Efficiency Comparison of Convert-O-Trons 125 and 250

[ArcaneGamer]

The 250 part yields double that of the 125, but uses a fifth the ore and the same electrical input. The only trade off is that the 250 mass is 3 tonnes greater than the 125 part, but the difference to delta-v is negligible in a near zero-g environment with ore access. Why would anyone ever use the 125 given its inefficiency?

Are the stats of the 125 or 250 incorrectly assigned? This discrepancy of efficiency invalidates the 125, so why is it even in the game? A logic "bug" on the part of the developers.

[Chibbity]

Because it's smaller/lighter; simple as that.

Time is basically free in KSP as well, so the fact that it takes longer is pretty insignificant.

[ArcaneGamer]

Originally posted by Chibbity:

Because it's smaller/lighter; simple as that.

Time is basically free in KSP as well, so the fact that it takes longer is pretty insignificant.

Time is irrelevant, I agree. The 125 uses 2.5 ore to yield 0.5 mono-propellant, yet the 250 uses 0.5 ore to yield 1.0 mono-propellant. The other conversions follow a similar ratio, yielding double resources from half the ore. Why use the 125 if it creates only 10th the value per ore compared to the 250. The conversion ratios of the 125 are awful. If 125 only used ~0.3 ore / sec, then it would be slightly less resource efficient and slow, yet well worth using in lightweight designs.

The current relationship is illogical, from a game-play standpoint. Players should always select the 250.

[Chibbity]

But Ore is infinite unless you are on an asteroid, it doesn't dry up, so it's only a matter of how much time it takes to harvest.

It would be correct to say that you should prolly use the 250 for asteroids where there is a max number of ore available, certainly.

[ArcaneGamer]

I guess I would sacrifice the 10 multiplier to production efficiency to save 3 tonnes payload on an Eve lander, where the delta-v requirements and atmospheric pressure are extremely punitive on heavy weight landers. That is the only scenario I foresee using the 125.

But, for Eve, I would use a landing stage with the 250, and a lightweight upper stage, so I don't haul any mining equipment back up. Every gram of payload counts!

Thus, the 125 is utterly useless.

At least the mining drill stats make much more sense. If you want more ore per second, then supply five times the electric charge per unit.

[ArcaneGamer]

Originally posted by Chibbity:

But Ore is infinite unless you are on an asteroid, it doesn't dry up, so it's only a matter of how much time it takes to harvest.

It would be correct to say that you should prolly use the 250 for asteroids where there is a max number of ore available, certainly.

Okay, infinite ore is a fair point, but the bottle-necks are energy and ore for the 125. I save ~50% the energy using the 250, consequently, only ~.33 of a large drill and ~2 fuel cell arrays are needed to feed the rig. With the 125, I need ~1.67 large drills and 4 fuel cell arrays to feed the rig, but the production per ore is one-tenth the 250 rig.

Should not the 250 rig require more energy for the high production of resources per ore? At the very least, if the 250 is more production efficient, then it should require more energy: like 150 to 300 EC per second.

In the real world, extracting more value per raw material typically demands much more energy. I will still use the 250, but it's way too overpowered compared to the 125 for sharing the same tech node.

[andylaugel]

I only used one due to my trouble trying to build bigger SSTOs. Worked well enough on Laythe though--as long as I landed in a high enough ore concentration biome.
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1117937712

[Chibbity]

I mean, it's all in the description;

"While this smaller model is lighter than its bigger cousin, it is less efficient, and not designed for long-term operations."

However, as we agree that time and ore is infinite, the only difference between the two game play wise is less real time spent time warping with the 250.

[ArcaneGamer]

Originally posted by Chibbity:

I mean, it's all in the description;

"While this smaller model is lighter than its bigger cousin, it is less efficient, and not designed for long-term operations."

However, as we agree that time and ore is infinite, the only difference between the two game play wise is less real time spent time warping with the 250.

Thanks, I should have read the description first.