Видео

One thing I will say: The kobold would not be doing as great if the eeryie was a "get very close and very personal as quickly as possible" ship. As you mentioned: speed is a good thing in this game, and closing as quickly with possible with that many crams is what makes that ship so terrifying for ships on the water. If it could close quickly on the kobold.... Well. The distance to close for the shells becomes a lot less of an issue.

The surreal cereal killer serially killed cereal.

>It must be able to handle enemy Godly designs Plunderer is a 'hard' design. Can your Explorer beat Abactor/Brigand/Crossbones/Ransack 1 on 1?

I *almost* arrived at this sort of solution ages ago. I've of course done different engines with different priorities. Mostly 1T vs 2T engines back when turbo engines ruled the day. And back then I did try throwing a few injectors on an otherwise turbo engine to make more gas, but found that at the time it wasn't worth it. Never really tried taking exhaust from one engine and using it in another as far as I can remember. Might be a concept worth revisiting. See if I still have my old turbocharger prefabs if they even still work after all this time. Then get to testing for the right balance of injector to turbo for optimal gas usage. Probably would actually want multiple turbocharger engines - a smaller one to run off the superchargers and it's own exhaust, then a second bigger one that kicks on with the injector engine.

Great engine set-up for variable draw vessels like airships. I'll be adding this to my 'call it research' folder

Hi borderwise, me and my grandma really likes your content! Please keep up the good work!

Fun thing to note about plasma cannons is that the shotgun muzzle device is really good at making very very big holes in things with a very small form factor.

I just got done taking all o the fuel tanks out of my engine prefabs, as I used to have the gaps filled with fuel (up to their max use) which is a liability now that causes fires, and can take a tiny bit of damage to an engine to "whelp, that engine is gone now"

Learning so much for this game. At which hour mark do I get to start the campaign? xD

I remember making some like this back when I was making engine rafts before they super-nerfed the turbo.

I think the last turbo has the exhaust intake and out flipped

Always good with some more exposure! I feel folks are not using multi stage engines even though they are good!

Do not forget cooling. You need lots of cooling to get the numbers you saw.

Each time I see "efficient" inline carb engine it makes me nostalgic for the old versions, where you could get 20k PPM at 100% with 4 turpos per cylinder and engine large enough. Basically it was budget RTG with tradeoff being it's ridiculous volume.

I should send you my prefab. Its a fairly efficient no priorty engine. But very inconvinient lol.its has much better power density I'll guess.

About seriel or chain engines there's alot. Alot

Ring shield failure... The forbidden PAC...

I'm fairly certain that turbochargers gain most of their efficiency boosting potential at low gas pressure and get diminishing returns as pressure increases. In practical terms, it's better to split the gas from the cylinders equally among all turbos at once, rather than feeding it through each one in sequence. It doesn't matter once they're all getting used to their full potential, but it would increase the efficiency of the turbocharger stage when the injector stage isn't running yet, as demonstrated in the video where the last two turbos weren't getting much pressure. I do find exhaust pipes to be a confusing mess, and I understand that it might make it harder to fit them all together in the desired form factor this way.

dude years of playin the goddamn game and u still tryin to understand the fuel engine...

cereal 👍

It would be interesting to have a serial set of 3D carburetor tetris The first set is the base set, then the turbocharger section kicks on Then the final set of pure 3d kicks in if you need more, and potentially feeds the turbos (maybe a second set of turbos) I don't know that serials with injectors are likely to work out maths wise, since you can get very power-dense, cheap, and 500ish PPM engines from just 3d carbstacking

My monkey brain doesn't understand, but he's trying.

The engine certainly could use some work, 2/3rds of the power comes from the injectors, and that means the PPM can’t be much higher than 450, and doing the math, the PPV is about 29 across the whole engine, I’ve been able to make an engine with about 30ppv and 780 ppm, In short, While serial engines are cool concepts, thier true viability is somewhat questionable. I’ve dabbled in them too, but I’m not much further ahead than you

I'm going to dissent a little on simple weapons. Though they are not as material efficient as other weapons they do offer very very good space efficency. Sure I could build a betteraps than the casemates for 3500, but could I make a better aps in a 3x3 space? Maybe if it was a bad dif gun and even then I'm not sure that's better

Welcome to hell.

My experience with ftd is that the water doesn’t have enough drag to be realistic and air has too much. Real ships would be hard pressed to reach 20mps in any situation outside of hydrofoil. Excluding hydrofoils 30mps would be an impossible speed with a ship, maybe possible with a boat, but no luck with a ship. Meanwhile, real aircraft can easily breach 200mps with jet engines. In ftd, it’s the opposite. Ships can pretty easily get to 30mps, but any faster is a real challenge. Meanwhile, airplanes would struggle to get past 200mps.

For me simple weapons have one positive over most,they are run small,if room is a factor they can fit where real weapons wont

Correct me if I'm wrong but I do think simple weapons are very convenient volume wise. You'd struggle to make any custom weapon that can fit in a 3x3 that can do as much damage as they do. I use them quite a bit but only on very small craft that would struggle to fit any gun internally, and for that they are very convenient.

I'm personally disappointed with missiles the most. It seems they're best used as decoys, sonar buoys, harpoons, and munition defense rather than attacking. So many things are so tanky that small and medium missiles only seem useful if they carry EMP, but the large and huge are extremely space intensive, ammo intensive, long reloads even for shorter lengths and easily countered by LAMS, APS CIWS, Interceptor missiles, decoys and all. Outside of DWG they feel extremely underwhelming. With the tactical nuke, it's extremely useful as a torpedo warhead. The buff to make underwater explosions past 5m more powerful applies to all sources of explosions, not just missiles now. It's extremely common to see 300k HE dmg from a nuke torpedo against steel and HA ships My personal design has a separator so that it can be air dropped, has its own guidance with active 90 and passive sonar, as well as a top speed of about 70m/s underwater, for roughly 5-6k mats. In an ASW role it's great for crippling or outright killing even large submarines, though it can be shot down by ships with decent APS or lasers and underwater detection. Hell I built torps with simple nukes because of how underwhelming medium missiles were as torps and unwieldy and expensive large and huge were.

I find simple weapons useful for small craft and places where cant fit a big weapon system .

I strongly believe you didn't give flamers enough credit. Their range and DPS are considerably cons, but there are pros too: there isn't a way to block flames, you can't even armour yourself against flames, they ignore all of your enemies schemes, they soften up the armour of the enemy, making penetration with other weapons much easier, you will win long fights almost every time because they scale the hell out of the enemy. I would give them at least c tier, if not b. I build a close combat frontsider, that can kill a meg and it only costs 450k that uses one half flamers on half cram.

I think it should be pointed out that for missiles They do not require sigificant amount of dextection to work Every other weapon requires investment into a dectection suite of some kind Yes that may be cheap But a missile only needs a 360 camera and that will be all it ever needs Unless you are using remote guidance Which has its advantages and disadvantages

I'd consider lasers bumped down a tier, after the recent patch. Bungalowbill did some calculations when the fire update happed regarding them and, fire damage included, they ended up just getting a straight damage nerf, with some of that shifted to fire damage, when they shifted from AP to intensity. On top of this, before the update, defending against lasers- smoke or planar shields or both, moved laser damage from one of the best in the game per cost on par with rail-assisted APS sand behind CRAM to one of the worst in the game- it's worse now, because water also really nerfs that fire damage beyond the damage nerf. They're still good AA; and Lams is still the uniqueness that is Lams, but I actually like plasma better, personally. I'd also probably split APS between non-rail and rail by about a tier... err, like more than half a tier but less than a full tier, if that makes sense? Because rail power adds so very much for APS. Including, but not limited to, making shells too fast for LAMS to take out. Flamers are also in a weird spot. Like I agree with you on their placement mostly, but they're actually really effective at punching up when paired with the right vehicle. Something small and fast- in order to stay within that 400m range, but they actually output a lot of damage over time for their cost. Like really good, if you've got the intensity up. But that also means they -aren't- very good on big, slow things. I also have to say that I think the whole tier list shifts if defensive counters are considered or not. And I mean, all counters for all the weapons, or just 'ability to do damage for cost in favorable conditions'. For instance, a lot of weapons are just hardcountered by water so if something can't kill a submarine, that could affect it's score, whereas flipside that same weapon might do stellar at something above water. And there's CIWs, and LAMs, and planar shields, and smoke, and chaff, and anti-munition missiles, and so on; uncounterable weapons get a boost if 'counterplay must be considered'. My personal pick for top of the pile S-tier weapon? Rail-assisted sandblaster. As long as your shell is prepared for what you'll be facing. If Cram misses are taken into account, it's likely to outpace doom-cram for damage per cost. Though the best damaging weapon in the game? According to bungalowbill, melee lasers. Having seen the demonstration of it, I'm inclined to agree. Fun vid. And it's interesting, that there's room for subjectivity for a tierlist like this because even with hard numbers and facts, there's differences in how people build which play a factor in effectiveness, too- and one person's A might be another's B and vice-versa, not just in mental consideration, but in how they actually perform based on those builder's styles. :)

Great video! I was wondering if you could do a series where you take a look at different type of aps shells, kinda like a deep dive.

Personally I put Laser in A.

Cram is a lot better against anything thats not under water if you build them big enough and use a Time from lauch fuse with a laster targeter at an offset. They really mess up the large airships with the addition of fire dmg

On Particles Cannons: You can use Breadboards to intelligently control many features of the PAC using the Generic Block Getter and Setter components and a bare minimum of math. 1: You can set the charge time of the PAC based on the time since it last reloaded with a clamp to control its minimum and maximum charge, allowing all of your PACs to fire with a 30 second charge at the start of the battle before falling back to a quicker fire rate. 2: You can set the overclocking based on battery %*2, so you can automatically balance efficiency and alpha damage. 3: You can probably change the damage type based on target volume, but that's up to you to figure out with math evaluators and/or logic gates. 4: I have been informed that you sadly cannot change the focus setting in the breadboard, it's currently locked. 5: Most importantly, you can detect when a PAC is broken and disable it so it doesn't fire. I do this by enabling firing restrictions in a direction that the lens can't aim, such as straight up/down. 6: RGB particle beams.

"Nukes are melee weapons" The random that got this video recommendet without knowing the game: WHAT?

A good drill drone is almost better than an ICBM. A while ago i've managed to make a small hovercraft drone made of rubber, engines and drills. I lost the save though. They were not fast or accurate, but they were cheap enough to spam them, and if even a single one of them manages to get to the target, they dig INSIDE the enemy ship, dealing massive damage. You also can just slap em on the front of your ship to boost the frontal armor, since a spinning drill has bonus armor (i'm a bit confused about how much it gives, since it doesn't say anywhere, but the guide tells you that the faster the drill spins, the more additional armor it has. The block by itself has the armor value of 60, which is a lot) and give your ship an ability to finish off immobile targets faster. Advanced cannons are versatile, but that is all there is to them. They have every downside or upside of all the other weapon types, depending on how you build them. The best part about them is that you can automaticaly switch ammo with an ACB mid fight, meaning you don't have to build 10 separate guns for every combat situation. I wouldn't palce them on top of the list. Pulse lasers are much better in most situations. I have a complaint about the pulse lasers. They're too good compared to normal lasers because normal lasers "shake" and spread the damage across the entire enemy ship, instead of making holes in the armor, potentialy disabling turrets and engines like pulse ones do. Any SD thrustercraft becomes 2x more effective if you slap one Q switch on every laser combiner it has. I wish lasers got a rework fr. "Focus" needs to be added. The longer laser lens aims at a single point on the target, and the less the target and the turret itself move around, the more "focused" and less "shaky" laser should become over time. The damage drop off over distance needs to be increased and the overall damage reduced. I think that it's weird that the laser shakes like that, though i know that it was OP before the shakiness patch. It's just an idea. 🙂

I still too looking for simple anti squire missile system... no luck as it is unreliable and when it works absolutely useless weapon on any other target

Advanced cannons are the second best weapon for any occasion, as opposed to being the best weapon for a specific occasion

Drills feel like they were balanced (or not balanced) for an earlier time and never really got updated; they're much too fragile and especially HEAVY for what they are capable of

doesn't fire reduce AC of blocks as it burns though? solid secondary weapon imo

Try hollow point-Frag CRAMS, if you do them right, you get a great compromise between the penetration of sabot and the destruction of HE, plus they leave massive craters and that just looks cool

The TG alarmed is technically a simple weapon (nuke) and drill godly craft - while nukes have a lot of potential counterplay, in reality they're pretty hard to combat, especially when coupled with APS recoil drives

flamers looks great, works great, looks cheap, takes way to much fuel to be practical at even a medium scale (edit) This is in my experience.

Disclaimer: there are points where I say 'particle cannon' where I meant 'plasma cannon'. Why do those things sound so similar...