Welcome to Keen Software House Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the KSH community.
  1. You are currently browsing our forum as a guest. Create your own forum account to access all forum functionality.

Hydrogen Fuel Longevity

Discussion in 'Suggestions and Feedback' started by Burstar, Jun 7, 2018.

Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.
  1. Burstar Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    461
    In the games current state hydrogen fuel tanks are depleted very quickly in survival. I think the amount of time a tank lasts should be improved by either:

    increasing the amount of fuel that can be stored in tanks (my personal preference), and/or
    decreasing the hydrogen fuel consumed by thrusters.

    Yes I know you're currently working on MP.
     
  2. Spaceman Spiff Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,878
    You could have a tank of liquid hydrogen, assuming you could keep it cold enough, and that would increase your fuel density. If I understand the conversions correctly, one kilogram of liquid hydrogen produces about 12 cubic meters of hydrogen gas (at standard temperature and pressure).
     
  3. Arcturus Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,649
    A single large grid hydrogen tank with (in the game files) capacity of 2500000 will power a single large grid large hydrogen thruster at full throttle for 389 seconds. If you reduce thrust while climbing, you can get a 600 ton takeoff weight ship from ground to space and only use half the tank. This is often how I escape a planet in survival games, and allows for plenty of cargo.

    If those 600 tons were one large thruster and 70 hydrogen tanks, it could hover for a bit over 7 hours.

    A 5 ton contraption made of a small grid tank (capacity 80000), small thruster, and battery could hover for 20 minutes.

    It is only a terrible choice of thruster if you need to hover a long time, and/or if you have poor ice mining infrastructure. It is excellent if you just need to GO somewhere. Planetary aircraft for mining metals shouldn't be using hydrogen thrust. I am not sure what other usage cases in survival would run out quickly.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. Spaceman Spiff Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,878
    I agree, and that's why the only reason I use hydrogen is to get off/on a planet; otherwise, in space it's ion thrusters and in an atmosphere it's atmospheric thrusters.
     
  5. Burstar Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    461
    Not on Earth you couldn't. You would be able to hover unlocked on the surface for 389 seconds until the fuel ran out.

    This is my point. That huge tank and you get 195 seconds of one thruster accelerating and then decelerating. That's peanuts.

    Finally, there are many situations where the alternative thrusters aren't available/appropriate, and using hydrogen thrust is just agonizingly expensive then.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  6. Arcturus Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,649
    You only need about 180 seconds of full thrust equivalent to get from ground to space on the earthlike planet, in about 7.5 minutes, if you reduce throttle as you climb. I have personally done this a few times in-game. But yes, if you wanted to hover at near full thrust near ground level, you would only last for 6.4 minutes.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. Spaceman Spiff Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,878
    That’s why I always stage my lift engines so I can start shutting down the big ‘un’s as soon as possible, and graduate to the smaller ones as gravity diminishes.
     
  8. Malware Master Engineer

    Messages:
    9,837
    I love the Hydros. I don't use ions. They're boring. Hydros in space are just fine as you don't need constant burn. Getting off planet is just fine if you adjust throttle, like Arcturus says. It's why I like them so much I think. Not only do they require more than just slapping them down somewhere during construction, you actually have to plan out fuel lines, but they actually work better if you do actual piloting rather than just slamming the thrust to max and pointing your direction. I wouldn't mind a little adjustment though.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Scoot Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    31
    Turn of dampeners for extra fun. I wouldn't mind getting rid of dampeners as they are currently implemented and getting dedicated RCS thrusters. Real space flight is all about Delta-v. If only SE and KSP had a baby.
     
  10. KissSh0t Master Engineer

    Messages:
    3,725
    I really wish there was a smaller hydrogen tank for small ships, not the length of it but how wide it is, I find it really hard to build a good fighter with the current hydrogen tank :<
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Burstar Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    461
    Yeah that was what I was originally wishing for but figured a new tank block model would be less likely than Keen altering base variables of the current Tank blocks
     
  12. Soup Toaster Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    212
    I gotta say, I used to be unhappy with small block hydrogen but then I figured out you gotta add small atmospherics to launch up to about 8000m and THEN kick in the hydrogen and small hydrogen works pretty good for leaving Earth. You know, if you're doing the minimalist thing that is.
     
  13. Burstar Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    461
    And then you're in space with a whopping 40 more seconds of acceleration/deceleration. This isn't 'can you get to space with hydro' it's 'regardless of the use, you blink and the fuel is gone'.
     
  14. Soup Toaster Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    212
    Oh there's no doubt the small tank doesn't hold nearly as much as it should, I don't think anyone would argue that. And it's weird that the small oxygen generator wastes I think 30% of the ice you put into it, that's a HUGE problem. But sometimes the "engineering" part of this game is about finding a way to live with the nonsensical design decisions that Keen makes. :)
     
  15. Calaban Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    986
    In my builds, the Hydrogen tank is a bit like a Battery. Only for fuel instead of power. The Tank is used only on the "ready the big thrusters" special need moments, or as a reserve if ever the ice runs out by accident- while Ice and o2 generators provide the fuel directly otherwise. The tank is not the end all be all fuel source, it is the "buffer" that keeps things from "browning out"

    Why wait for refilling? why stockpile and process and all that? just dump ice in and GO with generators directly
     
  16. Stardriver907 Master Engineer

    Messages:
    3,368
    Hydrogen and hydrogen engines were put in the game specifically to provide the power needed to get off planets. Had there been no planets, it's highly likely we would never have seen hydrogen engines in the game.

    This is obviously true for atmospheric engines as well.
     
  17. BlackScythe Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    132
    I'm absolutely fine with the current hydrogens. Build 1 or 2 tanks on a basic ship will provide you with thrust long enough to find Platinum for the ions.
    In the late game is still use the hydrogens for my (survical scale) big ass ships. at that point i have the infrastructure to fuel these beasts since they need around 5mil KG of ice to fill up the tanks. If i would build these ships with ions, the whole ship would be cluttered in thrusters and it would take away a large part of the game for me.
     
  18. Malware Master Engineer

    Messages:
    9,837
    @BlackScythe Thing is, the IONs are by principle so darn boring. I don't like them at all. I like that I have to deal with the fuel issue. I stopped using ions altogether long ago.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  19. odizzido Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    681
    Large grid hydrogen is good. I assume small grid is still crap compared to large though. People just need to build more tanks.
     
  20. Malware Master Engineer

    Messages:
    9,837
    @odizzido Can't say I've had any big issues, but then I don't really rely on small ships... And I can't really remember ever designing a small ship to go to and from a planet. In space there's not much of an issue. On planets, obviously, there's the atmospheric ones. I generally find small ships boring too, as they can't really have any interiors. I like interiors. Cramped and utilitarian interiors, sure, but still.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  21. odizzido Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    681
    Small grid hydrogen thrusters have pretty terrible stats compared to large grid ones. They're still usable of course but it might actually be more efficient to build a rotor and use large grid on small grid ships. I'd say it's almost certain actually. This is a constant issue in SE, though usually small grid wins.
     
  22. Arcturus Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,649
    Fuel efficiency of the small grid ones is about 80% of the large grid ones. Not too terrible.

    The big issue is that the small grid tank has too many components for a small grid block and is therefore too heavy. It eats up too much of the mass budget of viable small grid hydrogen ships (or makes designs retrofitted to hydrogen become non-viable).

    SE planetary aircraft designs always mass-out. You can't make a good design that relies on cargo containers being filled until you run out of volume.
     
  23. Stardriver907 Master Engineer

    Messages:
    3,368
    Which is why I have said that the standard game needs capital engines
    [​IMG]
    Titan
    By Darth Biomech
    ForceMagnitude: 128,000,000


    [​IMG]
    Cratos
    by S_E_K_T_A_N
    ForceMagnitude - 234,000,000
    Just two of these Cratos engines gets my 200,000,000 kg Chilkoot Trail from 0 to max speed (107.7 m/s) in thirteen seconds. The ship is equipped with four.


    These are not thrusters. These are engines.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 3
    • Like Like x 1
  24. Spaceman Spiff Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,878
    And the need for such large engines to move those monstrous capital ships is the very reason why I stick with lower-case ships. I’m just saying...
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  25. Malware Master Engineer

    Messages:
    9,837
    And that is exactly why there are no larger vanilla thrusters. Same reason many blocks are missing from small grids. To discourage huge builds.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  26. odizzido Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    681
    The small grid thrusters themselves are much too heavy as well.
     
  27. Stardriver907 Master Engineer

    Messages:
    3,368
    Well, too bad. If SE were actually a survival game I would be upset. As it is, I can build and run Chilkoot Trail and the rest of my fleet with no game-breaking issues I can't solve with better hardware. My only concern now is the ability to have more people in the game to share the experience. It seems Marek is genuinely interested in the possibilities of both Keen hosted servers and some kind of server linking/sharing.

    Probably not for the current game, though :(

    I like flying Chilkoot myself, but I would rather stand on the bridge and bark out orders like Capt. Picard or something. I don't want to pilot the ship. I want to command it. Besides, watching her go is kinda neat
     
  28. Sich Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    92
    I use hydro engine for my drone on planet...
    Because I have scarce ressource and it's easier to get ice that tons of solar panel to provide enough energy for the atmo thrusters...

    It's very easy to get ice to run your drone, much more difficult to build plenty of solar panel...

    They work fine ! And the hydro thruster is really beautifull at night :D
     
Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.