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.

Recent solar buff needs to be undone.

Discussion in 'Suggestions and Feedback' started by vasvadum, Jul 22, 2014.

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

    Messages:
    258
    @Vasvadum, I don't know about you but I play games for the stress relief, the way you describe things in POST #50, it almost seams like you are a masochist lol :p
    You just want things to be hard and time consuming because? why?


    Question to everyone:
    How many players actually bothered with solar panels till after the buff?


    for me personally I believe that prior to the buff I had built 3 panels in total, and that comprised of 1 and 1/2 panels on 2 different ships in 2 different games.
    Now they actually have a use and I will take them into consideration in my designs.
     
  2. HexZyle Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    58
    I had about 12 installed about the place on the top of my capital ship, they helped run things like lights, conveyors, defenses, and medical stations, and took a bit of the edge off the pricey power usage of even a 0.5G gravity generator (I never run GGs at a higher power setting than this, its unnecessarily costly and is just asking for fall damage)

    I was wondering why the heck I was able to run both an assembler and a refinery with my ships power time saying 0 secs until I figured that they'd been buffed.
     
  3. vasvadum Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    392
    You mean, my station of 300 solar panels wasn't viable? Damn, I wish I knew that before I built it complete with automated asteroid defenses. :|

    Also, if you think a nuclear reactor the size of my lunch box is realistic, that is a terrible assumption. It'd take an RTG as big as my CAR to produce 2 kilowatts and I read some posts saying we are no longer producing RTGs, so we can no longer go beyond the asteroid belt because solar panels don't produce enough energy past that point. An RTG as big as a car produces 2 kilowatts of energy. Not 100 kilowatts (the reactor the size of my foot...) or 3.5 megawatts (the reactor almost the size of a useful RTG). TWO KILOWATTS. Just because it's 70 years in the future doesn't mean the laws of physics and thermodynamics change. Does the ISS use an RTG or nuclear reactor? Nope.

    Yes, because a surface area on a ship being the same surface area on a station is gonna produce a hell of a lot more energy. The point is, no one builds solar panels on ships, because it would be useless on them. It would however, be useful on a station that can charge batteries, because it is stationary, all the time.

    I prefer realism, realism is hard. If you want stress relief, use creative mode, or use the 10x efficiency options everywhere. I'm hoping the devs at least put realism, 2x, 5x, 10x into the game for solar panel controls.

    Also, before the update, I used solars all the time. Now they produce 120 kilowatts at perfect alignment.
     
  4. wankerstein Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    185
    :rolleyes: Some people want more realism in this game. Get effing over it!
     
  5. Bopkasen Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    129
    Now stop right there, you are comparing a 2014 solar panel to 2200 solar panel. That's not fair!

    What next? We can't build a small nuclear generator because it is too radioactive to have one in our house?

    In later year, we can make a double, triple, or quad layer of semiconductor solar panel that can collect more solar energy. If you can put a 8 cores into a processor, then you sure can put additional layer of semiconductor in solar panel. No math needed for this!

    Your argument is shows lack of open mind to possible future technology. We can create quantum computer if only that motherboard and processor company have to go all in to develope it.
     
  6. Leonhardt Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,930
    Not agreeing with him but this he's comparing a 2014 Solar Panel to a 2077 Solar Panel.
    It's not so much a lack of open mindedness so much that it is a lack of appreciation for good gameplay.
     
  7. Bopkasen Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    129
    The interesting thing is that NASA still consider using solar panel to power a station and wouldn't go wrong attaching it to a spacecraft follow by hydrogen generator or something reliably similar.

    My problem was before that the energy was less in solar panel vs amount of time to build it. Now, if I built a small ship with 4 welders, that is nice but still solar panel remains more efficient than 2014. The game play balance? I failed to see what make solar panel OP against nuclear generator.

    The key is creating different type of power. Keen SHW took an easy route to introduce solar energy. If you think solar and nuclear energy are the two only type, you are in for a big surprise for the future update.

    On the side note, I would welcome a smaller battery for a small ship to make it fit like a Toyota Prius. :woot:
     
  8. infAl Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    182
    So this conversation is still completely ignoring arbitrary power consumption whilst getting emotional over arbitrary power production ...? Okay then. :thumb:
     
  9. Bumber Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,018
    I think they should half the power production of panels (still a 10x buff.) That would at least be theoretically possible, even if still unrealistic. The new batteries should add plenty of use with shorter bursts of large output.

    I don't see why anyone should expect solar panels to even compare to the output of a nuclear reactor.
     
  10. vasvadum Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    392
    1. This game is set 60 years in the future. Not 186.
    2. I bolded some things for you, pointing out that I was comparing theoretical research which we may do and one that shows the maximum possible, even after 150 years of research it would still be the maximum possible.
    3. When you quote a large post, take out everything irreverent so as to not stretch the page with a ton of useless information. :p As you see that I have done.
    4. Build me a shoebox sized nuclear reactor that can operate safely and produce enough power to power 50 houses indefinitely, and I will acknowledge that it is possible.
    5. Sure, we could layer it in, but the photons must be able to get to them. You don't need photons to hit your processor when you have quad core CPUs. However, with solar power, you need light. Light MUST reach the elements converting light into energy. You can't layer 5 solar panels on top of each other and expect the bottom 4 to work. You can't make an extra thick solar panel with more stuff jammed underneath all in the same solar cell, unless you know that the light can reach it. The photons MUST reach.
    6. You use silicon in the game to build the solar cells. In this case, we need to think of the realistic maximum energy possibilities of silicon cell solar panels. Can't just lather on silicon like a fat wad of glue and get more output.

    You're forgetting that the in game reactors use quantum dimensional rift magic. Because you have a reactor the size of my foot producing 50 times more energy than 2014's smallest nuclear reactor (size of a car), an RTG at 2 KW.

    Well, I admit the game has a lot of balancing issues. And one major one is that thrusters use nothing but electricity which isn't possible unless you're using extremely bright lights and you want to move very very very slowly. :p There are also some things that seem to use too little or too much power. If they would stop hard coding it all into the exe files and dlls and stuff, I could load up the list of everything that uses power from the configuration files and get a good neat list of everything side by side. I still don't want to see solar panels produce more power than humanly possible. 100% efficiency maximum. No higher! Also as a technicality, solar panels would barely work at asteroid belt range, unless you stay at the closest spot, 2AU away from the sun. Then they'll work half as good as they do here on earth. Technically worse because of the large fall off, but anyway.






    I just had minor oral surgery, I don't feel up to arguing the topic and doing research for a while. I'll come back to the topic in a few days when the huge hole in my mouth heals up and stops causing me enough pain to keep me from focusing on anything. You guys will just have to be patient.

    One more side note, sure. It's possible to have all of these things 70 years in the future. We can make a break through in technology at any moment that could unlock anything such as teleporation, warp drives, shielding, laser weapons, antimatter weapons, antimatter batteries, black hole weapons, the list goes on. Technically laser weapons already exist but I mean, big beam technology like you see in star wars and other movies/shows. All of these things, will never show up in the game. You know why? because Keen do not believe that we will have any of this, 70 years in the future. It's highly unlikely, but possible. Keen isn't developing the game based on what things we could have 70 years from now, but based on the technology we have today, improved by 70 years of research and development.
     
  11. GotLag Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,114
    That's because it's easier to work out maximum solar infall after browsing Wikipedia than it is to estimate power usage.

    Obsessing over the refinery's power usage would require actual understanding, not just a numbers fetish.

    PS: all the blocks' power requirements are in CubeBlocks.sbc
     
  12. TechyBen Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    542
    But realism gives us both an understanding of balance for a game, and an understanding of mechanics for a game.

    With over powered Solar panels, we loose a lot of gameplay, as they become "infinite fuel" and "infinite power" quite too easily. It removes the gameplay of "careful with that fuel" and becomes "just do whatever you like, it does not matter".

    So some balance is needed. No one is saying it should do nothing, but we are not expecting it to be the all powerful force.
     
  13. Leif_The_Head Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    351
    Quite amusing to read 5 pages people feeding the troll...
     
  14. Wombats Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    791
    Let me just make this clear. In 2077 solar panels CANNOT give out more than 100% efficiency. In fact, in the year 999999 solar panels still CANNOT give out more than 100% efficiency. That would require creating additional energy than the sun is putting out.
     
  15. vasvadum Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    392
    Not all of them. I've checked for certain blocks that use power, and not all of the values are there. I've parsed the file with python a dozen times, as well as reading it manually. Not since the last update, but an example is, the power usage of the doors.
    Which troll are you referring to?
    Correct, but no one is saying we can't get more energy from a different method of building the solar panels, it's just the game devs made solar panels use silicon so there is a maximum silicon can handle. :p We can't really speculate on newer materials though since there isn't anything in the theoretical stages either.
     
  16. HexZyle Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    58
    I think the First Law of Thermodynamics would like to have a talk with you.

    I wonder how many times it will have to be said on this thread before people understand. Think of photons as molecules of water, and a 1 Litre bottle of water representing how much sunlight hits a square meter of a solar panel. Regardless of the recepticle that you use to catch the water poured out of the bottle, no matter what material, how waterproof its sides and base are, or even how well you prevent the water from splashing out, you can never end up with more water molecules in the recepticle than what were originally poured out of the bottle.

    The effeciency is calculated by how many photons (more precisely, how much energy the photons had) compared to how much of that energy was captured by the solar panel.
     
  17. GotLag Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,114
    I don't care if the amount of power produced is realistic. The general method is, and that's good enough.
     
  18. vasvadum Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    392
    Makes sense, I hadn't really researched it like I wanted to originally. Still recovering from my tooth being cut out and stuff. I've been wanting people to stop trying to say solar panels can be made more than 100% efficient but they just don't seem to care :p I mean, I show them the math showing what the maximum solar output could ever possibly be, and they want more!
     
  19. HexZyle Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    58
    There's this huge misunderstanding on this thread because of the title, people keep thinking you want to nerf the Solar Panels by 1/20. This thread has become twice as long as it needs to be and I'm pretty sure the majority, OP included, would be fine with a nerf of 1/2.
    It's logical, it's balanced, and it's a middle ground (logarithmically - yay, maths!)
     
  20. Bumber Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,018
    Then nerf those a bit too, and make everything else a bit more efficient to compensate. It still shouldn't come close, given the factors. (And you must have really big feet.)

    Edit: It seems they might be larger on the inside, given you can store 125 L = 0.125 m^3 = 0.5m×0.5m×0.5m of Uranium in a block that's slightly smaller than that, even if it were completely hollow.
     
  21. WhiteWeasel Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,086
    If you wish to argue realism, I will be completely typical internet person argue to you about semantics while not taking the OP in consideration. ;)

    A radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG) is not a nuclear reactor. An RTG generates power by the radioactive decay of it's fuel that produces heat that passes through the RTGs thermocouples to get to it's heatsink thanks to the laws of thermodynamics. The temperature gradient between the heatsink and fuel source passing through the thermocouple is how an RTG makes power.

    A current nuclear reactor generates power by bombarding UF4 atoms with neutrons to break them apart and kinetic energy of the fission products, the radioactive decay of said fission products, and some of the gamma rays that are absorbed the coolant. The coolant heats up the pipes though it, the hot coolant flowing through the pipes passes through the water tank. Heats it up, turns to steam and spins a turbine, etc...

    In 2077 however, they are most likely particle bed reactors, they are the only type I know if that would come even close (though still very much of a big stretch) to justifying the high power output/poor fuel efficiency of our compact reactors.

    Also the .5 m reactor are not the size of your foot. .5m is 1.64ft. cubed. That's about a small microwave in size. [FONT= &#39]
    [/FONT]
     
  22. vasvadum Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    392
    120kw is never possible. 64 kw is only possible, if you have landed on the sun. About 14 kw if you are orbiting earth. Maybe 2kw past mars, 1 or less in the asteroid belt at closest possible range. If this were to seem more real, they should at least make them earth powered, 14 kilowatts. That's double +2 of what they were before (6kw)

    Well that's simple. They asked The Doctor, to help build these nuclear reactors. :|

    Your link, is from another game. If you're gonna provide information about a reactor that may be in it's theoretical state, please cite a more reliable source of information than Kerbal Space Program.

    And yes, I exaggerated a bit. It looks like the size of my foot in game because I stub my toe on it all the time forgetting it's there. I might accidentally sweep it away with my broom the next time I'm dusting my ship because it's so small. :p If it went meltdown, it'd irradiate 10 square inches! Might make a bullet sized melt hole in my ship. xP (just making fun of how small it is.)

    Anyhow yea, cite a source of information that isn't just some other game. You know, I might try and email the local power plant for information or maybe even see if I can go ask them in person. I mean, it's only a nuclear reactor. How busy could they possibly be? :p It's all automated anyhow.
     
  23. WhiteWeasel Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,086
    I mean you could just look it up. I put up KSPI's link because it provides a summary of what it does that's also relevant from a gameplay implementation standpoint.
     
  24. TehRoach Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    258


    Sorry but I have real life to give me true realism :p
    I don't really enjoy playing creative mode,
    I actually waited till survival mode came out before I purchased the game :)
    I always play on Realistic as I like to experience the game, "as it should be"
    regardless any way as they were before, I still would never ever even bother with them, even if they had a 100x option. :p


    PS all the power generators in the game are "unrealistic" :p
    So why single out the solar panels when "realistically" the SSSR's would too be battling to produce something in the vicinity of 2kw, but in your "realistic" it is fine that they are 50x more powerful than anyone would ever dream them being!

    IMO I don't really care if the power generators are truly "realistic" as long as they are "game balanced" :)
     
  25. SenorZorros Master Engineer

    Messages:
    7,063
    *starts the all power supply should be replaced with it's reallistic counterpart dance*
     
  26. HexZyle Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    58
    *presses the Taunt key twice while facing SenorZorros*

    "I love ta conga!"
     
  27. Leif_The_Head Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    351
    Do you mind if I share your opinion?

    Regardless of how efficient the solar panels are, reactors also are really efficient. We are not even sure the game uses the exact same units. To me it looks like factor 10 scaled up.

    Anyway solar panels would be good enough at half the efficiency what they are now, and small ship small reactors need a nerf. Other than that, power generation and consumption is balanced.
     
  28. jtank4 Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    71
    See, that's not okay. This is false information, and I'm fairly certain you know it to be false. Solar panels in game have 50 m^2 of area that can be exposed to the sun, and there are 2.6 KW of power per m^2 that can be harvested in Venus's orbit. This leads to 130 KW of power the solar panels can harvest. Anywhere between 25% to 85% of that is perfectly realistic.
     
  29. vasvadum Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    392
    Ok, I may have had some values off somewhere but my math still shows up more accurate every time I look at it.
    The solar constant, for Mercury, is 9116.4 W/m², that's 9.1 kilowatts per square meter. So if we were floating around mercury, with just one of the game's largest solar arrays, at 100% absolute max efficiency. That would be 455 kilowatts. Lets go down the list, shall we?

    <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="table-layout: fixed; font-size: 13px; font-family: arial,sans,sans-serif; border-collapse: collapse; border: 1px solid #cccccc;" border="1" dir="ltr" width="619"><colgroup><col width="100" /><col width="100" /><col width="100" /><col width="100" /></colgroup><tbody><tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="[null,2,&quot;Location&quot;]" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom; font-weight: bold;">Location</td><td style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom; font-weight: bold;" data-sheets-value="[null,2,&quot;Output Raw&quot;]">Output Raw</td><td style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom; font-weight: bold;" data-sheets-value="[null,2,&quot;Compressed&quot;]">Compressed</td><td data-sheets-value="[null,2,&quot;One 50m\u00b2 Panel&quot;]" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom; font-weight: bold;">One 50m² Panel</td></tr><tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="[null,2,&quot;Mercury&quot;]" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Mercury</td><td data-sheets-value="[null,2,&quot;9116.4 W/m\u00b2&quot;]" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">9116.4 W/m²</td><td data-sheets-value="[null,2,&quot;9.12kw/m\u00b2&quot;]" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">9.12kw/m²</td><td style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;" data-sheets-value="[null,2,&quot;455 kilowatts&quot;]">455 kilowatts</td></tr><tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="[null,2,&quot;Venus&quot;]" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Venus</td><td data-sheets-value="[null,2,&quot;2611.0 W/m\u00b2&quot;]" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">2611.0 W/m²</td><td style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;" data-sheets-value="[null,2,&quot;2.61kw/m\u00b2&quot;]">2.61kw/m²</td><td data-sheets-value="[null,2,&quot;130.55 kilowatts&quot;]" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">130.55 kilowatts</td></tr><tr style="height: 21px;"><td style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;" data-sheets-value="[null,2,&quot;Earth&quot;]">Earth</td><td style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;" data-sheets-value="[null,2,&quot;1366.1 W/m\u00b2&quot;]">1366.1 W/m²</td><td data-sheets-value="[null,2,&quot;1.37 kw/m\u00b2&quot;]" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">1.37 kw/m²</td><td data-sheets-value="[null,2,&quot;68.3 kilowatts&quot;]" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">68.3 kilowatts</td></tr><tr style="height: 21px;"><td style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;" data-sheets-value="[null,2,&quot;Mars&quot;]">Mars</td><td data-sheets-value="[null,2,&quot;588.6 W/m\u00b2&quot;]" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">588.6 W/m²</td><td style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;" data-sheets-value="[null,2,&quot;0.59 kw/m\u00b2&quot;]">0.59 kw/m²</td><td style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;" data-sheets-value="[null,2,&quot;29.43 kilowatts&quot;]">29.43 kilowatts</td></tr><tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="[null,2,&quot;Asteroid Belt Closest&quot;]" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Asteroid Belt Closest</td><td data-sheets-value="[null,2,&quot;368.08 W/m\u00b2&quot;]" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">368.08 W/m²</td><td data-sheets-value="[null,2,&quot;0.37 kw/m\u00b2&quot;]" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">0.37 kw/m²</td><td style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;" data-sheets-value="[null,2,&quot;18.404 kilowatts&quot;]">18.404 kilowatts</td></tr><tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="[null,2,&quot;Asteroid Belt Middle&quot;]" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Asteroid Belt Middle</td><td data-sheets-value="[null,2,&quot;114.10 W/m\u00b2&quot;]" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">114.10 W/m²</td><td style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;" data-sheets-value="[null,2,&quot;0.114 kw/m\u00b2&quot;]">0.114 kw/m²</td><td style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;" data-sheets-value="[null,2,&quot;7.205 kilowatts&quot;]">7.205 kilowatts</td></tr><tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="[null,2,&quot;Asteroid Belt Furthest&quot;]" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Asteroid Belt Furthest</td><td data-sheets-value="[null,2,&quot;59.37 W/m\u00b2&quot;]" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">59.37 W/m²</td><td data-sheets-value="[null,2,&quot;0.059 kw/m\u00b2&quot;]" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">0.059 kw/m²</td><td style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;" data-sheets-value="[null,2,&quot;2.9685 kilowatts&quot;]">2.9685 kilowatts</td></tr><tr style="height: 21px;"><td style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;" data-sheets-value="[null,2,&quot;Jupiter&quot;]">Jupiter</td><td data-sheets-value="[null,2,&quot;50.5 W/m\u00b2&quot;]" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">50.5 W/m²</td><td style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;" data-sheets-value="[null,2,&quot;0.05 kw/m\u00b2&quot;]">0.05 kw/m²</td><td style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;" data-sheets-value="[null,2,&quot;2.525 kilowatts&quot;]">2.525 kilowatts</td></tr><tr style="height: 21px;"><td style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;" data-sheets-value="[null,2,&quot;Saturn&quot;]">Saturn</td><td style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;" data-sheets-value="[null,2,&quot;15.04 W/m\u00b2&quot;]">15.04 W/m²</td><td style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;" data-sheets-value="[null,2,&quot;0.015 kw/m\u00b2&quot;]">0.015 kw/m²</td><td data-sheets-value="[null,2,&quot;752 watts&quot;]" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">752 watts</td></tr><tr style="height: 21px;"><td style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;" data-sheets-value="[null,2,&quot;Uranus&quot;]">Uranus</td><td data-sheets-value="[null,2,&quot;3.72 W/m\u00b2&quot;]" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">3.72 W/m²</td><td style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;" data-sheets-value="[null,2,&quot;0.0037 kw/m\u00b2&quot;]">0.0037 kw/m²</td><td data-sheets-value="[null,2,&quot;186 watts&quot;]" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">186 watts</td></tr><tr style="height: 21px;"><td style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;" data-sheets-value="[null,2,&quot;Neptune&quot;]">Neptune</td><td style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;" data-sheets-value="[null,2,&quot;1.510 W/m\u00b2&quot;]">1.510 W/m²</td><td style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;" data-sheets-value="[null,2,&quot;0.0015 kw/m\u00b2&quot;]">0.0015 kw/m²</td><td data-sheets-value="[null,2,&quot;75.5 watts&quot;]" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">75.5 watts</td></tr><tr style="height: 21px;"><td style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;" data-sheets-value="[null,2,&quot;Pluto&quot;]">Pluto</td><td style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;" data-sheets-value="[null,2,&quot;0.878 W/m\u00b2&quot;]">0.878 W/m²</td><td data-sheets-value="[null,2,&quot;Wut?&quot;]" style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Wut?</td><td style="padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;" data-sheets-value="[null,2,&quot;43.9 watts&quot;]">43.9 watts</td></tr></tbody></table>
    Math used?
    1,366 * (1/x)²
    Where X is the distance in AU.
    Bold, is earth. Obviously. Underline, is the distance at which the game devs likely have us, the middleish distance of the asteroid belt. However, they could have us at the closest part of it towards the sun which would give those solar panels a good 18.4 kilowatt maximum charge rate at 100% efficiency.

    Now, can you tell me, how exactly are you getting 130Kw as a logical number? Are you forgetting that we can't create more energy than the energy we receive? 100% efficiency means that there is no heat, you convert light to energy with 0% of it lost as heat. Will likely NEVER happen. But even so, I calculated all of this at 100% efficiency. Just for you. Also the planet values are in Mean, I didn't get their closest or furthest values. I used the middle. I can always make you a more elaborate table to show closest and furthest if I have to to prove 120kw isn't possible, not even at earth range.

    Edit:
    Also, I admit my earlier values were guesses, because I was tired, and the hole in my mouth was still hurting when I typed it up. I did the research and came up with everything you see above. So congrats, it's worse than we thought. Not only is it insanely illogically overpowered, it was actually closer to perfection before the change was even made.

    Devs, if you are reading this, I suggest putting solar panels at about 16kw max charge (or the largest one and the others should follow the same math for surface area), this would basically mean that 70 years from now we have gotten close to 100% efficiency (which may not happen for hundreds of years), and would mean we are living at the closest part of the asteroid belt towards the sun where solar power is still good enough to use as an energy source. I also suggest a change to the nuclear reactors but that's a whole other topic, I have some ideas for it really.
     
  30. jtank4 Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    71
    First off, you said in your post that 64 KW would only be possible if one had landed on the sun. The table you just posted says otherwise, as did I. You know as well as I do I was not incorrect in saying you were distributing false information. Second, as I pointed out previously in the thread, I do not believe that we are anywhere near the asteroid belt. There is really no evidence to suggest that we are near the asteroid belt. Even the asteroids would suggest that we are not in it, given how close all of the asteroids are to each other (and how far away from each other they are in the real asteroid belt). It is far more likely that this game continues the plot of Miner wars, and we are in the debris trail of Venus. Whether we are or are not in Venus's orbit, it's not cool to purposely tell people false information, and it is most certainly false that 64 KW of power could only be obtained when a solar panel is pressed up against the sun.
     
Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.