Powerplant thoughts for explorers

[dape]

I have have been 45.000Ly away from home before in an ASPX. Atm I am prepping a different ship for the next trip which will last 4 month and cover 100kly+ (Minerva Centaurus Expedtion)

I have to put some more thought into this compared to an ASPX. One of my goals is to optimize heat efficiency for fuelscooping. I usually start scooping, align for the next jump and engage FSD while still scooping.

Questions:

1) I am willing to sacrifice a few tons on a Powerplant and go for low emission engineering. Will this improve heat meanagment while scooping?

2) I will carry Repair Limpets and an AFMU. Only thing that cannot be repaired then is the PowerPlant. I tried to damage the Powerplant in Beta and was only able to by getting to close to stellar objects followed by an emergency drop out of SC.
Is there any other way the PP can get damaged? Then I would need to consider an armoured PP...

3) Is there a threshhold for malefunctions of the PP (as for FSD below 80%). And if so what are the effects of a malefunctioning PP? Will lifesupport engage for a few seconds? Will just everythig go cold and dark for a moment?

4) Not directly Powerplant related. I read somewhere that Clean Drives improove heat build up when fuel scooping compared to Dirty Drives. Can anyone confirm this?

O7

 

[racer1]

1) Yes it does
2) It does take heat damage from scooping just like everything else
3) Not sure but I think so. When it malfunctions you get 50% power IIRC. Set your priorities so that that 50% will run the critical things e.g. thrusters, fsd and life support. I didn't have any PP issues on the long expeditions I've done, BP and back. I wouldn't worry about armoured unless you are particularly prone to damaging things. Even at 0% you can reboot and repair to get 1% back.
4) Not sure seems to some debate on the issue.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

1) I am willing to sacrifice a few tons on a Powerplant and go for low emission engineering. Will this improve heat meanagment while scooping?

Yes, significantly, especially at G3. You'll need a plant one or two sizes bigger than normal, though, to cope with the capacity loss. Of course, on an exploration loadout that might still be somewhat smaller than the ship's normal maximum size.

Is there any other way the PP can get damaged? Then I would need to consider an armoured PP...

It could get shot But low-emission will probably do more good than armoured overall.

03) Is there a threshhold for malefunctions of the PP (as for FSD below 80%). And if so what are the effects of a malefunctioning PP? Will lifesupport engage for a few seconds? Will just everythig go cold and dark for a moment?

As with most things, malfunctions start at around 70% integrity when taking further damage. The effects are as follows:
- malfunction, integrity above 0%: output briefly reduced to 40% normal
- malfunction, integrity at 0%: output briefly reduced to 20% normal, risk of catastrophic failure resulting in ship destruction
- no malfunction, integrity at 0%: output permanently reduced to 50% normal

You can mitigate this considerably by setting power priorities.

Generally what I would recommend is:
- set Life Support to Priority 1
- set FSD to Priority 1
- if this takes you over 20%, get a bigger power plant
- set Thrusters to Priority 2
- if this takes you over 50%, get a bigger power plant
- put anything else that will fit below 50% at Priority 3 (e.g. a heat sink)
- put almost everything else at Priority 4
- if it won't fit within 100%, Priority 5 and/or get a bigger power plant.
(I've omitted some details which only really matter for combat ships here)

You now have enough power to begin and maintain supercruise even on a 0% plant, which should let you escape the immediate danger. If you can fit a heat sink launcher at Priority 1 as well, do it.

Once you've escaped the immediate danger (and aren't hovering close to a planet surface), reboot/repair to restore your powerplant to ~1% and 100% power generation, then use your other repair tools as needed (reboot/repair will scatter a small amount of module and hull damage everywhere, but can be fixed by the AFMU and repair limpets)

4) Not directly Powerplant related. I read somewhere that Clean Drives improove heat build up when fuel scooping compared to Dirty Drives. Can anyone confirm this?

Their benefit is mainly in normal space - while scooping, untuned drives are probably best due to the lower power requirements. Dirty Drives give you more margin for error when misjudging a landing and trying to boost away before the planet hits you, though.

 

[dape]

wow, excellent information. I was totally not aware of those pp mechanics. I definately have to go from class 4 to class 5.

 

[Qohen Leth]

Yes, significantly, especially at G3. You'll need a plant one or two sizes bigger than normal, though, to cope with the capacity loss. Of course, on an exploration loadout that might still be somewhat smaller than the ship's normal maximum size.

I use an overcharged 2D PP on my ASP and it works fine.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

I use an overcharged 2D PP on my ASP and it works fine.

Yes, but overcharged increases power output whereas low-emission reduces it. You could just about run thrusters, FSD, fuel scoop and life support on a 2D with a low-emissions G3 mod, which is technically enough to explore on ... but I'm not sure you could fit a fifth module in there.

 

[Allitnil]

I use a slightly overcharged 2A which via a secondary mass reduction weighs only 0.12T more than a 2D. The extra power means that I can also have shields and planetary vehicle hanger permanently enabled. Neither are necessary to have on all the time, but convenient when doing a lot of landings. It also means that if I should ever drop out of SC in a neutron jet that I can power up one of the AFMUs to keep repairing the FSD whilst trying to escape.

 

[Qohen Leth]

Yes, but overcharged increases power output whereas low-emission reduces it. You could just about run thrusters, FSD, fuel scoop and life support on a 2D with a low-emissions G3 mod, which is technically enough to explore on ... but I'm not sure you could fit a fifth module in there.

I know, that's what I used to have. Must have been a reason why I went for OC; temp ain't much a problem though, with a sharp timing, swoosh'n'scoop is still valid as ever.

 

[Ravenov]

You can get a secondary power increase if you're lucky with G1 low emissions power plant, and iirc its 1 iron per roll so pretty easy to get 100 rolls of it in search for the perfect one. Only downside is low emissions PP has a slight increase in mass, but at G1 we're only talking ~5%

You could also roll lots of G1 overcharged and get a secondary bonus to heat gen, but the effects of that won't be very high.

 

[dape]

I went with an overcharged PP on my aspx as well. It was running cool enough per se. But now I am working on a Beluga Liner and it needs some love to stay cool.

I cant recall, are there secondary effects on G3 low emissions as well or just G1?

 

[Valije]

Since I am in a long trip I tried Armored G1 until I got a 34% integrity bonus plus a bit mass reduction and a bit better heat efficiency. Mats for G1 are cheap.

 

[Orvidius]

The general rule of thumb, most of the time, seemed to be this: Use the smallest A-rated PP you can get away with, even if you have to overcharge it slightly to make it work. Or size it slightly bigger, but take low-emissions instead.

It looks like there's a secondary guideline now, for the "better safe than sorry" line of thinking, when planning long trips.

I hadn't considered trying to aim for 50% output to cover life support, thrusters, and FSD. My thrusters are a little bit of an energy hog, taking about 50.5% of the PP output by themselves (AspX, 5D thrusters with DD4, 2A PP with OC1). This gives me something to think about. A low-emissions 4A PP will only cost me about 0.75 ly in range, I think. Hmm.

 

[Nazdakka]

1) I am willing to sacrifice a few tons on a Powerplant and go for low emission engineering. Will this improve heat meanagment while scooping?

Yes. Low emission vs overcharged is a tradeoff: Would you rather have faster scooping or a longer jump range (from a smaller plant)?

4) Not directly Powerplant related. I read somewhere that Clean Drives improove heat build up when fuel scooping compared to Dirty Drives. Can anyone confirm this?

While in supercruise, clean drives run hotter than dirty! It's because of a quirk in the heat mechanics. Spoilered because it's a bit technical.

Spoiler

Thrusters generate heat in two ways; by consuming power and by moving the ship. Clean drives consume more power than dirty, and so produce more heat from their power consumption. That's the only thing that affects your heat in SC.

On the other hand clean drives produce less heat from moving the ship, that's what the 'thermal load' in the engineering mod refers to. That's why they are good for silent running and high-gee landings - you generate far less heat from firing the thrusters than an unmodified drive.

See here for the gory details and some experimental results.

Cooler in SC than both clean and dirty is an unmodded drive, because it uses the least power of all of all three. If you really want to optimise your drive for supercruise, the best possible result probably comes from a lucky roll on a G1 mod (either clean or dirty) that comes with a reduced power draw secondary so that your drive draws less power than stock.

 

[space voyager]

At tier 1 low emission PP you can get both a HIGHER energy output and a lower emissions. Just stock up on iron and go for it. I prefer it to higher tier as it lets you use even smaller PP. IIRC I have a size 3A PP on my AspX, modded with a good tier 1 low emissions roll. A 6% higher output lets me have almost everything powered up all the time, I only have AFMU unplugged - and I have two medium beam lasers (lightweight) always with me! Hoping that one day I'll need them out there...

 

[Kenneth McGrew]

I have have been 45.000Ly away from home before in an ASPX. Atm I am prepping a different ship for the next trip which will last 4 month and cover 100kly+ (Minerva Centaurus Expedtion)

I have to put some more thought into this compared to an ASPX. One of my goals is to optimize heat efficiency for fuelscooping. I usually start scooping, align for the next jump and engage FSD while still scooping.

Questions:

1) I am willing to sacrifice a few tons on a Powerplant and go for low emission engineering. Will this improve heat meanagment while scooping?

2) I will carry Repair Limpets and an AFMU. Only thing that cannot be repaired then is the PowerPlant. I tried to damage the Powerplant in Beta and was only able to by getting to close to stellar objects followed by an emergency drop out of SC.
Is there any other way the PP can get damaged? Then I would need to consider an armoured PP...

3) Is there a threshhold for malefunctions of the PP (as for FSD below 80%). And if so what are the effects of a malefunctioning PP? Will lifesupport engage for a few seconds? Will just everythig go cold and dark for a moment?

4) Not directly Powerplant related. I read somewhere that Clean Drives improove heat build up when fuel scooping compared to Dirty Drives. Can anyone confirm this?

O7

1) if you go for a grade 1 low emission PP you can get lower emissions AND a 10% mass decrease secondary effect , but yes they all improve fuel scooping and heat in SC

2) I really wouldn't bother, you would either have to be actively trying to get your pp to 0% or require flying lessons.

3) anything above 70% will not affect your flying, you will get some "pp malfunctioning" warnings but its nothing to worry about and no you wont loose any power above 70% health, when you get below 50% it will go offline occasionally & you may loose thrusters so depending where you are (high G planet only 500m above the surface) it could turn in to a dangerous situation, but if your pp is lower than 70% you really need to question your flying techniques and stop watching Netflix. the PP is a hard piece of kit to break exploring! combat on the other hand and even then it don't fail or malfunction that often.

4) clean vs dirty have a tiny difference to heat in SC about 1% difference but that could just be the difference in one roll to the next (clean drives use more power which creates more heat, DD create more heat...), so you can have a dirty drive better than a clean drive and vice versa, depending on your engineers rolls... need to compare eggs with eggs here not one god Clean G5 roll with an average DD G5 roll but focus on power and heat not the optimal multiplier, tests I have read don't compare eggs with eggs....

clean drives get their advantage on high G planets if your ship is heat sensitive and you like to boost a lot - but... this is personal preference, with DD you don't need to boost as much as your flying faster.

unfortunately this question is a bit like how long is a piece of string, as it depends on lots of different factors, and the Engineers RNG adds more complexity to it, most people focus on the optimal multiplier which is not how to approach engineering, especially when your talking about heat

i.e. the power draw on your FSD mod could be enough to negate any gains you made with clean tuning, heat is a funny thing to engineer but get it right and you can create some real cool running ships... like my DBx running at 7% heat

 

[duckofdeath]

Like Nazdakka said, don't use clean drives for exploration. They're the opposite of what you want. You want low power draw on as much as possible. Low power shields, low power everything, clean drives doesn't have an engineering advantage over any other mods regarding power draw, so you're just wasting time and materials on something you won't benefit from. Dirty drives has the same kinds "roll window" for power draw as clean drives, but you get a massive performance boost on planets, which is useful.