[Research] Detailed Heat Mechanics

Frenotx

Frenotx
moose666 said:
Just repeated, got the same result.
http://i.imgur.com/2KP59MP.jpg
The efficiency value there comes to 0.4 * (1 - 0.016) = 0.3936 therms/mj
http://i.imgur.com/BMh0Bs4.jpg

Time to overheat was 118 seconds
0.3936 * 118 * 10.72 = 497.88
Rounded up to 500

I was ~400ls from the star (1ls from station), so there shouldn't be any outside environmental factors.
Click to expand...
Very interesting. Everything looks fine. With your power plant, for the number to be off by a full 50 BTU, there'd need to be some other module(s) running using a total of just over 1MW of power. I doubt you'd miss something like that twice. It was 118 second until the "Heat levels critical" message popped up in the top-right corner, just before your temperature went over 100%?

Cablefast said:
Well, maybe I did it wrong. I'll redo it later and provide a documentation video. Sorry if I misled anyone.
Click to expand...
No problem. I'm definitely interested to see what you come up with. With 50 BTU of difference between these two results, there's definitely something going on here that we're missing.
 

moose666

moose666
Frenotx said:
Very interesting. Everything looks fine. With your power plant, for the number to be off by a full 50 BTU, there'd need to be some other module(s) running using a total of just over 1MW of power. I doubt you'd miss something like that twice. It was 118 second until the "Heat levels critical" message popped up in the top-right corner, just before your temperature went over 100%?
Click to expand...

Yea, here's the video of the test. Timed from when the fuel use is non zero until the warning appears - this gives me 7095 frames @ 60fps
[video=youtube;zaLbclQX2u0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaLbclQX2u0[/video]

The only modules that appear 'on' are the plant, canopy and hull reinforcements.
 

Cablefast

Cablefast
So I did the test again and got the same result. I took a video of the test and a photo of my power plant and thrusters in outfitting. I have shared all of that through Google Drive: https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0By8y-lCIKuPpeEp3UGtjOUozcFk&usp=sharing
-
For the record here are the numbers I am using in my calculations:
Ship: Federal Corvette
Power Plant: Unmodified 8B (0.5 Thermal Efficiency)
Thrusters: Clean Drive Tuning 7D (7.87 Advertised Power Draw/7.866 Calculated Power Draw)
*Heat Level Critical Time for First Test: 140 Seconds
*Heat Level Critical Time for Second Test: 141 Seconds
 

Frenotx

Frenotx
Well then. This is quite the mystery, it would seem. I'm wondering if there's a display bug with one of the engineer modified pieces of equipment... Something that would be good to know is the exact amount of heat a single thermal cascade seeker imparts on the target. We could then use that to cross-check these numbers, and figure out where the variance is coming from.
 

Cablefast

Cablefast
Frenotx said:
Well then. This is quite the mystery, it would seem. I'm wondering if there's a display bug with one of the engineer modified pieces of equipment... Something that would be good to know is the exact amount of heat a single thermal cascade seeker imparts on the target. We could then use that to cross-check these numbers, and figure out where the variance is coming from.
Click to expand...
My guess is that the reported "Heat Efficiency" rating of "0.5" on my 8B power plant is a rounded number. The 8C power plant boasts a "0.5" rating and the 8A power plant has a "0.4" rating. My guess would be the 8B power plant has a true rating of "0.45" which would put it right in line with moose666's findings.
 

Robin of Spiritwood

Robin of Spiritwood
If I have the cooling curve visualized correctly: it tapers off below the lower half, and maxxed out at 66% heat. This implies that it's very hard to cool ships below operating temp, unless you use a heat sink.

I have a DBS with a single heat vent beam fitted. Is that going to do anything useful for me? Would an all heat vent beam DBS be able to hide better at long range?

The coming patch ought to rebalance heat weapons. Collecting that data might be pointless if it gets dated. Heat vent and stealth though, that might be a persistent thing.
 

Frenotx

Frenotx
Cablefast said:
My guess is that the reported "Heat Efficiency" rating of "0.5" on my 8B power plant is a rounded number. The 8C power plant boasts a "0.5" rating and the 8A power plant has a "0.4" rating. My guess would be the 8B power plant has a true rating of "0.45" which would put it right in line with moose666's findings.
Click to expand...
Very good point. That should be easy enough to test. I'll take a look at it when I get back to Founders. If that's the case, then my Anaconda number is off, too. I have a class 8 power plant on it.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Robin of Spiritwood said:
If I have the cooling curve visualized correctly: it tapers off below the lower half, and maxxed out at 66% heat. This implies that it's very hard to cool ships below operating temp, unless you use a heat sink.

I have a DBS with a single heat vent beam fitted. Is that going to do anything useful for me? Would an all heat vent beam DBS be able to hide better at long range?

The coming patch ought to rebalance heat weapons. Collecting that data might be pointless if it gets dated. Heat vent and stealth though, that might be a persistent thing.
Click to expand...
The lower your current heat level, the lower your passive cooling rate. I'm not sure how the thermal vent beams work, so I can't comment on their detailed implementation / interaction with the ship's heat.
 

Epical

E
This looks very interesting! Unfortunately, I'm out exploring so i can't help with the research, but i have an idea: Wouldn't it be cool if 3rd party pages like coriolis(.io) implemented your research? One could, next to all the other stats, see how cool your build is running.
 

Muetdhiver

Muetdhiver
Many thanks to the OP.

I was waiting for this ^^

Great stuff, will come handy.

Where/How does the powerplant thermal efficiency comes in though* ?

*Did you do all the testing with A rated plants ?
 
Last edited:

Cablefast

Cablefast
Frenotx said:
Very good point. That should be easy enough to test. I'll take a look at it when I get back to Founders. If that's the case, then my Anaconda number is off, too. I have a class 8 power plant on it.
Click to expand...
I don't know if all of the class 8 power plants are wrong. I was just saying that the 8B particularly is rounded.
-
I think all of the power plant Heat Efficiency ratings are rounded to a single decimal point. For most power plants that number is exactly right.
 

Frenotx

Frenotx
Muetdhiver said:
Many thanks to the OP.

I was waiting for this ^^

Great stuff, will come handy.

Where/How does the powerplant thermal efficiency comes in though* ?

*Did you do all the testing with A rated plants ?
Click to expand...

The heat efficiency stat of the powerplant determines how many BTUs of heat are generated per second, per MW of power being consumed by your modules. The lower that number, the better. Since all ships seem to have a max cooling rate of about -8.7% of their thermal capacity per second, having a lower base heat load from modules cancels less of that max rate out, and thus allows you to cool off faster.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Cablefast said:
I don't know if all of the class 8 power plants are wrong. I was just saying that the 8B particularly is rounded.
-
I think all of the power plant Heat Efficiency ratings are rounded to a single decimal point. For most power plants that number is exactly right.
Click to expand...

I meant to say 8B. Typo. XD
 

Muetdhiver

Muetdhiver
Sorry I missed the PP part in my first read :/

Still, I got a question : Does the powerplant class has any influence at all ?

(in other words : is there any benefits in having a larger powerplant where one uses 10/20 MW, vs having a smaller one running at 10/10 MW, assuming both have the same rating ?)
 

Pipko

P
Frenotx said:
The heat efficiency stat of the powerplant determines how many BTUs of heat are generated per second, per MW of power being consumed by your modules. The lower that number, the better. Since all ships seem to have a max cooling rate of about -8.7% of their thermal capacity per second, having a lower base heat load from modules cancels less of that max rate out, and thus allows you to cool off faster.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -



I meant to say 8B. Typo. XD
Click to expand...
I believe you can check not rounded numbers for PowerPlant on the engineer's bases, on the screen where you preview results from upgrade's.
 

moose666

moose666
B plants do have a 0.45 base efficiency.
ZL1rlAN.jpg
 

moose666

moose666
More ships tested
FAS : 430
Python : 450
Clipper : 455

Will look over the FDL again, as the FAS being better on it seems an odd result

EDIT: Repeat test for FDL gives 335 again
 
Last edited:

wenkman

wenkman
Here come the first ones:

ShipPPThrtBTU
Hauler2A/0.42E/2.0229.5184
Eagle2A/0.43A/3.72167.3249
Cobra MK34A/0.44A/4.92172.1339

Have some more ships and will continue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom