mQNP

[Pax]

Originally posted by Andr&eacutes Lescano:
Argh!
I shouldn't do math so fast without even checking if results are logic, of course that with 1 engine per 150 kt you can have a nice logical scale for all standard sizes but you will not be able to have really large ships, in an order of 10000 and above and make them move at decent speeds.

Going back to this; actually you can.

For the P&N conVersion to mQNP, I set engine speed to be 500kT, and engine-mass::ship-mass at a 5% ratio. 500kT engines are EXACTLY 5% of a 10,000kT Battlemoon. I resized the Escort to 100kT (150kT is awkward for %-of-ship-mass issues, mQNP mods will likely NOT have ship sizes except in multiples of 100kT).

So the largest ship (a battlemoon) is 100x the size of the smallest ship (an escort).

Your shipsize range is limited by only that. If the escort gets a 1% mount, the biggest ship cannot be bigger than 100x that size.

... then again, it can. 8D That's where the split-class engine/mQNP "hybrid" comes in. If you want a 20,000kT engine, simply give IT a smallish % mount, give it a ludicrously huge engine, and set both the engines' movement points and the hull's EPM to ridiculously high levels.

IE, for the P&N conVersion I keep citing ... a 20,oookT "Super BAttlemoon" would need 1,000kT engines, to maintain the 5% ratio. Make the engines 20,000kT, and set the mount to ... drum roll 5%. EPM for the hull would be set to 30, and the "superhuge" engines woudl get 30, 40, 50, 60, and 70 movement each.

You physically cannot install the engine on anything smaller, yet you get the right mQNP ratio, and identical speed results per-engine.

Now, to prevent using it in smaller ships, you give it it's own Component Family #; normal ship-engien mounts don't affect the super-engines, the "SuperBattlemoon" mount affects only those engines, and is only available for ships massing 20,000kT.

And *poof* you've just jumped to a new scale of ship sizes, limited only by what the se4 executable can handle.

[Fyron]

Separate Supply Storage to different components. Have engines store a minimal amount of supplies.

[Phoenix-D]

I figured you modified the supply percent, but I was more interested in your scaling - i.e., say the engine is 100kT, and the escort mount has a structure percent value of 2. Are you also using a supply percent value of 2? And what is the "normal" engine supply usage set to? (standard, unmodded is 10; but if you're messing around with supply usage on each mount you probably had to set that higher so the mounts wouldn't reduce it to some weird fractional value)."

Heh, read the question wrong. Oops.

Phoenix-D

[Pax]

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
I figured you modified the supply percent, but I was more interested in your scaling - i.e., say the engine is 100kT, and the escort mount has a structure percent value of 2. Are you also using a supply percent value of 2? And what is the "normal" engine supply usage set to? (standard, unmodded is 10; but if you're messing around with supply usage on each mount you probably had to set that higher so the mounts wouldn't reduce it to some weird fractional value)."

Heh, read the question wrong. Oops.

Phoenix-D

As for what I'm setting the supply usage for, I haven't decided in Exodus what that will be. I'll pick an amount per 100kT, to move one sector, at speed one. The basic engine component will have a supply usage of 100x that.

As I said below ... I believe it should always take X supplies to move Y kT of ship one sector at Z number of engines ... regardless if Y is comprised on one ship, or a thousand ships.

The scaling is based UPwards, not downwards (that way the final product works with/as a MULTIPLE, not a fractional ). Just like the basic engine::ship rati of mQNP or QNP, youpick a SUPPLY:ship-mass ratio, and work from there.

For example, the final "base size" of the Exodus engines was based on reverse-engineering a 1% moun that gives the selected 10kT engine :: 100kT ship ratio. Cost is similarly alculated.

And so will be the supply usage.

[DirectorTsaarx]

Now it all looks clearer...

Keeping supply usage on the same linear progression as the engine size is perfectly logical; the first time I read the supply usage post, I thought the intent was to make supply usage increase faster than the engine size, which didn't necessarily make sense.

I may have to incorporate mQNP into my games (although I've kinda been waiting until the next patch comes out before I start a new one; I like Temporal races, but it's hard to justify playing as a Temporal race with the current shield-damage bug).