First, a little correction/update on what I wrote earlier: I stuck the Thruster Block XL into a blueprint that did not call for Z or E and got 154 Zascosium and 154 Erestrum ingots, which was much more than I expected. Now I'm thinking that if I had recycled everything I mentioned, including the 2 Repair Bays, I suppose I might just end up with close to 900 Z and E. Maybe. But it still sounds like players who do an Omicron start have (potential) access to more Z and E than on Akua. Yes, Thruster S does have a worse weight-to-thrust ratio than the M. I forgot about that and it is a good point. But when you claim the ship would, "perform much worse", are you speaking from experience, or from conjecture? Have you tried converting a ship that predominately uses Thruster M into one that predominately relies on Thruster S? Well, I have. As I wrote earlier: Granted, Thruster Block M weighs 24 t and produces 20 MN thrust, while Thruster S weighs 16 t and produces a paltry 8 MN thrust. On paper, it looks much worse: 24 t / 20 MN = 1.2 t per MN while 16 t / 8 MN = 2 t per MN. That makes the M nearly twice as efficient as the S in terms of weight. However, and I can't stress this enough, the weight of the engines is relatively minor compared to the weight of the whole ship. If ldog allows it, I'll upload the version of the KDY-Artemis that I modified. The original KDY-Artemis-(CV)-Starter is Size Class 1 [1.14], weighs 4.37 kt and has 16 Thruster Block M, 6 Thruster S, and 2 Thruster L. Reverse thrust is 27 m/s/s @ 120 MN, left and right is 18 m/s/s @ 80 MN each, lift is 13 m/s/s @ 56 MN and downward is a paltry 7 m/s/s @ 32 MN. Forward thrust is 400 MN @ 92 m/s/s, provided entirely by two giant Thruster Block L. My version, which I call "KDY3-Artemis-(CV)-T2", is still Size Class 1 [1.22], weighs 4.82 kt and has 4 Thruster Block M, 49 Thruster S, and 2 Thruster L. That's a whole lot of Thruster S, yet the weight only increased by 0.45 kt or about 10%. That's not even considering how I added shutter blocks covering every thruster and extra O2 and fuel tanks. Reverse thrust is 28 m/s/s @ 136 MN, left and right is 17 m/s/s @ 80 MN each, lift is 20 m/s/s @ 96 MN and downward is 17 m/s/s @ 80 MN. Forward thrust is still 400 MN and still provided by giant L thrusters but, due to the increased weight, acceleration is down to 83 m/s/s. Consider, too, that my version has much higher lift (20 m/s/s versus 13 m/s/s) and downward (17 m/s/s versus 7 m/s/s) thrust. If I had aimed for nearly identical m/s/s acceleration values and left off the shutters (vents) and the extra devices I added, the weight increase would have been lower.
We can also notice that your version lost agility and has substantially increased cost and build time - that wouldn't change much if you'd remove your other changes. And I'd wager your ship also has buried thrusters, not yet an issue but will be one in the future. How much influence thrusters have on weight differs alot, too. Sure, a somewhat sluggish combat steel ship will not have the majority of its weight coming from thrusters but a more agile ship that uses hardened steel (or a mix of different steel grades) may have alot more weight to deal with from its thrusters. If I look at my PVP ships or other agile ships it is already about a third of the total weight coming from thrusters and RCS, would be a whole lot more with S thrusters.
I think we need to open an official challenge thread for this. Before we do so, we need to finalize the rules for the new challenge. I believe that we are in agreement that the CV must be powered by a single T1 large generator, and the generator cannot redline (go over 90%) during flight on Omicron. Omicron being chosen as the build planet because or it's higher gravity. I think we should keep this as a lower level ship build, which would mean the no components requiring Zascosium or Erestrum rule from the previous challenge would be in effect. I will admit that my primary concern is the overpowered T2 RCS units, having everyone use the T1's means they have to manage the ships resources and devices more carefully. Thoughts? Did we decide that 4 Kt will be the weight limit? @Thundercraft proposed 4 kt and 7 kt but we need a set limit. Level 15 requirement? Which parts of Kahrek's two suggestions do we want to integrate into the challenge? (I believe that the class limitation is out, unless we want to limit the size class to, say 5.) Do we want to keep the minimum flight time, with the thrust and hangar requirements? How does the group feel about using my personal rules for a believable ship? What would you change and why? Finally, do we want to specify a combat ship, or any ship (military, alien, or civilian) what meets the challenge requirements?
You'd lose that wager, then. There's not a single buried thruster in the thing. True enough. It has substantially increased cost in resources and build time. However, build time never bothered me much because I usually add actual components to a blueprint rather than raw resources, making it build in minutes or seconds. That, or I could always start it building and do something else. I haven't had experience with actual PVP ships, so I really wouldn't know. But I can believe this is more of an issue with PvP and agile ships. Those probably tend to be more compact as they're all business and everything is more about function than form. They have more thrusters than usual, so the difference in weight would add up much more quickly, especially on a smaller ship. But then, don't those kind of ships have the maximum number of weapons and, preferably, more than one layer of armor? That's a lot of weight, too, to counterbalance any change in thruster weight. But, we're not talking about PVP ships in particular here. Mostly, I was pointing out my reasoning on why using Thruster S would probably be more advantageous than M's for the 1 Large Generator Challenge.
I don't have a problem with them. They sound reasonable. (I'm just glad that you're allowing shutters/vents on thrusters.) Sounds good. I would not want it any higher, as that gets into end-game weapons and such. And the requirement can't be any lower because Large Generators require 15. Yes. Since this is a different challenge with it's own complications, I think it should be open to any type of ship which meets the other requirements. As it is, I worry that there won't be many submissions. Restricting it to, say, combat ships or civilian ships may turn some people off this challenge. I strongly prefer Kahrek's second, most recent suggestion. I'm fine with those requirements, including the minimum flight time and hangar requirements. Part of me loves the notion of a rule for no components requiring Zascosium or Erestrum. However, I'm afraid this will not work. For one thing, the Large Generator which this challenge is based around requires 3 Zascosium Alloy. For another, there is an enormous difference in performance between the T1 RCS and the T2. In an effort to make a version that doesn't require Z or E, I tried to replace the two RCS T2 in the KDY-Artemis-(CV)-Starter with an equivalent of the T1 version. I completely ran out of room, so I started removing cargo boxes and carefully removing parts of walls (while staying airtight) in order to add more. I stopped at 29 RCS T1: Compare the stats above with the nearly identical version I made with some devices that require Z & E (as I posted earlier): The version with 29 RCS T1 has a roll of just 13.88 deg/s/s, compared to using just 2 RCS T2 which gives it 28.21 deg/s/s. As you can see, you get over twice the turning rate with 2 RCS T2 as 28 RCS T1. You'd have to add more than 60 of them to get the equivalent and it would be more power hungry and a lot heavier, at that. My RCS T1 version weighs 5.68 kt, while the T2 version weighs just 4.82 kt. If I had added 60 RCS T1 it would probably end up weighing over 6 kt. The worst part is finding enough room in a small CV to add 30 or 60 of them. Because the Large Generator requires Z & E anyway and because the RCS T1 sucks so bad, I recommend allowing Z & E for those two devices, but only those two. Even better, you could restrict all entries to having exactly two (no more and no less) of the RCS T2 and one Large Generator. That way all entries should cost the same amount of Zascosium and Erestrum, making this rule a lot easier for you to manage. Limiting the RCS to the same for all entries should also make it easier to see which ship designs are naturally more agile. On thinking on this further: 4 kt sounds too low to me, especially if there's a no Z & E rule and ships are limited to RCS T1. Also, having multiple hangars will make these a bit heavier than hangarless or single-hangar ships. Of the small CVs with hangars that I mentioned here, the one that weighed 3.77 kt was the CV-M4S-Galaxy Drifter, which only has a small SV hangar. The rest of those only has 1 large, ground-access hangar, with the exception of -Polaris-Enhanced, which has 3 hangars but also weighs the most at 5.84 kt. I'm thinking 5 or maybe even 6 kt is a typical weight for a small CV with multiple hangars. To make it weigh less would mean making it small and/or cutting corners. We don't want submissions to look like flying bricks. I hate to admit it, but... considering the minimum flight time of 30 minutes on Omicron and trying not to exceed 90% power usage... perhaps a weight limit is not needed after all? Your experiment with the stripped-down Guppy was enlightening. I had no idea that it would be so easy to exceed the power of 1 Large Generator. Submissions will be limited to a small number of thrusters just to stay in the red, power-wise. That, and the flight time will encourage being mindful of energy wasting devices and trying to build light and small, which is what I like to see. On the other hand, I looked at Kahrek's lookslikeaturd and I noticed that it weighs 6.24 kt. Despite this, it is still only Size Class 1 [or 1.33, to be more precise]. If that's Size Class 1, I can only imagine how large a Size Class 4 or 5 could be. Ah... Well, one of the screenshots shows the top of the vehicle where 22 turrets are visible! No wonder this thing is so heavy! As he pointed out, weapons contribute significantly to weight. Bottom line: We need to decide whether this challenge should encourage combat ships that come with weapons or discourage them. If we want to encourage the inclusion of weapons in all entries, then it should be Size Class instead of weight. And I think it should be a very small number, like Size Class 2 (which is any number under 3, such as 2.45). Otherwise, it's not much of a restriction. Alternatively, if we want to welcome all types of entries - combat and civilian - then it should be by weight. I'm thinking 6 kt. If a potential submission turns out too heavy, they can opt to leave off some weapons, perhaps marking the spots as weapon mounts.
What about banning / allowing the use of specific devices instead of flat out banning ores? My turdmobile uses 6 regular RCS and moves reasonably well. I would argue that allowing for a repair station / repair bay would be well within the spiritual guidelines of this challenge. Ban T2 RCS and even though I really want rocket launchers (turrets, not fixed mount) we can leave those out also if the general opinion is to not have combat oriented ships. 7KT weight is generous but not rediculously so. It would severly limit a combat steel build but allow for an expansive civilian craft. For the record the turdwagon has such a small class size only because there is little to no deco or complex blocks. Build it proper and it would easily reach class 3. Whatever is settled upon as final rules I look forward to this challenge! Cheers folks!
The T2 large generator requires Zascosium, the T1 does not. Check the build requirements for the Guppy I posted earlier.
I've got something I've been working on that I'd like to be able to submit for this proposed 1-large-genny challenge, but it's weight is near 6kt at just under size 3 (I think, I'm at 'work' and can't check). Hangar access for those big prefabs is going to be... interesting too, "no fancy flying" is a little subjective when each only just scrapes through a 3x5 hangar door... So what's the *current* thinking on the complete challenge rules? And when are the rules likely to be finalised and published?
Interesting. Maybe we should make the weight limit 6 kt, then? That, or a Size Class of 3? Question for Razorwire: Does your ship use RCS T2 or RCS T1? Also, how many of them did you add? Though small, a 3x5 hangar door seems typical for an HV hangar in a CV (from what I've seen). Having a bigger door means the ship itself must be much larger. Indeed, the modified KDY-Artemis-(CV)-Starter that I use in my game has a 3x5 hangar and I realized, too late, that this is (barely) too short for the SV that I use. (It needs a hangar height of 4, minimum.) I ended up having to dock it on top to take it with me. The hangar doors that I use on my custom-built bases is usually 7x5. Even then, it feels a bit small for the HV and SV that I usually fly. The problem is that EGS has a limited selection of hangar door sizes. I'd love to see more variety, like a 4x6. And it's weird that the sizes have a sudden jump from 10x5 to 10x9 to 13x7. Ideally, for my bases, I'd use a hangar door with a height of 6, preferably 9x6. I have seen more than one small CV with two horizontal 3x5 hangar doors side-by-side, with the bottoms together, for roof access to land an SV. Since they open together, this makes for 6x5 access. (Interestingly, the hangar in the Caines-Cobra-GT has both a rear-access 3x5 for HVs and two horizontal 3x5's overhead for SV access.) Ah! My bad. It was late that night and I must have looked at the T2 in the Constructor. Still, please consider allowing RCS T2.
T2's are too easy, you don't have to balance or compromise at all on most ships. My build uses T1's, and not many of them, due to the concept. It does, however, turn like a stunned whale. There's space and generator overhead to add a few more, but they'll be last, and dependent on the exact challenge parameters. My usual CV for mid-game has a pair of 5x3's arranged base-to-base in just this way, with another 5x3 on the back for ramped HV access. You can't drop the tier-4 SV into that 5x6 roof hatch without shenanigans though, it's too long. My current end-game compact Raider/CAS CV has a ramp/shutter/forcefield arrangement at the back for HVs which is just over 5x3, as the entry-way is a diagonal ramp-gap meeting a vertical shutter-gap. There's also an open roof with 3 of the big (5x11, I think?) forcefeilds sealing the gap. 15x11 is a huge area to park an SV in, though still feels small when you approach at speed and under fire
After reading the back and forth from different people here are my revised suggestions. -=Obligations=- 1 Large T1 generator limit 6KT weight limit, Class 3 limit, Level 15 limit Must have 1 thrust direction with an acceleration of 21m/s to be able to take off from a 2.0 gravity planet Must not red-line power usage during Omicron flight Enough fuel for 30 minutes flight time on Omicron Pressurized HV bay capable of fitting a land tank (tier 6). The bay must be accessible from the ground without using boosters Pressurized SV bay capable of fitting a landing shuttle (tier 4) Must be able to land on landing gear with no hull blocks touching the ground (Half blocks that do not touch the ground are OK since that is an engine collision and not actual physics) -=Bonus=- Crew quarters for 4 people Medical bay Designated cargo / constructor area 18 growth plot (unless the ship role would argue against it) -=Design guidelines and block limitations=- (many borrowed from Robot Shark) 1 repair station allowed 1 repair bay allowed T2 RCS banned (it can always be replaced later or in an eventual workshop version) Rocket launchers (yes/no up for debate. I would like to include them but most people seem to not want them) Ship must look like a ship and not a collection of parts The living areas must all be pressurized and have O2 No hot / irradiated zones in any habitable areas You can have irradiated or hot zones in appropriate areas (engineering for example) but they must be isolated and clearly indicated as such All ship parts must be accessible, no having to use the control panel to fuel the ship or load ammo. The docking bays must comfortably fit the required ship, more specificaly that means you need to be able to walk all around the ship in the docking bay and extend the landing ramps to board / disboard the vessel. The HV / SV need to be able to land without having to "wiggle" in. All parts of the vessel must clear the hangar doors from whatever direction they are landing from. Thoughts, suggestions and other commentary are all welcomed.
What exactly is crew quarters for 4 people? Is it four separate rooms furnished with normal stuff like beds and hygiene facilities, or is 2 bunk beds dropped next to the warp core sufficient? . I assume it is somewhere in-between? What is required for a med bay? Just a medical chamber or a full suite of the 4 functional medical devices?
Crew quarters for 4 varies. A couple of cots by the warp core would break the rule about not roasting your crew but it does not need to be a large living quarter either. I would leave each player to decide what suits their purposes in that respect but it would need to fit in with the ship's design philosophy. At a strict minimum it should be a couple of bunks, a table to eat a place to sit and relax, a shower and a toilet. Personally I would put the toilet t the very back of the ship with a 1 X 1 forcefield behind it leading right into space. The back of the toilet would be exposed to the cold vacuum of space and when you flush you basically fire a turdpedo. I would feel really satisfied knowing that eons from now my frozen feces might ruin somsone's day. *In Kahrek's mind* -Hi Frank, what happened to Dave? *He got hit by a meteorite while repairing the manifold -Really? Oh man that sucks *Oh you don't know the half of it. They say that the meteorite is actually biomatter. He survived but they are growing him a new face now. -Oh wow, what a shitty deal *End of trip into Kahrek's dark mind* The medical bay follows the same philosophy. It should have all 4 medical scanners, one or two small storage spaces for medical supplies and a bed or two for patients. Elaborate or simple can vary greatly.
Or trenches during the great war. None of which really apply here but still. You can make the quarters spartan and bare if you want or even put them in other areas of the ship (I put bunks in the fighter landing bays so the on deck pilots had a place to snooze). As long as it fits the ship's general design philosophy then have at it
Nuts. My intended entry breaks several of those rules. I'm 3.4 in size, which makes it a class 4, it's a shade over 6kt (which I can slim down easily enough as it has a Combat Steel spine, ribs & keel I can downgrade), and the T4 shuttle overhangs the dock unless you either wiggle, cover the dock entryway, or cover one of the shuttle's ramps. I'm also not sure about the 30 mins flight time. Save it for another time and build something fresh, I guess
He may be asking for advice on them, but I believe what the actual rules are is really up to Robot Shark since this is his challenge. Why not wait for him to start the new topic with the final rules before giving up? BTW: I just discovered ZeroG's Challenge Build 01! topic. Maybe you happen to have made a vessel that would qualify for that one?
I'll not bin it off, it'll get used sometime. Just waiting for the right challenge. And I'll enter if I build something that fits whatever the challenge ends up as. My entries are the Junkyard Dog and the Boomerang
Just like Thundercraft said. I am condensing suggestions and making a list of things I think would make the challenge interesting. The final decision in any case will be Fluffy's. And even if your ship does not pass muster once the challenge rules are out then I am sure any number of us would be willing to play armchair engineer and give you pointers Cheers!
I think I better get off my posterior and start on the challenge link, one thought before I do. I think the docking bays should be up to the builders, with bonus points if they meet @Kahrek 's size suggestions. The other question, how do we decide on the winner? Voting again or by assigning a point value to each item and totaling them?
