Technology and Research changes

[Tanthalas]

the alternate drive question is an interesting one, that we have run into in the past.  The irony is SS3 was suposed to fix the issue but the engine slider still dosn't work (surprisingly realy as it would rather simple to code I would think although most of SS3s code is crap just like SS2 only not as bad).  Questions to the Authors go unanswerd so one has to assume development has ended, as such I would be all for using misc weight and a simple tech adition to simulate the changes if it dosnt add to much complexity (fyi im a TE fan).

[KWorld]

For turbo-electrics, the interesting question is whether they were 20% larger and heavier than what?  The entire system was 20% larger and heavier?  The system minus the boiler system was 20% larger and heavier?  Some other subset of the engine system was 20% larger and heavier?  I haven't seen anything that clearly defines that.

Interesting question, never thought about that. It might be without boilers, at least that's what Bismarck's figures suggest (designed: 138k shp electric, build: 150k shp geared -> 8-9% difference).

it might be without boilers or without boilers and turbines, comparing the geared "transmission" (to use a car term that fits well here) to the electric "transmission" and electric motors.  Direct drive systems would be heavier than the geared system, I'd think, because you need multiple turbine sets, steam piping, etc.  So the difference in weight is probably smaller there, but does still exist.  Call it 4-5% weight difference.

[Nobody]

For turbo-electrics, the interesting question is whether they were 20% larger and heavier than what?  The entire system was 20% larger and heavier?  The system minus the boiler system was 20% larger and heavier?  Some other subset of the engine system was 20% larger and heavier?  I haven't seen anything that clearly defines that.

Interesting question, never thought about that. It might be without boilers, at least that's what Bismarck's figures suggest (designed: 138k shp electric, build: 150k shp geared -> 8-9% difference).

it might be without boilers or without boilers and turbines, comparing the geared "transmission" (to use a car term that fits well here) to the electric "transmission" and electric motors.  Direct drive systems would be heavier than the geared system, I'd think, because you need multiple turbine sets, steam piping, etc.  So the difference in weight is probably smaller there, but does still exist.  Call it 4-5% weight difference.

I looked  up the numbers again and it says that using the geared drive saved 1300 tons! That's a lot, the entire machinery weights - as build - only 4833 tons. So these 20% seem to refer to the entire machinery, not just a part of it

Im torn on this. It does add flavor and makes choices more differentiated then clicking a checkbox. At the same time, it does add some complexity to the engine techs, which I know have raised complaint in the past about complexity in there current state.

I don't see much difference, our engine tech involves setting the engine year anyway. Added complexity is only recalculating the range - if at all.

Nobody, if you would be so kind as to do these levels for the current engine tech levels assuming every option was available at each level (the independent techs for enableing each will stay), it would help with seeing exactly how much it would add and whether we want it to be integrated into the rule structure or not.

Not entirely sure what you mean, most of them only come later in the game. PM? I think this should abolish the "enable techs". Instead I would expect a real tree.

As far as the rule itself goes, Im not to fond of TE and diesel requiring older by year engines. What about using misc weight instead, seeing as SS3 allows us to put it below the waterline?

Sure should work the same way, but then one would have more manual calculations while designing his/her ship and we would always have to check if the weight is correct instead of the engine year. I thought changing engine year would be simplest way.

[KWorld]

For turbo-electrics, the interesting question is whether they were 20% larger and heavier than what?  The entire system was 20% larger and heavier?  The system minus the boiler system was 20% larger and heavier?  Some other subset of the engine system was 20% larger and heavier?  I haven't seen anything that clearly defines that.

Interesting question, never thought about that. It might be without boilers, at least that's what Bismarck's figures suggest (designed: 138k shp electric, build: 150k shp geared -> 8-9% difference).

it might be without boilers or without boilers and turbines, comparing the geared "transmission" (to use a car term that fits well here) to the electric "transmission" and electric motors.  Direct drive systems would be heavier than the geared system, I'd think, because you need multiple turbine sets, steam piping, etc.  So the difference in weight is probably smaller there, but does still exist.  Call it 4-5% weight difference.

I looked  up the numbers again and it says that using the geared drive saved 1300 tons! That's a lot, the entire machinery weights - as build - only 4833 tons. So these 20% seem to refer to the entire machinery, not just a part of it

That 1300 tons figure seems awfully high (that's closer to 40% of the weight, not 20%), but there may be a compensation: a turbo-electric ship wouldn't need a large separate electrical generation plant.    If we look here http://www.kbismarck.com/bsweights.html, Bismark's electrical plant was very large, weighing 1360 tons between it's diesel generators and it's steam turbo-generators and generating 7910 KW of power.

[Nobody]

That 1300 tons figure seems awfully high (that's closer to 40% of the weight, not 20%), but there may be a compensation: a turbo-electric ship wouldn't need a large separate electrical generation plant.    If we look here http://www.kbismarck.com/bsweights.html, Bismark's electrical plant was very large, weighing 1360 tons between it's diesel generators and it's steam turbo-generators and generating 7910 KW of power.

Yea I know, its all a bit obscure. On the other hand: 4833+1300=6133; 0.8*6133=4906 ~4833 -> so these values appear to be actually correct.

[snip]

Nobody, show me exactly what you would replace the current tree with.

[KWorld]

Figures are DEFINITELY obscure: that Bismark site I linked to gives Bismark's propulsion system weight (exclusive of electrical plant) of 3085 tons (not counting fluids, oil, and water).  With the electrical plant weight of 1360 tons (same caveat), that brings the total (propulsion + electrical system) up to 4445 tons.

[Nobody]

Nobody, show me exactly what you would replace the current tree with.

I can try, but details depend on things like research time or how many different levels we want.

Basically we would have a search path for each engine type (maybe with the exception of the VTE engine which is better until 1902) starting with the Direct-drive Turbines. From this path the new transmission systems "fork" once available(does anyone know when the first electric and geared ships were build(laid down)?). Each level would require it's predecessor or the next newer level on a parallel path.

With a 3 to 4 year pattern it might look like this:
(year indicates year it should be ready to use)

[Tanthalas]

IDK man, feals like more complexity to no real gain.  Personaly I think the original system handled it fairly well if not perfectly.

[snip]

At first pass, I really dont like this. Adds a fair amount of complexity for next to no gain. Im ok with altering the wieghts for drive systems, but this is just to complicated for no real gain in streamlining anywhere else.

[KWorld]

Ths USN laid  down the collier Jupiter in 1911, she was a test ship for turbo-electric drive (which was proposed in 1900 but it took until 1911 before the USN was convinced to test it).  I think the first geared naval ships were HMS Beaver and Badger, ordered in 1911.


Found a bit more data:
http://books.google.com/books?id=DluSJEQBki0C&pg=PT150&lpg=PT150&dq=US+Navy+turbo-electric+trials&source=bl&ots=L8Si1gxoWe&sig=VFobvg583HXAyjkNRNTj5BsVijs&hl=en#v=onepage&q=US%20Navy%20turbo-electric%20trials&f=false

[Logi]

To be fair, this is supposed to be a naval sim. Such a tech branch would put more flavor into the main portion of this sim - the naval aspect.
It adds point to the engine tech and differences so there can be actual design in that portion instead of just gun/armor all the time.

As a optimizer I like having more options to play with. :P

[Tanthalas]

Dont you meen as a Rable Rouser you like to come out on the oposite side of every opinion from the moderators?  Complexity just for the sake of Complexity is not progress it is regression.

To be fair, this is supposed to be a naval sim. Such a tech branch would put more flavor into the main portion of this sim - the naval aspect.
It adds point to the engine tech and differences so there can be actual design in that portion instead of just gun/armor all the time.

As a optimizer I like having more options to play with. :P

[Logi]

Well I do find it annoying that SS3 makes a checkbox for you to pick an engine type, which historically made a difference, only for SS not to account for it at all.
I'm not opposed to not counting it - just if so, remove all the text about the alternative drives. In N3 there were engine types mentioned in the tech tree but it made no difference.
If we don't want to complicate things, just remove all such text. A ss can have geared and turbo-electric drives on a ship at any year but it just doesn't matter to the sim at all.

And that was uncalled for Tan.

[Tanthalas]

Was I being Snarky yes, was it uncalled for thats a matter of opinion, in yours it was in mine it wasnt... we shall simply have to agree to disagree on this topic.  You could select diferent drive types in SS2 also, it still didnt make any diferance (atleast not that I could see).  It was suposed to in SS3, ofcourse we were also suposed to get an engine slider (move it all you want it dosnt do anything).  My point such as it is was simply that we already have a development system for the various drives.  Honestly we dont need another more complex one just for the sake of its more complex.

Well I do find it annoying that SS3 makes a checkbox for you to pick an engine type, which historically made a difference, only for SS not to account for it at all.
I'm not opposed to not counting it - just if so, remove all the text about the alternative drives. In N3 there were engine types mentioned in the tech tree but it made no difference.
If we don't want to complicate things, just remove all such text. A ss can have geared and turbo-electric drives on a ship at any year but it just doesn't matter to the sim at all.

And that was uncalled for Tan.