4 replies to this topic

[Miken]

Current double cooling difference inside engine between DHS and SHS unacceptable! Engine must have same internal HS efficiency as with DHS and SHS modifications!
-By logic: Modify engine from SHS to DHS without increasing space is impossible.
-By balance: Double cooling difference makes SHS sucks.

In conclusion i suggest to make internal SHS and DHS inside engine with 2.0 1.0 efficency both

P.S. Priority thought to equalize cooling of the engine itself with DHS and SHS modifications

Edited by Miken, 19 November 2013 - 02:03 AM.

[Durant Carlyle]

I don't think they should make changes to the engine heat sinks at all.

However, if any change is made, engines should have the equivalent of single heat sinks built in, not doubles.

[Galil Nain]

Perhaps a better, more fair way to look at this would be that the price of DHS upgrade should vary with the number of HSs in the currently installed engine, and similarly, the price of engines should vary when being installed in DHS vs SHS mechs. After all, engines have HSs installed and, as things currently stand, these heatsinks are abstracted from the mechlab, and hence any direct cost.

[Miken]

250 Engine w/o additional DHS much better than 200+2DHS. It's absurd. Corrected first post.

[Karl Streiger]

Miken, on 19 November 2013 - 01:42 AM, said:

250 Engine w/o additional DHS much better than 200+2DHS. It's absurd. Corrected first post.

And again its better as 300 with additional 2 SHS.

A good idea to close the gap would be to make all heatsinks that fit into an engine are free - as long as they are SHS.
Next all DHS are 1.7
So the choice between a SHS and DHS on a 400 is the choice between 1.6 and 1.7 (without wasting additional tons)