Engineers Powerplant efficiency!!!

[TheMegaTurnip]

So I have been playing over a year and a half now.. I know most of the lil tips and tricks with the engineers HOWEVER I am very stuck with a certain thing...

At which point does using an OC pp mean better heat efficiency than an armoured/Low emmision pp?

Is this ever the case?

And how much overhead is required to make better use of the efficency rating on ones PP?

Thank you fo your times ladies and gentlemen.

o7o7o7o7

 

[Ian Doncaster]

So I have been playing over a year and a half now.. I know most of the lil tips and tricks with the engineers HOWEVER I am very stuck with a certain thing...

At which point does using an OC pp mean better heat efficiency than an armoured/Low emmision pp?

Overcharged G1 with the low heat experimental can have better heat efficiency than armoured G1 or low emission G1 with a different experimental.

Other than that, never. Heat efficiency is per MW *used*, not MW *generated*, so the OC PP will always generate more heat on the same ship than the other two.

 

[TheMegaTurnip]

Overcharged G1 with the low heat experimental can have better heat efficiency than armoured G1 or low emission G1 with a different experimental.

Other than that, never. Heat efficiency is per MW *used*, not MW *generated*, so the OC PP will always generate more heat on the same ship than the other two.

Wait wait wait... I know that running 98% power (Example) on a low emmision PP will generate more heat than an armoured running at 89% power... So surely there is a threshold of "Avalible power" being unused that drops it back again?

 

[Trollymctrollerson]

I can't provide a number for you but I can tell you I used to have a grade 4 OC powee plant that made 52mw and had heat efficiency of .6. It was in an anaconda and had at least 20% more output than needed and it was still a flying BBQ pit.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

Wait wait wait... I know that running 98% power (Example) on a low emmision PP will generate more heat than an armoured running at 89% power...

Not if all the other modules and the ship hull are the same. See https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/286628-Research-Detailed-Heat-Mechanics for the detailed research.

 

[Krash]

Not if all the other modules and the ship hull are the same. See https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/286628-Research-Detailed-Heat-Mechanics for the detailed research.

Are you PvE only? The factor that scares me off from using OC is the low integrity and the possibility of getting planted in combat. The great heat eff of armored is a nice side effect.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

Are you PvE only? The factor that scares me off from using OC is the low integrity and the possibility of getting planted in combat. The great heat eff of armored is a nice side effect.

My main PvP ship is a Prismatic/SCB FdL, so in any circumstance where the shields go exactly whether the hull or plant goes next rarely matters. I use OC3 on that - but I'd certainly have gone armoured 5 instead if I could fit all the modules in.

The rest of my ships all use armoured for the same reasons you do.

 

[Krash]

My main PvP ship is a Prismatic/SCB FdL, so in any circumstance where the shields go exactly whether the hull or plant goes next rarely matters. I use OC3 on that - but I'd certainly have gone armoured 5 instead if I could fit all the modules in.

The rest of my ships all use armoured for the same reasons you do.

I'm working on getting prismatics in about 4 weeks; this will give me the chance to revisit the OC approach.

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

I can't provide a number for you but I can tell you I used to have a grade 4 OC powee plant that made 52mw and had heat efficiency of .6. It was in an anaconda and had at least 20% more output than needed and it was still a flying BBQ pit.

.6 is terrible!

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

My main PvP ship is a Prismatic/SCB FdL, so in any circumstance where the shields go exactly whether the hull or plant goes next rarely matters. I use OC3 on that - but I'd certainly have gone armoured 5 instead if I could fit all the modules in.

The rest of my ships all use armoured for the same reasons you do.

I use armored/monstered which gives 26.4 MW @ .35 efficiency.
With biweaves, 3 PAs and 2 Hammers I still have power to spare; ~87% deployed.

That can even run a c5, reinforced prismatic no problems; ~ 94% deployed.

I'm working on getting prismatics in about 4 weeks; this will give me the chance to revisit the OC approach.

Why?
It's a terrible idea.

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

Wait wait wait... I know that running 98% power (Example) on a low emmision PP will generate more heat than an armoured running at 89% power... So surely there is a threshold of "Avalible power" being unused that drops it back again?

Excess power means nothing.
Heat efficiency is everything.

 

[Krash]

I use armored/monstered which gives 26.4 MW @ .35 efficiency.
With biweaves, 3 PAs and 2 Hammers I still have power to spare; ~87% deployed.

That can even run a c5, reinforced prismatic no problems; ~ 94% deployed.



Why?
It's a terrible idea.

All of my combat builds run at .35 eff + monstered and I guess I forgot the struggle of the alternative. Are your PAs efficient?

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

All of my combat builds run at .35 eff + monstered and I guess I forgot the struggle of the alternative. Are your PAs efficient?

Yes.
It's enough power to run focused too.

OC will cook you, make for a very weak PP, and offer no real benefit, aside from 2m/s boost, lol.
An armored G5 pp has 273 hp, a G3 OC only has ~100.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

I use armored/monstered which gives 26.4 MW @ .35 efficiency.

And I need ~30.25 MW for my build because the SCBs add another 4MW or so, so that doesn't work for me.