Which stars are optimal for dyson spheres in the game?

[zelemir]

On the Dyson Sphere panel the only statistic of the star that is listed is 'luminosity'. Is there any ingame reason to care about any of the other stars stats (spectral class, temperature, mass, etc.) or are they only there for flavor?

(Excepting unipolar Magnets and/or other rare ressources that are only found around specific stars)

[Calmputer]

O Type Stars.
They always have at least a luminosity of 2. some as high as 2.8.

and no, the other stats are more or less just flavor... though maybe they'll have an impact later?

[Xilo The Odd]

o type stars in general. GIANT otype stars will have a good bonus on their luminousity as well. if you can when you generate a star cluster, shoot for an O-type Giant. even if just 1.

[Kazouie]

haven't played in a while, how is the performance impact when building a sphere around giant stars these days?

[Calmputer]

the solar sails are by far the biggest culprit.

I've built three Dyson Spheres in my current playthrough and I'm getting an average of 25-30fps.

If you can, building with only Small Carrier Rockets is preferred... Build a Dyson Sphere with as many *nodes* as possible, placed as tightly as possible.

[Kazouie]

Originally posted by Calmputer:

the solar sails are by far the biggest culprit.

I've built three Dyson Spheres in my current playthrough and I'm getting an average of 25-30fps.

If you can, building with only Small Carrier Rockets is preferred... Build a Dyson Sphere with as many *nodes* as possible, placed as tightly as possible.

thanks for the heads up, i hope they get a good handle on that in the long run.

[KaiserTom]

O types with the high luminosity first priority, and the largest radius second. Then make a sphere as large as you can physically make it. With Nodes minimized. There are optimal designs for this online. This is in terms of cost efficiency per watt.

In terms of pure energy density, you want as many nodes as physically possible. However this is enormously expensive. About 30x more iron, 20x more copper and oil, and 5x more stone per watt than cells. Plus titanium and silicon. Compared to non-integrated sails, it's 72x, 48x, and 12x per watt, due to their higher power generation, though of course they also decay.

I highly recommend a planetary miner mod if you are going that route. Because at that point, you are spending most of your time flying around placing miners to feed such a massive resource sink.

[Xilo The Odd]

Originally posted by KaiserTom:

O types with the high luminosity first priority, and the largest radius second. Then make a sphere as large as you can physically make it. With Nodes minimized. There are optimal designs for this online. This is in terms of cost efficiency per watt.

In terms of pure energy density, you want as many nodes as physically possible. However this is enormously expensive. About 30x more iron, 20x more copper and oil, and 5x more stone per watt than cells. Plus titanium and silicon. Compared to non-integrated sails, it's 72x, 48x, and 12x per watt, due to their higher power generation, though of course they also decay.

I highly recommend a planetary miner mod if you are going that route. Because at that point, you are spending most of your time flying around placing miners to feed such a massive resource sink.

yeah on game defaults such a project will take time, still completely doable though. the further out in your star cluster you travel, the denser your mineral nodes become, so if possible just travel far out and get a basic mining operation that gets fed warpers and it should last awhile, while thats goin on you can hit up more local sources to speed it up.

we are getting a newer miner mkII on the way as well as a couple other things, so we shall see if that will ease up that kind of work.

[KaiserTom]

Originally posted by Xilo The Odd:

Originally posted by KaiserTom:

O types with the high luminosity first priority, and the largest radius second. Then make a sphere as large as you can physically make it. With Nodes minimized. There are optimal designs for this online. This is in terms of cost efficiency per watt.

In terms of pure energy density, you want as many nodes as physically possible. However this is enormously expensive. About 30x more iron, 20x more copper and oil, and 5x more stone per watt than cells. Plus titanium and silicon. Compared to non-integrated sails, it's 72x, 48x, and 12x per watt, due to their higher power generation, though of course they also decay.

I highly recommend a planetary miner mod if you are going that route. Because at that point, you are spending most of your time flying around placing miners to feed such a massive resource sink.

yeah on game defaults such a project will take time, still completely doable though. the further out in your star cluster you travel, the denser your mineral nodes become, so if possible just travel far out and get a basic mining operation that gets fed warpers and it should last awhile, while thats goin on you can hit up more local sources to speed it up.

we are getting a newer miner mkII on the way as well as a couple other things, so we shall see if that will ease up that kind of work.

Frankly miners need to be blueprint-able in some way shape or form. Or the newer miner needs to be a "place and done" sort of deal. Just covering the entire patch. The newer miner wouldn't really solve the problem if it's just 2x faster or something, it just makes you do it half as often. Still an annoying and tedious process to do though.

[josmith7]

Originally posted by KaiserTom:

Frankly miners need to be blueprint-able in some way shape or form. Or the newer miner needs to be a "place and done" sort of deal. Just covering the entire patch. The newer miner wouldn't really solve the problem if it's just 2x faster or something, it just makes you do it half as often. Still an annoying and tedious process to do though.

Covering more of the patch, or minding 2x faster, isn't going to be hugely useful to me - my miners are basically belt limited anyway. If they mine 2x as fast but still have only a single belt connection then they're just even more stalled waiting for the belt to haul stuff away.

I guess a wider coverage would help me fit a few more miners around the same patch since I could have them all a bit further back. But that wouldn't necessarily help blueprint things.

Don't know what the new miner is going to to be, but hopefully it's something that will simplify mining setup and improve throughput.

[Xilo The Odd]

Originally posted by KaiserTom:

Originally posted by Xilo The Odd:

yeah on game defaults such a project will take time, still completely doable though. the further out in your star cluster you travel, the denser your mineral nodes become, so if possible just travel far out and get a basic mining operation that gets fed warpers and it should last awhile, while thats goin on you can hit up more local sources to speed it up.

we are getting a newer miner mkII on the way as well as a couple other things, so we shall see if that will ease up that kind of work.

Frankly miners need to be blueprint-able in some way shape or form. Or the newer miner needs to be a "place and done" sort of deal. Just covering the entire patch. The newer miner wouldn't really solve the problem if it's just 2x faster or something, it just makes you do it half as often. Still an annoying and tedious process to do though.

true, i'm hoping it will be like, 1.5-2x faster and have a wider arc, or to at least have a wider arc.if i could go up to a 15 node and get it all with 1 miner that'd cut down on placement time the very least, feeding it all into logistics is no problem.

my dream one would be a floating one that hovers above the viens and gets a wide area and has integrated logistics drones capability. maybe something for a MKIII down the line that uses unipolar magnets and such.

[Burnz]

Having more lanes coming out of the new miner would solve the belt congestion part at least. Maybe 3 lanes? 5? Or to take it one step further, integrate a logistics station in the new miner.