If you choose to make a long reactor then i have to incorporate shielding and cooling to match the length but if i choose to say build a reactor room on my ship i could have several smaller reactors with shielding around them and then the room would be a second layer of shielding allowing me to have several in the same area of the ship either tied together or independantly assigned power structures. Shape should not even be involved only quantity and mass. ![]() Anything over that size the radiation, heat, and output would go up as would the need for shielding and cooling. Why not have each reactor block rated at X for output and radiation and cooling needs so that in space if you install 8 or less then no shielding requirments are needed and only one cooling block needed if they are inside of a ship surrounded by hull. The reactors in submarines for example are shielded way more aggressively than larger on land systems to protect the people and to help hide the radiation from the enemy but the cooling system is way smaller and simpler than that of systems on land with the option to eject it in the case of a meltdown. A small reactor in a hot desert would take as much shielding as a larger one in a cold climate but would require more cooling and even more robust backup systems. A bigger reactor weather neuclear or fossil fuel powered requires shielding as per the size and location of the reactor. You don't build a reactor then put all of the controls and protection systems miles away, you put all of the controls and shielding close to the power generation to make it easier and safer to control. Think about Nuclear power or even coal or natural gas power. I just think it would be better and make more sense to be realistic about this. (unless you are one of the people that wanted the most efficient designs to be compact brick cubes) the only real impact it will have is it will force ships to be large to have large and efficient reactors, which is a good thing. I disagree with your assessment that you are even more limited with how your ships can be shaped. My question is why, what are they supposed to be, what is thier purpose? The Devs said they wanted a more realistic power system but what part does this block play in it? But with the distance requirements now you either have to build a long ship or a wide ship to have the Stabilizers far enough away from the reactor so you are even more limited with this on how your ships can be shaped as the entire ship has to be built around your power structure. which i'm sure will come while trying to design new ships according to this new way. looking like a pretty good system to me so far, just going to take a bit to wrap my head around it all. you can still do that but your energy production won't be as efficient. the stabilizer in and of itself seems to be an attempt to keep compact bricks from being the optimum design. it better allows you refine your power system to fit your ship rather than trying to design a ship around long sticks of power. at the same time it provides more flexibility in what shape you want your power system to be. Originally posted by BaneBlackGuard:i think the intent is to make it seem more like a primary power system for a starship without adding the complexity of an actual power distribution network. ships with one reactor and one stabilizer aren't going to last long in battle. additional stabilizers or backup power generation and it quickly stops being a long stick. That would only be true if you only have one group of stabilizers for your (presumably) one reactor group. I don't think it's as severe as some people make it, though. Having a forced distance means you got to hit a minimal length. The main criticism is actually that long sticks of war are the minmax solutin for the new power system. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |