Weapons, engines and mods, Oh my!

[Fyron]

The first "point" was just positing an example of what the problem might be. If you take a look at Adamant Mod, you will see that larger ships have increasing maintenance penalties. I believe that speaks for itself as to my position on that issue.

Actually, with QNP, there should be no limit on how many engines you can put on any ships. This is why Proportions does not use QNP, it uses pseudo-QNP (wow, that name is getting really really clunky... ). I don't recall saying that that was a bad thing at any point... although, the term "proper QNP" does connote that if you take it the wrong way, so I can see where the problem arises.

[ June 16, 2003, 03:18: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[Andrés]

Yes it was something about those lines.
It may be related the only time I tried to play in proportions I went bankrupt under the manteinance of my ships and the micromanaging hell pf my colonies.

But no, larger sizes should REDUCE, not increase cost and manteinance.
Of course that building and mantaining large ships cost much more than building a small one.
And in many cases using a ship only as big a needed is a good way to save.
But in real-world economies, large scale does significantly reduce costs. For example jumbojets and supertankers.
Why do you think they keep trying to make those things even larger?
They may be harder to build, require more technical refinenemts than smaller vessels, and of course each one needs a much larger inVersion to be built, but in the large picture they save money.

[oleg]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

...
Actually, with QNP, there should be no limit on how many engines you can put on any ships. This is why Proportions does not use QNP, it uses pseudo-QNP (wow, that name is getting really really clunky... ). I don't recall saying that that was a bad thing at any point... although, the term "proper QNP" does connote that if you take it the wrong way, so I can see where the problem arises.

Sorry, IF, but IMHO, the Proportions have proper QNP. The system you are advocating is IMHO, the pseudo-QNP for reasons outlined very clearly by PvK.

[Phoenix-D]

"Actually, with QNP, there should be no limit on how many engines you can put on any ships."

QNP..quasi newtonian propulsion. Why would there not be any engine limits? the Shuttle runs under newtonian system, and you can't go strapping 30 engines on. Engineering limits.

[Suicide Junkie]

That's cause the shuttle is a really small ship. That's where the engineering difficulty lies.

Check out the shuttle on launch... its a little teeny bridge, a cargo bay to make it useful, and the rest is all engines.

There is no reason why you can't have a ship that is a little bridge/lifesupport/crewquarters combo, sitting on top of a huge pile of engines.

Just look at any Earthly launch vehicle these days. 95% engines.

Even with a low-surface area ship, you can put the fuel tanks in the middle and have lots of tubes running to the nozzles at the back

[Fyron]

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
QNP..quasi newtonian propulsion. Why would there not be any engine limits? the Shuttle runs under newtonian system, and you can't go strapping 30 engines on. Engineering limits.

Limits past the size of the ship...

Oleg:
See SJ's post. Specific hull-based engine limits are counter to the goal of QNP, as they strictly limit the possibilities for propulsion designs for your ships.

[ June 16, 2003, 20:03: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[geoschmo]

We likely could strap 30 engines on the shuttle if we assembled it orbit.

Actaully in reality I think their would be no concrete limit to the number of engines you could put on a ship. Although what would happen, and I think this is what Fyron and SJ were trying to say, is that putting an engine on a ship by itself increases the mass of the ship. In SEIV terms there is a limit to the number of engines for a specific hull size becasue once you reach a certain number of engines you have in effect changed the hull to the next size up.

Geoschmo

[ June 16, 2003, 20:10: Message edited by: geoschmo ]