Steam Engines Insanely OP?

[Bambi]

I really like the game so far. But after messing around with the various different ways to generate propulsion for ships it seems like steam engines are a bit unbalanced. From what I can see steam propellers generate force exclusively based on RPM, reduction gears increase RPM. You can get maximum (>7000) power out of one small propeller by simply having a few reduction gears insequence attached to a very small and anemic single piston/single boiler engine. This doesn't seem to make much sense at all.

[Bambi]

I'd say the obvious solution is probably to disallow reduction gears from being chained at all. And making the maximum power of a steam propeller more appropriate to its size. Also the lack of a proper "hull shaft" block is weird, the 2m phantom shaft block is difficult and buggy to use.

[Silamon]

Reduction gears reduce the amount of power per material you get out of steam engines, and steam engines already have ridiculously high material per second costs. You could run a fuel engine ship for hours at the same cost as running a similar power steam engine for a few minutes, and the fuel engines do not have a wind up time.

Steam props are amazing yes, and I definitely like to use them over the regular props, but it forces you to use steam power instead of fuel. I TRIED making a small steam engine to run just the props and fuel engines to run everything else, but since there is no way to choose which engine things take power from shields took power from the steam engine. As soon as you start trying to take power from a steam engine it will slow your ship to a crawl unless you are putting a lot of resources into them.

I have read that the devs are planning to rebalance steam engines in the future, which would include reducing the power of the steam props. As it stands now, they SHOULD be really powerful considering the *insane* material cost steam engines require to run them at a decent speed.

Edit:
In regards to the 2m phantom shaft it is indeed a little weird, but it does work. The way to do it is add the 2m shaft with the other side sticking into the hull, then place a regular propeller shaft on the outside of the hull connecting to the the 2m shaft. Then you stick the propeller onto that.

[FourGreenFields]

"Insanly OP" is a funny way to spell "useless, unless you care about looks".

They cost a lot to build (allthough 5m upwards has lower building cost per thrust than normal props), a crapton to run (even an injector engine without a refinery will be more efficient if using normal props), and require more space inside your craft. On top of steam engines being used first, making them even worse if you have other stuff using power (which you will).

For comparison:

1m:
Red Gears  |      1     |      2     |      3     |      4     |      5     |      6
mat/s      |      1.5   |      1     |      0.9   |      0.8   |      0.8   |      0.7
Thrust     |  7,916.53  |  7,973.22  |  7,975.91  |  7,914.43  |  7,975.7   |  7,875
Thrust/mat |  5,277.687 |  7,973.22  |  8,862.122 |  9,893.038 |  9,969.625 | 11,250

3m:
Red Gears  |      1     |      2     |      3     |      4     |      5     |      6
mat/s      |      4.1   |      2.8   |      2.4   |      2.2   |      2.1   |      2
Thrust     | 31,631.92  | 31,672.98  | 31,946.48  | 31,714.84  | 31,898.41  | 31,884.52
Thrust/mat |  7,715.102 | 11,311.779 | 13,311.033 | 14,415.836 | 15,189.719 | 15,942.26

5m:
Red Gears  |      1     |      2     |      3     |      4     |      5     |      6
mat/s      |      8     |      4,3   |      3.5   |      3.1   |      2.9   |      2.8
Thrust     | 70,726.6   | 71,811.88  | 71,836.04  | 71,356.17  | 71,855.52  | 71,861.56
Thrust/mat |  8,840.825 | 16,700.437 | 20,524,583 | 23,018.119 | 24,777.766 | 25,664.84

Compared to a Huge Propeller: 3k thrust, 75 power-usage -> 40 thrust per power
@700 power per material (injector, no refinery): 28,000 thrust per material

With a refinery, even a not-entirely-terrible one, you'll far exceed that. Max efficiency is 299.2, and getting around 100 isn't exactly difficult.

For reference, this is the raft I used to test it: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/357965913636470786/554749991722287126/Steam_Props.blueprint

[Silamon]

Originally posted by FourGreenFields:

"Insanly OP" is a funny way to spell "useless, unless you care about looks".

They cost a lot to build (allthough 5m upwards has lower building cost per thrust than normal props), a crapton to run (even an injector engine without a refinery will be more efficient if using normal props), and require more space inside your craft. On top of steam engines being used first, making them even worse if you have other stuff using power (which you will).

Yeah, basically this.

Unfortunately I DO care about looks, and I hate how walls of propellers look.

[Bambi]

They are not weak, they are extremely over powered. I got 7000 force (KINETIC FORCE, NOT ENGINE POWER) off of a simple steam engine with one piston.

[FourGreenFields]

And you wasted a crapton of internal space and materials on replacing two normal props. As said, not worth it.

[Bambi]

From googling one normal prop has 150 FORCE.

[FourGreenFields]

Originally posted by Bambi:

From googling one normal prop has 150 FORCE.

3k. 3k thrust. I'm not sure in what way Google messed up, but not even the Wiki is this outdated/wrong.

[Silamon]

Originally posted by Bambi:

From googling one normal prop has 150 FORCE.

The cost to run a single steam prop is significantly higher than it would be to run multiple normal props, even if you are not taking power from the steam engine.

If you ARE taking power from the steam engine (which WILL happen if you use ANYTHING else that uses engine power, including shields and thrusters) it will suck all the power out of it and leave you with very low RPM for your steam propeller. If you want to run steam props you really need to go all in with steam power.

[Bambi]

The cost to run 7000 from a SMALL PROP, with a SMALL BOILER was so low it showed up as 0 in the hud. If you live in an alternate universe where it takes a big expensive steam engine to run that kind of power good for you.

[Silamon]

Originally posted by Bambi:

The cost to run 7000 from a SMALL PROP, with a SMALL BOILER was so low it showed up as 0 in the hud.

So, you have said the same thing here a few times, are you not reading what FourGreenFields (who is far and away more skilled at the game than I am, probably knows more than about 95% of the people here I would think) and I have been saying? Or do you not quite understand?

Steam props are powerful only if you look at the force they put out compared to the number of props, in every other way normal props are better.

Edit: Since you edited your post I will add this.


Have you tested your small boiler and prop while running shields? Or anything else that takes power from the steam engine? Because that will significantly slow down your steam engine.

[FourGreenFields]

Originally posted by Bambi:

The cost to run 7000 from a SMALL PROP, with a SMALL BOILER was so low it showed up as 0 in the hud. If you live in an alternate universe where it takes a big expensive steam engine to run that kind of power good for you.

Then it should be trivial for you to tell me what I did wrong. 'Cause even with 7 reduction gears getting to near 8k thrust took 0.7 mat/s. With one piston.

[Bambi]

You're the one who is not reading and is denying reality because someone told you to do so. The engine is not big, it's not expensive, and it costs nothing to run.

[Silamon]

Oh, btw as for the "with a SMALL BOILER was so low it showed up as 0 in the hud." part, the hud does not actually count material used for steam engines in that calculation. That has not been updated yet for steam engines. Look at the boiler itself and you will see how much material per second you are burning to run it.

Edit:

Originally posted by FourGreenFields:

Originally posted by Bambi:

From googling one normal prop has 150 FORCE.

3k. 3k thrust. I'm not sure in what way Google messed up, but not even the Wiki is this outdated/wrong.

He was looking at the thrust for a small propeller. I just looked myself.

[Alcates]

Looks like I missed an excellently horrible argument. What a shame. I'll throw my opinion in anyway:

Holy crap, how could you possibly have come to such a conclusion? Steam is overpowered? That statement just reeks of not looking at actual numbers and coming to that instantaneous conclusion from the mere sight of one steam propellor making a ship go faster than a single 1x1 regular propellor. If you've somehow deducted an engine type, that can easily consume the entire price of the ship it powers in under an hour, is even remotely reasonable, I genuinely mourn for your logic.