meaning that it makes 59 energy and uses 0,45 fuel units per second?
It will only burn fuel when it need to make energy, and will try to keep Energy Storage at 105 at all times?

The energy related stats for Maxos Blaster is:
- Energy used 6
- Fire Rate 0,62

Does this mean it uses 6 energy per shot and fire every 0,62 second? So you need 9,67 free energy production to fire the weapon continually? That's after engine and static energy use drain.

If this is about correct, I vote for a max energy and/or a weapon energy use listing in the Ship Design menu. Would also be nice with a max fuel consumption field as well.

[aprezto]

Yup, utterly agree. The ability to see how your ships will perform in combat is too difficult to foresee. Although, it might also be difficult to make an easy-to-use tool that gives this clarity too.

[Resan]

Don't think so. Just add a new field beside the weapons, under weapon power and such that says something like " Energy use per sec".

Then another up where fuel capacity is now, with "fuel use per second"

[alexalexuk]

ORIGINAL: Resan

Don't think so. Just add a new field beside the weapons, under weapon power and such that says something like " Energy use per sec".

Then another up where fuel capacity is now, with "fuel use per second"

probably this

[mightili]

ORIGINAL: aprezto

Yup, utterly agree. The ability to see how your ships will perform in combat is too difficult to foresee. Although, it might also be difficult to make an easy-to-use tool that gives this clarity too.

Multiply this by a few hundred and it becomes so much more complex to follow up anything. I am gonna start a new game and put it on full automation for a night. I'll see what happens when I wake up. I'll either be rich and powerful or poor and conquered... This game is a bot [8D].

[taltamir]

mmm...
normalizing the numbers as eps (energy per second) and dps (damage per second) and epf (energy per fuel) is very useful because a human cannot quickly do the other mathematical conversions in his head to get a feel to how things work.

the OP got the numbers exactly right, it took some math for him to do the comparisons and figure those things out though...

[Resan]

And it's not like it's hard or anything, just annoying having to sit with a calculator beside my PC while playing a game. This math stuff is what the PC is good at

[Resan]

OK, bringing this thread back to life (I hope [:)]) with a new question.

With star bases and Space docks, if I got enough energy collection with solar panels to cover my static energy use, will all the energy from the reactor go to weapons?

Would this design work?
With the "Energy Collection" energy going to the "Static Energy Usage" and "Reactor Power Output" to weapons

[sbach2o]

According to the manual, the rating of energy collectors is just a maximum value. The actual energy collected should depend on the energy output of the star and how far the collector is from the source. In your case it could work out, if the actual energy received through collectors is close to the maximum value.
 
I have no idea how this is handled by the game in practice. If the actual energy received through collectors is shown anywhere for a given base, I haven't found the info yet. Not that I'd have necessarily noticed, if the information is actually in plain site.

[Gertjan]

I agree that this whole power/energy/fuel mix is a big vague in this game. They should make it more clear in the manual/tutorial etc.

[Fishman]

Energy-per-second of weapon use is essential to know because if the ship cannot generate enough peak energy output to operate all weapons simultaneously, then the extra weapons are useless. The AI does not appear to take this into account either, and therefore tends to produce far underpowered designs that are easily destroyed. I have figured always figured peak energy use = Sprint + (Weapons * Energy Per Shot * Fire Rate). Energy-Per-Fuel is less important because it is obviously stated on th reactor, and you don't normally mix reactors. Plus the amount of fuel you always need is "more". But you'll find a LOT of AI ships that are underpowered, and will put forth about one volley of laser fire before spending the rest of the battle spitting. That nonsense in the manual about how a capital ship just needs 2 reactors? Total bollocks. I field ships that need 5 to avoid running dry in a fight. Even the lowliest ships tend to need 2 or 3.

[HsojVvad]

The answer to the question about solar collectors to be used for static energy and reactors used for weapons, the anser is NO. Once the ship moves, solar panels do not work. The ship has to be stationary for the solar panels to kick in. So once the ship moves because it's in combat the reactors kick in and the solar panels stop working.

Now solar panels working on a space station, that is a different story, and I am not to shure about. I would say the solar panels stay on when in combat, so the weapons use what ever engery is avaliable, be it solar or reactor.

[Fishman]

Energy collectors will function in combat, so a station can power itself using collectors in battle, but for a ship, they are in motion during combat and energy collectors do not function while in motion, only while parked. The main purpose of a collector on a ship is to meet static requirements while parked to avoid burning fuel during extended waits between actions.

[Resan]

So I could build a space station that runs almost entirely on solar panels, with just one reactor?

[Fishman]

You mean you don't already?

[Bloodly]

If there's one annoyance, it's roughly this. If your fuel's out, you stop dead. If you stop dead, your solar panels should kick in, meaning you're at least not entirely a sitting duck. This is not the case.

[Resan]

Well I do now [8D]

[Fishman]

ORIGINAL: Bloodly

If there's one annoyance, it's roughly this. If your fuel's out, you stop dead. If you stop dead, your solar panels should kick in, meaning you're at least not entirely a sitting duck. This is not the case.

The no-fuel state of sitting-duck-ness appears to be triggered by zero-fuelness as opposed to a lack of energy, so any ship which hits zero fuel becomes inactive and cannot fire, even if it can still generate energy. However, they can still move, which tends to invalidate collector usage.

[sbach2o]

ORIGINAL: Gertjan

I agree that this whole power/energy/fuel mix is a big vague in this game. They should make it more clear in the manual/tutorial etc.

The basic information is available, I think. But there is too little help about how things work in action (what level of energy is this station receiving right here? what is the total peak energy draw of my weapons array?), or I have overlooked it consistently.

ORIGINAL: Fishman

The AI does not appear to take this into account either, and therefore tends to produce far underpowered designs that are easily destroyed. I have figured always figured peak energy use = Sprint + (Weapons * Energy Per Shot * Fire Rate).

Here an interesting tradeoff comes into play: You do not necessarily need to balance your ship's generator output against a battle under sprint conditions. That isn't given all too often, usually only when either side is on the run or pursuit. But when a ship standing still cannot power its weapons, then there's clearly not enough power, as it then isn't even good enough for a ship vs. base engagement. The typical speed in ship vs. ship is cruise, so that should be the baseline below which one shouldn't drop.

I typically try to aim for a generator output that can power all weapons during cruise speed and as close to sprint speed as I can manage without too many sacrifices. Getting to power all weapons at sprint speed still, is a bonus.

When energy collectors come into the equation, all is down to guesswork, though.

ORIGINAL: Davor

The answer to the question about solar collectors to be used for static energy and reactors used for weapons, the anser is NO. Once the ship moves, solar panels do not work.

Now solar panels working on a space station, that is a different story, and I am not to shure about. I would say the solar panels stay on when in combat, so the weapons use what ever engery is avaliable, be it solar or reactor.

Yes, my original post was in response to a question about powering bases. Unless bases fold up, power down their collectors during battle according to some hidden rule somehow, the actual power output of Energy Collectors is indeed an important factor in the equation. And what I have seen of battles with bases suggests that collectors indeed work well for bases.

Resupply Ships are yet another interesting case.

ORIGINAL: Resan

So I could build a space station that runs almost entirely on solar panels, with just one reactor?

Heh, sorry for not providing a straight answer. The problem is, I have none, as it depends on the conditions under which those bloody collectors operate. Personally, I still put enough generator power on all my bases to go over static energy use and be capable of powering a good part of the weapons. Hopefully, they won't be used much.

[Fishman]

ORIGINAL: sbach2o

Here an interesting tradeoff comes into play: You do not necessarily need to balance your ship's generator output against a battle under sprint conditions.

A battle which is not being fought under these conditions is either a siege against a stationary target, or one that someone has already lost.

ORIGINAL: sbach2o

The typical speed in ship vs. ship is cruise, so that should be the baseline below which one shouldn't drop.

Actually, my experience is that most battles are fought at sprint or close to it. In most battles, one side either has a range advantage and seeks to maintain it, or is clearly superior, which results in the weaker side attempting to flee. This immediately pushes for the battle to be fought at Sprint, as either someone (probably you) is attempting to avoid an approaching opponent who wishes to close, or someone has realized they are outmatched and is now attempting to flee, which necessitates chasing him down. Since defenses do NOT consume variable power, any ship incapable of sustaining combat at sprint quickly becomes irrelevant to the fight, one way or another.

I typically try to aim for a generator output that can power all weapons during cruise speed and as close to sprint speed as I can manage without too many sacrifices. Getting to power all weapons at sprint speed still, is a bonus.

ORIGINAL: sbach2o

When energy collectors come into the equation, all is down to guesswork, though.

Energy collectors come into play anytime an object is immobile, combat or otherwise, which, for a base, means "always", while for a ship, combatwise, "never", as no ship voluntarily remains stationary during a fight.

ORIGINAL: sbach2o

Yes, my original post was in response to a question about powering bases. Unless bases fold up, power down their collectors during battle according to some hidden rule somehow, the actual power output of Energy Collectors is indeed an important factor in the equation.

It is claimed that an energy collector's output is, in some "average" case, equivalent to its rating, and in somewhat less than ideal cases, perhaps less. It is unknown if more ideal energy collection environments result in energy collection greater than the listed value. I do not have enough empirical data to confirm one way or another, however, as combat against bases tends to be relatively infrequent and short, with the base either meeting with a swift death at the hands of a vastly outnumbering fleet, or the attacking fleet meeting with a swift death at the hands of an enraged starbase. As only spaceports and gas mining stations tend to come under frequent attack, and both structures tend to have access to large quantities of fuel and be deployed under widely variable conditions, good data is hard to come by on this, especially when a lack of size constraints tends to make one choose to err on the side of caution.

ORIGINAL: sbach2o

Resupply Ships are yet another interesting case.

It is best to treat them as "ships" in regard to reactor output and energy providance, because an undeployed resupply ship behaves indistinguishably from a ship, and a deployed resupply ship has unlimited fuel and therefore no need to conserve it.