Jump to content

10 Hs Engine Bug


9 replies to this topic

#1 Roadkill

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,610 posts

Posted 06 November 2012 - 02:08 PM

It's entirely possible that my memory is faulty, but since the servers are being upgraded right now I can't check.

If you're running an engine smaller than 250, you're required to add heat sinks until you have at least 10. This isn't correct by TT rules - you should get all 10 HS in your engine - but I'm fine with it if that's how they want to do it. The problem is that you're paying tonnage for those heat sinks twice. Once when you buy the engine even though the HS aren't included in the engine, and then again when you're forced to add the HS so that your Mech is legal.

I think it's also true of larger engines. The HS for those aren't included, but there are slots in the engine where you can place them so that they don't take up critical space. However, they do use up tonnage, and the engine weight progression already includes the weight for those HS. So again you're paying for them twice.

Or is my memory faulty?

#2 LogicSol

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,411 posts

Posted 06 November 2012 - 02:11 PM

Engines smaller than 250 have a ton subtracted every 25 from there weight to make up for this.
Engines larger than 250 no longer have extra weight included for those heatsinks.

#3 Egomane

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,163 posts

Posted 06 November 2012 - 02:13 PM

View PostRoadkill, on 06 November 2012 - 02:08 PM, said:

Or is my memory faulty?


Yes, it is! Per the TT rules any heatsink that does not fit into the engine, due to the {engine-rating/25} rule, must be placed into free slots of the mech.

#4 dF0X

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Veteran Founder
  • Veteran Founder
  • 678 posts
  • LocationPhoenix, Arizona, USA

Posted 06 November 2012 - 02:17 PM

So, to sum up, the engine weights are already adjusted to counteract the weight of the additional sinks that must be added outside of the engine. Additionally, engines smaller than 250 cannot hold all 10 required sinks internally.

#5 Tickdoff Tank

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 2,647 posts
  • LocationCharlotte NC

Posted 06 November 2012 - 02:17 PM

View PostLogicSol, on 06 November 2012 - 02:11 PM, said:

Engines smaller than 250 have a ton subtracted every 25 from there weight to make up for this.
Engines larger than 250 no longer have extra weight included for those heatsinks.


This ^^

Also note that the weight of your cockpit and your gyro have been added to the weight of your engine. This was done so that they could then subtract 1 ton for each *required* heatsink (that would have been free of tonnage in TT). If they had not added the weight of the gyro and cockpit then the low weight engines would have had negative weight.

#6 Roadkill

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,610 posts

Posted 06 November 2012 - 02:19 PM

View PostEgomane, on 06 November 2012 - 02:13 PM, said:


Yes, it is! Per the TT rules any heatsink that does not fit into the engine, due to the {engine-rating/25} rule, must be placed into free slots of the mech.

Yes. That part is working correctly. The part that I think isn't working correctly is that PGI's engine weights already include those extra HS that are supposed to be placed into free slots on the Mech, yet you're having to pay 1 ton each for them again when you place them. THAT isn't supposed to happen per TT rules.

LogicSol - I could swear that last night while I was configuring a Mech, I chose a smaller engine because the next one up weighed 1.5 tons more. I think I was looking at a 225 and ultimately settled on a 210 due to the wonky weights, but it's possible that I was looking at a different size.

#7 Roadkill

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,610 posts

Posted 06 November 2012 - 02:22 PM

Hmm... okay, thanks guys. I guess I'll just check again when the servers come back up. The ol' brain plays more tricks on me than it used to. :)

#8 LogicSol

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,411 posts

Posted 06 November 2012 - 02:23 PM

View PostRoadkill, on 06 November 2012 - 02:19 PM, said:

Yes. That part is working correctly. The part that I think isn't working correctly is that PGI's engine weights already include those extra HS that are supposed to be placed into free slots on the Mech, yet you're having to pay 1 ton each for them again when you place them. THAT isn't supposed to happen per TT rules.

LogicSol - I could swear that last night while I was configuring a Mech, I chose a smaller engine because the next one up weighed 1.5 tons more. I think I was looking at a 225 and ultimately settled on a 210 due to the wonky weights, but it's possible that I was looking at a different size.

This is normal for a sub 250 engine.
going from a 195 to a 200 will add an extra ton, same with a 220 to a 225 and a 245 to a 250.
The reason is that a 195 has 7 HS, a 200 8, a 225 9, and a 250 10.
A 350 still only has 10, but has room for 4 more. It also does not get the extra ton added on x25.

#9 Felicitatem Parco

    Professor of Memetics

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 13,522 posts
  • LocationIs Being Obscured By ECM

Posted 06 November 2012 - 02:26 PM

Chek this out: RemLab Mech design utility. It's a great browser-based Mech building program that lets you generate TROs, but only if you build them correctly. It's great for practicing stuff...

... and, yeah, running a 200 engine means you have to mount 2 HS somewhere on your Mech frame. Adding each unnit of 25 after the 250-mark adds a ton, but you can remove that ton by pulling out the extra heatsink that comes installed by default.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 06 November 2012 - 02:27 PM.


#10 Roadkill

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,610 posts

Posted 06 November 2012 - 02:33 PM

View PostProsperity Park, on 06 November 2012 - 02:26 PM, said:

Chek this out: RemLab Mech design utility.

I use Heavy Metal Pro. Hasn't been updated in a while, but it's what I'm used to after all these years.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users