ICE vs fusion

Pages: 1
ghostrider
03/01/16 01:56 AM
98.150.102.177

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
It was brought up in another thread that the weight of the engine in a hover craft must be 25% of the hovers weight, which I believe is actually 20%. This really borders on stupid, as it makes it sound like the fusion plant can not produce the same rated engine as the ice. If this is the case, then how does any other vehicle using a fusion plant not suffer a speed penalty from it?

I said in the other thread before trying to move the conversation that is runs along the same stupid lines as the endo steel and double heat sink thinking, or at least from the way I see it.
And would that mean the xl and other light versions produce less power because they are lighter?

I can tolerate an argument that the drive/lift may not be strong enough to lift the vehicle, even though that is completely contradictory to the way the rest of the game operates. But how does this really work?
The speed of the vehicle times the weight minus the suspension factor gives you the engine required. I understand they were trying to keep the super duty hover craft that move like and urbanmech off the fields. But they did not do this for any other unit in the game. Even fighters don't have a minimum for flying. Just getting out of the atmosphere. You can still fly with a movement of 1.

I have not seen anywhere the weight of the engine determines if the same rated engine being ICE or fusion and its variants is any different. Thinking about it, the fact the lighter engines can be use in other vehicles seems to conflict with this very idea.
Karagin
03/01/16 06:06 AM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
ICE weighs more then the fusion so would it not be the other way around?
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
ghostrider
03/01/16 01:26 PM
98.150.102.177

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
This is dealing with the rating of the engine. As was pointed on in the other thread, a 200 rated should put out the same power as a 200 rated ICE, but hovers can't use a fusion engine if it is below the minimum weight for the engine.
Why is that?

And even more stupid is, if your 200 rated fusion engine did work for the weight, and you decide to put the xl version in there, why would that cause the unit to fail at that point?
Engine weight should not cause a unit that can fit it to not be usable.
CrayModerator
03/01/16 06:03 PM
72.189.109.30

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

It was brought up in another thread that the weight of the engine in a hover craft must be 25% of the hovers weight, which I believe is actually 20%.



It is 20%.

This is a feature that dates to the 1986 Citytech construction rules, the first rule set for vehicles. The idea was purely out-of-character: hover vehicles had high suspension factors, which meant they could be very fast with a modest engine size. However, since hover vehicles were envisaged as light, thin-skinned vehicles that lived by their speed, it wouldn't do to let the vehicles be floating 5/8 slabs of armor with 10-rated engines.

The quick-and-dirty kludge to force that vision of hovercraft was to set a minimum 20% of hovercraft tonnage as engine weight.

There's not an in-character reason for it, no handy engineering to explain minimum engine weights. Like a lot of vehicle rules, it was just there to enforce certain notions about combat vehicle performance and roles.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer

Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
KamikazeJohnson
03/01/16 06:15 PM
24.114.27.139

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Cray writes:

Quote:
ghostrider writes:

It was brought up in another thread that the weight of the engine in a hover craft must be 25% of the hovers weight, which I believe is actually 20%.



It is 20%.

This is a feature that dates to the 1986 Citytech construction rules, the first rule set for vehicles. The idea was purely out-of-character: hover vehicles had high suspension factors, which meant they could be very fast with a modest engine size. However, since hover vehicles were envisaged as light, thin-skinned vehicles that lived by their speed, it wouldn't do to let the vehicles be floating 5/8 slabs of armor with 10-rated engines.

The quick-and-dirty kludge to force that vision of hovercraft was to set a minimum 20% of hovercraft tonnage as engine weight.

There's not an in-character reason for it, no handy engineering to explain minimum engine weights. Like a lot of vehicle rules, it was just there to enforce certain notions about combat vehicle performance and roles.



This could be explained fluff-wise to say Hovers need a certain power output for their motive system...which would be inconsistent with Aircraft rules, but still presents the logical inconsistency with using a lighter engine type, since power output is tied to engine Rating not engine Tonnage. In inelegant fix to that would be to calculate the 20% on the ICE table and declare that as the minimum Engine Rating regardless of type. More cumbersome, but makes a lot more sense.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
Akirapryde2006
03/01/16 06:17 PM
71.100.132.249

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Cray,

might I suggest that the developers create a fan based committee to go over many of the construction rules.

This way some of the longer standing mistakes can be gone over and at least have a conversation about them.

I know when it comes to ship construction, there are a number of rules that simply don't work or don't make any sense to them.

I know that I have mentioned this so many times. But think about it. You are talking about a game that was created in the mid 80's. There are many players like me who have nearly three decades of experience with the game and all of its mistakes. More importantly how to over come said mistakes. Sure not all of these home fixes work in terms of balance and such, but there are a lot of ideas that should be considered.

Akira
ghostrider
03/02/16 02:24 AM
98.150.102.177

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I guess the idea that fusion engines were for mechs back in the 80's implied vehicles would rarely use fusion engines.

But the next question is, when they came out with the xl engines, did they give any thought to how it would affect hovers?

I know it is one unit type out of a whole line of units, but they went so far as to change infantry damage, it would make sense to fix a few issues like this.

I would honestly suggest they drop the cost for ICEs as this would make the idea of using them more prevalent in vehicles then fusion engines. Another idea that goes with this is increase the power output of amps as well.
We discussed the weight issue, and that can remain dead for now.
ghostrider
04/02/16 04:33 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Thought came up with fusion engines again.
Wouldn't all fusion engine units that have weights of the engine under 10 tons be illegal?
To my knowledge, the engine hides heat sinks from crits, not the actual weight of the sinks themselves.
So wouldn't the unit have ten tons of sinks including the engine itself?
So the .5 ton fusion engine should weight 10.5 tons.

I know the lining of the engine is supposed to help with the heat, but this sounds like magic.
If a half ton engine can bleed 10 heat, then larger ones should bleed more, and not just hide the criticals for the sinks.
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
04/02/16 05:16 PM
70.122.160.150

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Your trying to use logic on a game where logic does not work.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.

I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
ghostrider
04/05/16 12:20 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Not sure if they did it on purpose, but the developers actually broke their own minimum weight rules with an xl equipped Condor hovercraft.

This is part of the wiki information. Since they are good about not having non canon stuff in it, would mean this came from other sources
Replacing the internal combustion engine with a more powerful CoreTek 215 XL Fusion Engine both greatly increases the Condor's speed while freeing up space to carry upgraded weapons array.

I am assuming the part where they tried to use 2 different motive systems as for fluff purposes. As they said it failed, it would be an example of why a tank can not use 2 motive systems.

The kanga variant -x has a fusion engine in it as well. Which violates the minimum weight rule as well. I was looking to see if the jets were considered another motive means.
Haven't look at more upgrades at this time, but it leads to the question.
Are they going to do away with the minimum weight for hover engines?
Or atleast downgrade it?
ghostrider
04/11/16 07:40 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Interesting statement was posted in another thread that got locked.

A fusion engine gets free heat sinks because it is a fusion engine.
I would figure it would get a few sinks that are needed to keep it cool, not just because.
Kind of like saying a nuclear plant has coolant towers just to make it look good.

I would like some honest opinions on this.
Should the 10 sinks be unusable for other uses, ie not kept in reserve so if the engine takes 2 hits the 10 heat bleed does not blow up the unit?
Or should it come with just the minimal amount to cool the engine and leave it there?
ghostrider
04/14/16 12:04 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Since they updated the rules, is any other units besides mechs and aero fighters allowed to overheat?
Or is everything else limited to heat dissipation?

Had someone ask if there was a reason the developers seemed to favor those units with this ability. Given the warship designs on the forums, it seems they have more sinks then heat during combat.
I had assumed that was to release heat from the jump and allow them to function when they first came out. As the lack of rules for designing dropships/jumpships/warships only came out with battespace, our games focused more on planetary battles, with strafes being a major use of fighters.

The impression was fighters were even more unlike to be faced then mechs, due to implications they were even more rare then mechs. Militias might have 6 of them for defense, and likely to keep them hidden when a vengeance carrier shows up.
Same with a drop ship or 2 would be less likely to engage several ships with 40 plus fighters escorting them.
We never got into the warship phase.
ghostrider
04/20/16 03:33 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Maybe some one can explain this to me.
You can take a 240 fusion engine out of a schrek tank and put it in an awesome, or do the opposite and it should work fine.

Now if you pull a double heat sink 240 fusion engine out of an awesome and put it in a schrek, the engine magically stops working.
What has changed with the engine?

Yes the designers want to stop double sinks in vehicles, but what has changed in the engine to make it stop working?

This also holds true for xl engines. Single ones swap without much issue, but if you use a double sink one, the engine stops working once it touches a vehicle.
This makes absolutely no sense.

I was going to use a 300 engine to make sure the small issue of the engine not hiding the last sink would not be an issue. Since fusion engines run fine with a missing sink, the remote one does not have to be placed at all.
ghostrider
04/20/16 03:35 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
And I still have not seen an answer on why mech fusion engines take 3 hits before they stop working, but a vehicles fusion engine stops with the first hit.
As with the above example, they can be swapped out, yet magically they change physically to the point of being incompatible.
Karagin
04/20/16 07:58 AM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The vehicle engine is more compact.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
ghostrider
04/20/16 12:08 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Is there some where that it is stated in the rules or descriptions?

All of the information stated about fusion engines, and how they were being pulled from vehicles, nothing was said about size differences. I know they stated ICEs were larger.
I would also think the mechs would want a more compact engine to allow more items in their frames.

Now to clarify the response.
Was that an answer to both, the first question or the second?
Drasnighta
04/20/16 01:02 PM
198.53.98.65

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I just always figured, in stripping out the Fusion Engine, you strip out the Heat Exchangers (Heat Sinks)...


Since in not all engines are all of the heat sinks directly mounted, or are all the mountings full, so just part and parcel of removing the fusion engine is removing the heat sinks...



Kind of like my wife's Chrysler... You have to pull out the Air Filter before you can remove the Battery...



That way, you have a Fusion Engine of its rating, ready to go wherever its going to go... Size differences are only exaserbated by the "heat exchangers" section of it being wider when mounted in a 'Mech...


As to the "1 hit vs 3 hit" syndrome on Vehicle versus 'Mech...


I think its just a safety regulation... Take a hit in a 'Mech, and you are situated Further Away, your system is designed for heat dissipation and regulation, so simply, the *pilot can survive* the additional heat put out by the damaged fusion engine for a little while...

In a vehicle, because of its open design that normally lets it radiate heat out of the chassis - could possible just radiate the additional heat of a damaged fusion engine EVERYWHERE< including into the crew bay - So instead, safety protocols shut iit down immediately...

Or either that, or the more Open Design of a Vehicle for that heat dissipation means that the Engine is easier damaged, and that single Critical hit is the equivelant of Three 'mech glancing criticals...

Its not specifically defined.

Because its not specifically defined, I will continue to find a fun, fluffy explanation for it, be happy with it, and not consider it a *problem* that gets in the way of my enjoyment of the Game because that's how I roll
CEO Heretic BattleMechs.
ghostrider
04/20/16 04:15 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I can accept the crew compartment of a tank is not as good as the environmental sealed cockpit of a mech.
The head dissipation issue shouldn't be a problem other then the sealed protected crew bays. The 10 sinks should cover the 5 extra heat per turn, though it may not be able to fire energy weapons. It should still be able to move and fire any ammunition weapons it still can. Even the second +10 heat should be covered. If not, then the fusion engine could not dissipate the normal heat.

The exchanging of an engine, would have been better with a 250 or higher rated engine, since all sinks are hidden.
As I stated in the one thread. And a fusion engine does not need all 10 sinks on line to start. Otherwise units missing sinks would not start.

I would accept the double heat sinks not being able to be placed beyond the number the engine hides. But banning them entirely seems to change the dynamics of the engines themselves.

Now if the crew compartment were sealed, would that change the concept?
Karagin
04/20/16 05:48 PM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Also recall that the fluff says many older vehicles were cannibalized for their fusion engines to keep mechs up and running that had taken engine hits or damage. So originally the engines were interchangeable as long as they were the same weight and rating. As for how they fit and such...well they never covered that at all.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
ghostrider
04/27/16 01:39 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Still have not seen where a half ton fusion engine that hides only one heat sink is able to cover the weight of the 9 that are not in the engine.
Was told they are completely different types of sinks to explain why vehicles can't use a double sink fusion engine, but this is still not solved.
Logic is not wanted, though used to explain why things can't be done.
Akalabeth
04/28/16 02:51 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

Still have not seen where a half ton fusion engine that hides only one heat sink is able to cover the weight of the 9 that are not in the engine.



And where have you looked in the time since you last asked the question? What have you done to seek out your answer beyond repeating the question?
ghostrider
04/28/16 08:30 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The same place I have looked for the all the questions. In what ever resource books I have and some in the wiki here.

Now beyond trying to aggravate another conversation and getting this thread shut down as well, do you have a location to find this?
Tried several times to find a nice way to say this, but can't so here it goes.
If you suggest it is in the new rule books and it isn't, I will call you out for purposefully lying.
I very well suspect the answer is because the developers want it that way.
And they give the same answer on why other things can't happen though the issues of weight is subject to magical influences of the solar alignment of bovine excremental proportions.
Akalabeth
04/28/16 09:05 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Point is, if you ask a question and someone knows the answer they'll probably give you an answer.
But if no one has an answer, asking the question a second or third time isn't going to change that.
Pages: 1
Extra information
0 registered and 70 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  Nic Jansma, Cray, Frabby, BobTheZombie 

Print Topic

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is enabled
      UBBCode is enabled

Topic views: 10358


Contact Admins Sarna.net