[1.08.05]Logical Mistake in the Fuel Consumption

[zgrssd]

So, we finally managed to reverse engineer your fuel formula. And I think I am seeing a problem:

Double and Tripple Engines multiply fuel costs by 2 or 3 times.

Doubling the Horsepower from a light to a heavy diesel engine does not double your Fuel consumption
Doubling the Horsepower from a heavy to dual heavy diesel does double your fuel consumption

The thing is that doubling the engine power by going from light to heavy - while keeping weight the same - would mean that the engine runs on 1/2 the load, keeping fuel cost from weight and model the same (there is still a slight increase from the engines passive consumption of course; and the weight).
The same should apply if you double the Engine Power by installing two engines as a single unit without changing the weight - each subunit would simply run on 50%, keeping the overall cost the same.

If you are looking for a way to deter people from installing dual and tripped engines carelessly, there is a better option:
Stuff like the weight, cost and passive Fuel consumption propably should double or nearly double. There is not a lot of room for savings if all the bulky, burny and complex parts have to be doubled.

[BlueTemplar]

I suppose that Electric engines work the same ?

While IRL AFAIK there are significant differences between internal combustion and electric engines :
IIRC :
Internal combustion engines have low (and/or constant ?) torque so they need a gearbox, which lowers their efficiency, especially under ratios very different from optimal ? (Low and high speeds ?)
Electric engines have very high (and/or variable ?) torque, so they don't need a gearbox, which makes them lighter and more efficient than if they did (they often need batteries though, which weight a *lot*). IIRC for this reason most diesel trains these days run an electric diesel generator which then powers electric engines ?

Then IRL you have the Nuclear engines, which, being "steam-powered", are in a class of their own...

Not sure what the implications *should* be in the game ? (Especially keeping in mind that gameplay > realism !) AFAIK Electric engines already weigh less ?

[zgrssd]

ORIGINAL: BlueTemplar

I suppose that Electric engines work the same ?

While IRL AFAIK there are significant differences between internal combustion and electric engines :
IIRC :
Internal combustion engines have low (and/or constant ?) torque so they need a gearbox, which lowers their efficiency, especially under ratios very different from optimal ? (Low and high speeds ?)
Electric engines have very high (and/or variable ?) torque, so they don't need a gearbox, which makes them lighter and more efficient than if they did (they often need batteries though, which weight a *lot*). IIRC for this reason most diesel trains these days run an electric diesel generator which then powers electric engines ?

Then IRL you have the Nuclear engines, which, being "steam-powered", are in a class of their own...

Not sure what the implications *should* be in the game ? (Especially keeping in mind that gameplay > realism !) AFAIK Electric engines already weigh less ?

I am not talking about Diesel vs Electric vs Atomic Engines

If Vic makes a change, naturally he should mirror it to double and tripple Electrical Engines (if they do not already operate like that).
But beyond that, this discussion seems pretty off-topic.

[BlueTemplar]

Yes, that's what I'm trying to pre-empt : should he ?
(Though on the first pass, probably...)