Welcome to Keen Software House Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the KSH community.
  1. You are currently browsing our forum as a guest. Create your own forum account to access all forum functionality.

(Small Ship) Batteries are Too Large

Discussion in 'General' started by Yatakedeze, Jul 18, 2014.

Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.
  1. Brenner Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    609
    I'm fine with the current balance of the batteries. They are less space efficient than an equal amount of small reactors, but they have a much better power to weight ratio than small reactors. Meaning you can build fighters with less mass. Also, you save on conveyors. On dedicated fighters the only blocks left that need conveyors are the gatling guns, so you really save a lot of conveyors if you go for batteries instead of small reactors.

    That being said, I would love to have a small, less powerful version of the battery too. It would make building redundant power sources easier. Would be great for building small grav torpedos too.
     
  2. RabidAnubis Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    32
    I think one thing many of you are forgetting is that this game is "Sped up" in the sense that it takes very little time to refine and do other things as well. So keep this in mind when asking for this buff for batteries. (Although I don't see a problem with the small ones)

    80% efficiency means that only 80% of the power put in stays. THis is meant to make up for the fact that there must be a gameplay cost to represent batteries inefficiency and how they naturally lose power over time.
     
  3. Kielm Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    507
    I'm not sure how it works exactly, but I would assume that only 80% of the power going into the battery actually charges it, the rest is lost.
     
  4. Eternal Visitor Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    71
    I haven't found the small ship batteries to be prohibitively large personally, though on ultra-compact designs they would be poorly suited.

    [​IMG]
    that said, they fit perfectly on my construction ship.
     
  5. Yatakedeze Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    99
    I see a lot of people saying, "They work fine on my builds."

    Of course they do. They're a block. As long as you build big enough, you can add it and it'll look OK.

    The thing is, it shouldn't be so large. If it were a smaller block you could still use them in your humongous builds* just as well - in fact, it'd only give you more options. I don't think you'd have to worry about holes in your design or anything.

    Why don't people want more options? I honestly think people are blinded by fandom, or by the belief that any criticism is a slight against the developers. It is not, though. It would not have been difficult for the devs to make a smaller battery that fits in a 1x1x1 square, they simply decided not to.

    Also, I see a lot of people saying, "look at all the space you save by not having conveyors!" This is bizarre. Are you really building 17 conveyor tubes for every small reactor? What are you crazy engineers doing? Not to mention that if you want swappability, you must add a connector and merge block (so we're up to 2x3x3 + 2x3x3 + 1x3x3 = 45 times larger than a small reactor! And then you have to have another one or some other power source while you change the batteries!) There is no way a battery saves space over a small reactor.

    I'd like to see a 1x1x1 battery. If you're worried about it being too powerful :rolleyes: just make it a cylinder so it has to be attached at either end. Make it a lowly 100 kWh so it's on par with a modern lithium-ion battery.

    * Almost everything built in Space Engineers is overly large. Some of this will be fixed by dedicated blocks (e.g. the piston), but much of it simply has to do with the grid resolution and multiple-cell blocks. (A multiple-cell block is a block that takes a multiple of 1x1x1 that is greater than 1.)
     
  6. Amerikanovich Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    323
    Because, once again, modern lithium ion batteries have a 90% charge/discharge efficiency (at least when they're new), if we assume that they actually made any technological advances (carbon nanotube supercapacitor?) by 2077, the batteries should probably be at least better than 90% efficient...don't you think?
     
  7. Wombats Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    791
    Larger batteries store larger charge; keep this in mind.

    I fully support 1x1x1 batteries and other sizes; but you must understand that if you scale down a battery you also scale down its energy storage (and efficiency, some would argue).
     
  8. Spets Master Engineer

    Messages:
    3,214
    This ship have 2 batteries and 1 connector
    yes this batteries are huge, I want a medium or small size too, maybe both, yeah both sizes

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    so please, yes, maybe 1x1x2 or 1x1x3 battery for design purpose, and the common 1x1x1 like small reactor would be nice

    do it now or I will smash this space engineers head with this small ship
     
  9. Carryall Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    44
    Hehe. It hasn't been a week yet. I'm sure there is room for tweaking.
     
  10. Kielm Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    507
    I can imagine why you would lose efficiency by putting a battery in an environment where it's subject to extremely low temperatures. Batteries tend not to like that.

    It seems more like a gameplay mechanic to separate nuclear reactors from solar power and batteries. Batteries take ages to charge, unless you use a reactor. But if you use a reactor, you waste uranium.

    Solar power is free, so you don't have to worry about wasting it.

    80% efficiency is probably enough to stop people using reactors to charge batteries unless they have to. At 90% or higher... It's really not having an impact any more.

    I guess it helps them fill the role; if you have the resources to build a solar power farm then you're probably not going to be too concerned about a little uranium loss. But if you're using batteries to avoid the hassle of fitting and fuelling reactors, then you pay a price in efficiency.

    Just my take on it...
     
  11. Yatakedeze Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    99
    Actually, this is precisely why I'm mentioning it now. If I were to wait and bring it up sometime later, it would be reasonable to ask, "Well, it wasn't a problem all this time, why are you mentioning it now?"
     
  12. Disposadwarf Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    452
    The size isnt really an issue, unless you are trying to make a small ship torpedo. Some might say that Large conveyer systems restrict what designs you could make, but it is a design element that you have to adapt to and over come. Everyone has already adapted to this and now we see it as normal. Im all for a few tweaks to batteries, first and foremost being able to select whether a battery will charge from another battery. As for the size of it, its the same as the large thruster. Simple matter of adapt and over come.
     
  13. GotLag Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,114
    I'm not bothered by the efficiency, I switched my worker reactors out for batteries just to simplify operations. I come in to dock, switch the worker battery to charge, and forget about it. No more fiddling about stealing uranium from the large ship's reactors.
    The size is no issue either; I replaced my worker's large reactor with two batteries at no increase in overall ship size.
     
  14. Namdoolb Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    243
    Just out of curiosity, there's been a lot of talk about the efficiency of the batteries and their size vs capacity/output issues.

    Has anyone done the math on the nuclear reactors to determine their level of efficiency/output vs modern technology?

    Because I could quite happily live with inefficient batteries so long as they approached the same relative efficiency as reactors. (and chalk it up to game balance.)
     
  15. Amerikanovich Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    323
    I can agree on the gameplay mechanic, but it needs rebalancing, batteries in their current state are just not good enough compared to reactors to warrant using them...

    Also nanotube supercapacitors do not care about the temperature, and can charge within seconds (or minutes, depending on the size).
     
  16. GotLag Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,114
    Really? My worker above gets something like 22 minutes of full thruster burn out of two batteries. The useful life is much longer than that as you're not constantly thrusting while working.
     
  17. steve5041 Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    20
    I like the new batteries and I think they make a great addition to the game.

    The current large ship battery is great for emergency power on it's own or you can stack them up to power a smallish large ship on their own.

    However we do need a bit more choice with small ship batteries. The current battery, while good for some larger small ships, are a bit too big for the small, light fighter types some of us (including me!) like to build and it would be great to have a smaller battery size available. The large batteries do last quite well so I think it would be practical to have a smaller battery size too. Having more samller batteries would also speed up charging.

    A lot of people have been asking for 1x1x1 batteries but I think they wouldn't last very long and would be a bit pointless. I would like to see a slightly larger 2x1x1 (hwd) as a small battery, also you would have to work around them a little bit instead of just a like-for-like replacement which should be easy if you have the now obselete conveyours* feeding your reactors, and maybe a medium battery as well which might be around 3x2x2 or 3x2x1.

    Another idea which has popped into my head while I was thinking about contactless charging, like we have for mobile phones etc these day. We could have a special large ship block which can charge any small ship that has a landing gear parked on it. Would make charging easier and we wouldn't have to put a large and unsightly connector on our small and perfectly formed fighter we've built. Besides, the connectors latch on each other a bit meaning you need a lot more thrust to pull away which can result in the connectors and surrounding armour getting damaged by the thrusters.

    Anyway, those are my thoughts and ideas, now they are out there. :)
     
  18. entspeak Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,744
    Battery size was likely dictated by the size of the connector, which, itself, have had its size dictated by the size of the large grid because they couldn't figure out how to get a connection to work with only a small portion of a large block rather than the entire face. I do wish they could do something about that - and maybe the large rotor/small rotor head exploit (now a feature) will give some inspiration for how to fix it? Maybe... I can dream.

    Batteries are fantastic! I retrofit one of my old small scouts to test and it didn't have to change much at all. In fact, I use the connector for ammo resupply as well. Idle, the two batteries will last for 10 days. I can keep thrusters going on full for 2 hours before the batteries will be depleted.


    [​IMG]
     
  19. MegaMiner Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    625
    You can make battery packs, just strap a merge block onto a battery block and boom. Granted this does make for a fairy large minimum size for the pack and would not likely be useful for small ships.

    I do think the battery for the small ship should be 1x1x1, but I don't build a lot of small ships anymore, so I haven't tested it. To my mind, and I was one of the proponents for adding batteries, they should be a direct replacement for small reactors in most designs. My main reason for wanting them was to allow for efficient all solar systems. As they currently exist they can be used for such, but I would like to see the charging mechanics changed to allow them to automagically charge or discharge as the need presents itself. Having to manually switch between modes makes them a little less useful especially for large ships and stations that may have hundreds of batteries, solar panels small and large reactors.

    As soon as I D/L'd the patch i began adding them to my mobile factory and started grinding down the small reactor array. With the new higher output solar panels I am going to switch to a single large reactor as backup power, it will remain switched off unless I need it.
     
  20. entspeak Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,744
    I've been exploring complex power systems on a station using batteries and solar panels. I've got two separate battery arrays (27 batteries each) and one solar panel system (which are small ship panels), each of which is physically isolated from the main station grid. With gravity at .1g, I've got 8 days idle with the one array and 1 day recharge for the other using the solar panels. I've got a setup whereby one battery array is being charged by the solar panels while the other powers the station. Swapping them without a "surge" requires a procedure that, I'm sure, I'll be able to automate once programming comes in. Now I'm working on power isolation. For instance, the door to the power room is not on the same grid as the room itself, it's powered by it's own battery which can, like the battery arrays, be set in the control panel to be charged by the same solar panels.
     
  21. mhalpern Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,119
    I don't think that the issue is that the batteries are too big but the small ship small reactor is too small, it is smaller than the one that supposedly provided 1.2Gw to the flux capacitor in back to the future...
     
  22. MegaMiner Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    625
    No it isnt, the Mr. Fusion was the size of (and made from) a Mr. Coffee coffee maker, far less than the 0.5x0.5x0.5 meter singe smallblock. Just for reference for you non metric people, half a meter is about 18 inches.
     
  23. Tassadar Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    235
    I like batteries just the way they are. I am sure there are others that agree.
     
  24. Amerikanovich Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    323
    So replace those 2 batteries with a large reactor (we are talking about a small ship here, right?) and put in 1-5 kg of uranium. Boom. Almost 50% more power output, for a much MUCH longer amount of time, and you never have to go and recharge it. AND you save 9 1x1x1 blocks of space.
     
  25. Hatchie Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    194
    Comparing the bateries we have now with those realisticly available in 2077 always reminds me of this:
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    Any battery that will be available in 2077 from todays point of view is unrealistic and braking currently known laws of physics just as what all of us have at home right now was unimaginable just 30-40 years ago so get over yourselfs.
     
  26. SenorZorros Master Engineer

    Messages:
    7,063
    wait a minute... they used sex appeal and nerdishness in the same advertisement?
     
  27. entspeak Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,744
    I replaced the large reactor in my scout with 2 batteries. Slightly less output, but more than enough to handle my large engines. It fit in the same form factor with a few minor adjustments and BOOM: 10 days on idle. I could could run the thrusters on full for 2 hours before they depleted the batteries and it wouldn't take long or require mining to refuel. And it's much lighter and much faster.
     
  28. Iamus Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    313
    Frankly, I have little issue with the current size for my ships. However, I will also say that it is a bit large for all designs. It's why we had 2 reactors sizes. There should be the same for batteries.
     
  29. macrixen Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    28
    you forget that the batteries need to be shielded due to them being in space so perhaps the large size is more due to the shielding and not actual storage volume
     
  30. Lancar Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,227
    Well... for the small ship it's all well and good with 2 battery types, but for the large ship?.. a 3x3x3 battery would probably look a bit weird.
     
Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.