A guide to Energy

Share your gameplay tips, secret tactics and fabulous strategies and ship designs with fellow gamers here.

Moderators: elliotg, Icemania

w1p
Posts: 135
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 8:17 am

RE: A guide to Energy

Post by w1p »

Sprint is only ever used when you issue the attack command, ships will sprint towards the target and engage. They never use sprint, even when you press escaping.... So cruise is quite important!
User avatar
Grotius
Posts: 5842
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2002 5:34 pm
Location: The Imperial Palace.

RE: A guide to Energy

Post by Grotius »

Thanks for this very helpful guide.

So what happens when I'm out of fuel and have no energy collectors? In my AAR thread, someone said my ships will still move at around 1/3 their top speed, even in hyperdrive. Is that true? Is the main downside of fuel-depletion that you can't recharge shields or fire weapons?
Image
User avatar
Sylian
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 5:35 pm
Location: Germany

RE: A guide to Energy

Post by Sylian »

ORIGINAL: Grotius

Thanks for this very helpful guide.

So what happens when I'm out of fuel and have no energy collectors? In my AAR thread, someone said my ships will still move at around 1/3 their top speed, even in hyperdrive. Is that true? Is the main downside of fuel-depletion that you can't recharge shields or fire weapons?

I have to admit that i did not check that.
Weapons will certainly not fire and shields wont be regenerated. Ships do still move and use hyper drive when out of fuel, but have a reduced speed. How much is is reduced though i did not check (should be easy to find out)
More interesting would be if compnonents that use static energy cease to function (like recreation centers and so on) Maybe i will have a look into that in the future.
Dinosaurs were made up by the CIA to discourage time travel.
User avatar
Sylian
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 5:35 pm
Location: Germany

RE: A guide to Energy

Post by Sylian »

ORIGINAL: Paul Roberts

Very helpful! Thanks for writing up this guide.

May I ask for some concrete examples? It would be good to see some ship designs that exhibit good and bad energy architecture.

For instance, what does a ship that can't recharge its shields in combat (due to too much energy eaten by weapons) look like? How do I know I've designed one? Likewise, how do I know when I'm not taking advantage of my energy capabilities? What are some common errors in ship design?

Bad ship design is means you dont supply enough energy in sum for: cruise propulsion (maybe even sprint) + weapons + shield regen
If you lack energy, due to the mechanics of the capacitor your weapons fire rate will always suffer first. Shield regeneration and propulsion is only affected if you have a severe lack of energy supply (like when you got one of your reactors destroyed).
Dinosaurs were made up by the CIA to discourage time travel.
DasTactic
Posts: 1339
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 7:16 am

RE: A guide to Energy

Post by DasTactic »

Awesome post. Should be stickied. [:)]
User avatar
Data
Posts: 3909
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 4:43 pm

RE: A guide to Energy

Post by Data »

High praise from you but this is indeed worth it, I second it.
...Igniting stellar cores....Recharging reactors...Recalibrating hyperdrives....
User avatar
Jeeves
Posts: 940
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2010 9:37 pm
Location: Arlington TN U.S.A
Contact:

RE: A guide to Energy

Post by Jeeves »

Definitely should be stickied. A lot of work here, and I have nothing to add, except that I always supply in excess of static requirements with solar collectors. As technology for solar improves this gives old designs excess enough to fire weapons, for example old armed mining stations. You also get some improvement by tech upgrades for reactors, but the only ship I ever shorted on warp speed was a small freighter design which had ALMOST enough energy for its warp drive. That extra reactor on most designs also comes in handy if your ship gets shot up...


Lonnie Courtney Clay
Live long and prosper!

Lonnie Courtney Clay
User avatar
jpwrunyan
Posts: 558
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 10:04 pm
Location: Uranus
Contact:

RE: A guide to Energy

Post by jpwrunyan »

Astronomy counter rant:
Blackholes may not directly emit light but there certainly is a great deal of radiation and light released by objects falling into one. Many large black holes also blast out jets of particles at relativistic speeds. We cant see black holes but we can certainly see their effects on the surrounding area. You know like where you built your research base.
User avatar
Nedrear
Posts: 702
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2011 12:43 pm

RE: A guide to Energy

Post by Nedrear »

A valid point... leaves the mystically charging gas clouds though. Their energy spectrum is the lowest in the game which might be acceptable therefore. Still it should be nerfed a little more. The radiation of a slowly dying gas cloud is still too high.
One Thread To Guide Them All

"Nothing incorporeal wields such power as a word. Though it is the weapon of the smart and cunning it alas needs the same to prevail."
User avatar
Sylian
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 5:35 pm
Location: Germany

RE: A guide to Energy

Post by Sylian »

I think there is no point for seriously complaining about certain non physical game mechanics. It is a game after all, which has to follow certain rules to be fun.
There are countless features in this game which disobey physics:
- ships have a max speed, but there is vacuum in space, so there is no drag force whatsoever, so any constant propulsion is able to bring your speed close to light speed (which may take quite some time, but it is possible)
- black holes are scattered just all over the galaxy, which is just ridiculous
- although the game has already nice scaling, still the distances, star and planet sizes are far from real
- lasers shoot with some sort of particle (even if you use pulse lasers, the pulse will still travel at near light speed)
- there has yet to be found a physical phenomena which can create shields or forcefields or anything like that
- no use speaking about ftl travel
...

Just to make this clear. I do not want DW to try to simulate real world. It is fine at it is.
Dinosaurs were made up by the CIA to discourage time travel.
lycortas
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:23 pm

RE: A guide to Energy

Post by lycortas »

Astronomy counter counter rant. There is probably no such thing as a black hole. Bad, lazy physicists.

Mike
That's no moon, it's a space station!
User avatar
Gelatinous Cube
Posts: 696
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 2:34 am

RE: A guide to Energy

Post by Gelatinous Cube »

ORIGINAL: lycortas

Astronomy counter counter rant. There is probably no such thing as a black hole. Bad, lazy physicists.

Mike

Astronomy counter counter counter rant: Slartibartfast made it all up anyway.
User avatar
Nedrear
Posts: 702
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2011 12:43 pm

RE: A guide to Energy

Post by Nedrear »

Astronomy support:
 
There are black "things". Things that are so heavy, that the extreme small mass of light gets so high it is sucked in leaving a black spot in a burning ring of fire.
It is called a hole, because the current equations can't fathom the deepness of the gravity well and this well is extremly big. It is a hole everything in the 3D world falls into.
 
Yes it is correctly named as a BLACK HOLE.
One Thread To Guide Them All

"Nothing incorporeal wields such power as a word. Though it is the weapon of the smart and cunning it alas needs the same to prevail."
User avatar
Sylian
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 5:35 pm
Location: Germany

RE: A guide to Energy

Post by Sylian »

ORIGINAL: Nedrear

Astronomy support:

There are black "things". Things that are so heavy, that the extreme small mass of light gets so high it is sucked in leaving a black spot in a burning ring of fire.
It is called a hole, because the current equations can't fathom the deepness of the gravity well and this well is extremly big. It is a hole everything in the 3D world falls into.

Yes it is correctly named as a BLACK HOLE.


lol, no offense but this statement is also bs, sorry
1st: Light has no mass, not even a tiny one and it does not get higher or lower or anything near a black hole. (well no rest mass that is, maybe you spoke of the mass equivalent of the photons energy?)
2nd: Blackholes dont have a burning ring of fire, or they could be easily observed
3rd: Black holes and their properties can be well described by the equations provided by the general relativity - we are not speaking about the big bang here, which is where current physics fails
4th: the world is not 3D, and things dont "fall"
Dinosaurs were made up by the CIA to discourage time travel.
User avatar
Nedrear
Posts: 702
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2011 12:43 pm

RE: A guide to Energy

Post by Nedrear »

ORIGINAL: Sylian

lol, no offense but this statement is also bs, sorry
1st: Light has no mass, not even a tiny one and it does not get higher or lower or anything near a black hole. (well no rest mass that is, maybe you spoke of the mass equivalent of the photons energy?)
2nd: Blackholes dont have a burning ring of fire, or they could be easily observed
3rd: Black holes and their properties can be well described by the equations provided by the general relativity - we are not speaking about the big bang here, which is where current physics fails
4th: the world is not 3D, and things dont "fall"

1 + 2:

As a elementary particle, together with the funny names of "Gluon" "strange" "charm" or "Myon" the "Photon" is very well influenced by the same phenomenon we call mass. Yes it is constructed in a way that it does not activly interact and if in a small area with the matter effect we call gravity. That does not mean it has absolutely no interaction with the other parts, as all of them are currently funding - theory - on the Higgs particle in the universal Higgs-field. This particle generating it's field slows down the elementary particles and thereby gives them a rest mass. The light itself only got the energetic mass and a very small rest mass, because the influence is not enough to support a constant rest mass.
Now we have a big bad black hole surrounded by rotating mass if not alone and dying which radiates quite good. Because that way we SEE them. In this hole particles "fall" - metaphorical speaking for the picture of the rolling coin in a spiral way into the abyss - into a three dimensional hole as people call it. This gravity well applies from all sides in theory, but since the black whole radiates a force from within like a magnetic field the matter is bound to fall into it from the side axes.
Since we are talking about a huge clutch of mass which are all enstranged matter, composed of Higgs and other shit creating mass at such it is likely that the Higgs-field there is so high light gets a constant resting mass and thereby is forced to rest in the hole forever, beeing transferred into heat energy to propulse hot matter out of the hole through Hawking radiation.

3:

They are not. The outer layer is composed of cosmical phenomenons with the in between of the magnetic field hardly and the inner results like hawking radiation of quantum theory. Now since we didn't get the quantum gravity theory working as of yet, in your stead I would not claim to have solved the mystery of the millenia. Otherwise I hereby nominate your for the noble prize. Please insert your solution to the swedish commitee.

4:

The world compromised of a volume we live in is a three dimensional place, composed of the length, the width and the hight. Yes we can have other parameters, making it a higheer dimension. Please talk to me again if you can walk through space - today here, tomorrow on the other side of the univers - and time for our fifth dimension. As one mass place is drawing them to it, it can be considered a "hole" in a metaphor. Of course all mass draws every other, making the difference by the bigger gravity "well". A black "hole" is pretty superior in this regard... especially a big galactic one routetating our star system.
One Thread To Guide Them All

"Nothing incorporeal wields such power as a word. Though it is the weapon of the smart and cunning it alas needs the same to prevail."
lycortas
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:23 pm

RE: A guide to Energy

Post by lycortas »

Unfortunately we have no evidence a black hole exists, and the equations to support them are built with the answer in mind. An hypothesis that has never been observed and requires us to divide by zero does not get my support.

Also, sub atomic particles have never been shown to be affected by gravity, magnetic forces yes, gravity no.

That's no moon, it's a space station!
gargoil
Posts: 389
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 4:23 pm

RE: A guide to Energy

Post by gargoil »

ORIGINAL: lycortas

Unfortunately we have no evidence a black hole exists, and the equations to support them are built with the answer in mind. An hypothesis that has never been observed and requires us to divide by zero does not get my support.

Also, sub atomic particles have never been shown to be affected by gravity, magnetic forces yes, gravity no.


Stars are a balance of Nuclear forces driving the star apart and Gravity pulling the star together. If the star is large enough (and there are millions that are in our galaxy along) that burn the remainder of their fuel will colapse. Depending on the total mass, they may end up as:

Dwarf Stars: nuclei squeezed together, there election clouds stripped away.
Neutron Stars: nuclei crushed, protons and electrons merged, all that is left are neutrons in contact.
Black Hole: Gravity has continue to crush the particules together, but now it is stronger there the strong force, and there is no other force in nature that can stop the implosion. They exist.

And it has been proven. There is a mass at the center of our galaxy, containing millions of suns worth of matter, in a space to small to see, much less then a stars volume. I cannot be anything but a black hole. And scientists can make these measurememts by the surrounding stars motions relative to it.
lycortas
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:23 pm

RE: A guide to Energy

Post by lycortas »

Actually, it has not been proven. None of this has been seen. Black holes are an idea that started in a persons head. Astronomers have been trying to fit what we see and don't see in the universe into the idea of a black hole.

Both Special Relativity and basic mathematics precludes black holes.

These ideas are hypothesis not theorems, there is a difference.

Michael
That's no moon, it's a space station!
User avatar
Nedrear
Posts: 702
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2011 12:43 pm

RE: A guide to Energy

Post by Nedrear »

Your "basic mathematics" love to "ditch around the zero" very much, thanks. Some of the formulas in the mathematic are achieved by carefully applying a division by zero through tricky means.
 
But yes they preclude black holes and don't prove them. Furthermore they are wrong in one regard. Black holes don't have infinite gravity.
 
Proven is:
 
A big, dark and small mass is a center of many rotations in the universe. If it is THE balck hole or further an infinite hole collapsing to nothing? Maybe not. As I mentioned the quantum gravity is not complete yet and maybe highly densed estranged matter on quantum levels got another effective force, countering the gravity it produces. After all even Newton told us, every force got a partner the same size and a black hole does not vanish into nothing falling in it's own hole but got a size while radiating hot matter. This proves the gravity is NOT infinite!
One Thread To Guide Them All

"Nothing incorporeal wields such power as a word. Though it is the weapon of the smart and cunning it alas needs the same to prevail."
User avatar
Sylian
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 5:35 pm
Location: Germany

RE: A guide to Energy

Post by Sylian »

I already love this discussion! [:D] Keep it up guys!
ORIGINAL: Nedrear

1 + 2:

As a elementary particle, together with the funny names of "Gluon" "strange" "charm" or "Myon" the "Photon" is very well influenced by the same phenomenon we call mass. Yes it is constructed in a way that it does not activly interact and if in a small area with the matter effect we call gravity. That does not mean it has absolutely no interaction with the other parts, as all of them are currently funding - theory - on the Higgs particle in the universal Higgs-field. This particle generating it's field slows down the elementary particles and thereby gives them a rest mass. The light itself only got the energetic mass and a very small rest mass, because the influence is not enough to support a constant rest mass.
Now we have a big bad black hole surrounded by rotating mass if not alone and dying which radiates quite good. Because that way we SEE them. In this hole particles "fall" - metaphorical speaking for the picture of the rolling coin in a spiral way into the abyss - into a three dimensional hole as people call it. This gravity well applies from all sides in theory, but since the black whole radiates a force from within like a magnetic field the matter is bound to fall into it from the side axes.
Since we are talking about a huge clutch of mass which are all enstranged matter, composed of Higgs and other shit creating mass at such it is likely that the Higgs-field there is so high light gets a constant resting mass and thereby is forced to rest in the hole forever, beeing transferred into heat energy to propulse hot matter out of the hole through Hawking radiation.

3:

They are not. The outer layer is composed of cosmical phenomenons with the in between of the magnetic field hardly and the inner results like hawking radiation of quantum theory. Now since we didn't get the quantum gravity theory working as of yet, in your stead I would not claim to have solved the mystery of the millenia. Otherwise I hereby nominate your for the noble prize. Please insert your solution to the swedish commitee.

4:

The world compromised of a volume we live in is a three dimensional place, composed of the length, the width and the hight. Yes we can have other parameters, making it a higheer dimension. Please talk to me again if you can walk through space - today here, tomorrow on the other side of the univers - and time for our fifth dimension. As one mass place is drawing them to it, it can be considered a "hole" in a metaphor. Of course all mass draws every other, making the difference by the bigger gravity "well". A black "hole" is pretty superior in this regard... especially a big galactic one routetating our star system.


1+2. For all i know photons have no rest mass. But i am no expert in particle physicss, so you maybe you can point out a reference?

3. The effect of a black holes gravity on its surrounding is well described by general relativity. (gravity, gravitational lensing etc.) The event horizon can be described by the Schwarzschild radius. You are of course right saying that the inner mechanics of a BH can not be captured by todays theories. On the other hand, due to time dilatation, from an external observers point of view nothing with a mass can ever cross the event horizon, so why bother? (except out of curiosity how our world works ofc)

4. [:D] i'd love to do that, unfortunatly i'm just a human bound to the laws of this universe

ORIGINAL: lycortas

Unfortunately we have no evidence a black hole exists, and the equations to support them are built with the answer in mind. An hypothesis that has never been observed and requires us to divide by zero does not get my support.

Also, sub atomic particles have never been shown to be affected by gravity, magnetic forces yes, gravity no.

Division by zero is not needed. The existence of black holes is deemed to be empirically proven. At least their existence is far more certain, than the earth like planet they found the other day...
Dinosaurs were made up by the CIA to discourage time travel.
Post Reply

Return to “The War Room”