In the Let's Play videos I've seen, people always seem to build huge battery chambers. That got me to wondering how much storage is actually needed.
I put together some sums based on building descriptions. I haven't managed to test these in-game yet, so I'd be interested to hear if anyone else has.
(For those of you who are as much of a dork as I am:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At-nwHqB-9gNdG4zVUJMNldHc3ZOWFdSRldiVTdGYWc&usp=sharing (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At-nwHqB-9gNdG4zVUJMNldHc3ZOWFdSRldiVTdGYWc&usp=sharing))
Based on hitting pause halfway through each hour, it looks like solar panels produce 1700 Watts between about 07:00 and 16:00, nothing between 20:00 and 03:00, and change in a roughly linear way in the morning and evening. (Perhaps someone with a knack for code, or inside knowledge, can tell us if the transition is actually quadratic or sinusoidal or something).
That gives solar panels an average output of 1000 W over the 24 hour cycle.
Batteries have a 50% efficiency; in 24 hours, one panel will charge up a battery by 467.6 Watt-days (OK, I tested some things in-game). That fits with a roughly 1000W average power.
If some of that power is being used directly, rather than inefficiently stored, I reckon a single solar panel can support something like 750 Watts of demand. At some point I'd like to try hooking up a panel-battery-sunlamp (800 Watts) and seeing if it slowly charges or suffers blackouts in the wee hours.
And if you're thinking it, because I did, no; You can't light up a solar panel with a sunlamp and build an over-unity loop. Solar panels don't seem to register artificial light at all (granted, there is no reason for them to do so in-game, other than exploits).
The point of all this is that, by my calculations, the rule of thumb should be that for every four solar panels you only need one battery to give a continuous supply.
The reason to have a whole hallway full of batteries is for the eclipse (or unforseen accidents taking out the panels, I suppose). Does anyone know how long the eclipse lasts? Is it always the same?
By my numbers, a base that is just getting by on X solar panels will go through X fully-charged batteries a day (or one battery every five days, if they go dark on everything except the paste dispenser).
So, what's your preferred approach? The more the merrier? Are occasional blackouts and micro-managing your standing lamps worth it to avoid the Short Circuit event?
I tend to have atleast 50 disconnected full batteries and 4-8 connected ones.
disconnected ones are divided into 5 groups placed further apart from other groups.
-I realised that having this minimises the chance of short-circuit.
-putting batteries 1 space away from the wall further reduces the risk
-having more connectors does too.
reserved power are used during fog and eclipse(usually 2days long)
It's weird, because throughout my time of playing, it didn't really seem to matter howmany batteries I had hooked up, it'd drain just the same.. You would expect it to go slower as you have more batteries, thus less need for power, but it doesn't seem that way..
Do the disconnected cells of 5 ever have short-circuits, or does that only happen if there's a change in charge?
In reality I think disconnected batteries would discharge over time, but I guess that doesn't happen here.
Quote from: laser50 on November 20, 2013, 05:29:38 PM
It's weird, because throughout my time of playing, it didn't really seem to matter howmany batteries I had hooked up, it'd drain just the same.. You would expect it to go slower as you have more batteries, thus less need for power, but it doesn't seem that way..
The drain is the same - say -5W per second or whatever. The more batteries you have the more storage you have - so it's 1k with few and 50k with a lot. Obviously, if you drain -5W per second from 1k storage you're empty after 200s, if you have 50k - it's suddenly almost 3h you can drain them. Drain stays the same - the time you can drain them for changes.
Quote from: Slev on November 20, 2013, 05:53:23 PM
Do the disconnected cells of 5 ever have short-circuits, or does that only happen if there's a change in charge?
In reality I think disconnected batteries would discharge over time, but I guess that doesn't happen here.
Short circuit events only occur if connected to a conduit or wall. They are the vessel of which the explosion occurs.
Also a sun lamp connected to a battery and solar panel is consistently on. However as of right now they draw 600w and Im not sure they are supposed to...
I have enough batteries to supply my base with no power input for 2 months (never know when those buggy solar storms will last forever)
I prefer to build multiple chambers of batteries, divided into groups of five batteries each, which I charge and then disconnect for long term storage, leaving five batteries permanently connected to the grid to even out any variations in power input. So far this strategy hasn't given me any significant benefits, since it turns out that raiders almost always ignore external, undefended geothermal generators, and those are practically batteries anyway. It does appeal to my hoarding instincts, but those five permanently connected batteries can handle almost all of the problems I've encountered.
Anyway, I'm glad someone sat down and did the math, because I would almost certainly never do it myself. !!SCIENCE!!
i honestly have never disconnected batteries.. i will have to start doing that.. i generally just have 30 batteries all hooked up
Quote from: Galileus on November 20, 2013, 06:07:10 PM
Quote from: laser50 on November 20, 2013, 05:29:38 PM
It's weird, because throughout my time of playing, it didn't really seem to matter howmany batteries I had hooked up, it'd drain just the same.. You would expect it to go slower as you have more batteries, thus less need for power, but it doesn't seem that way..
The drain is the same - say -5W per second or whatever. The more batteries you have the more storage you have - so it's 1k with few and 50k with a lot. Obviously, if you drain -5W per second from 1k storage you're empty after 200s, if you have 50k - it's suddenly almost 3h you can drain them. Drain stays the same - the time you can drain them for changes.
But if the drain is the same, then there is no change in time, because if they're all equally draining, you will lose as much on 10, as you would on 1 battery, no?
That's not how it works. It's drain on the whole powernet that doesn't change. Drain per battery is powernet drain divided by the number of batteries you have. So if you drain 50w and you have 50 batteries is 1w per battery.
Quote from: MrRobSteel on November 21, 2013, 09:52:04 AM
That's not how it works. It's drain on the whole powernet that doesn't change. Drain per battery is powernet drain divided by the number of batteries you have. So if you drain 50w and you have 50 batteries is 1w per battery.
that is correct.
also note that batteries have 50% efficiency so if you fill up around empty 10 batteries at once, it will take a very long time to reach their full level.
always fill up around 2-3 empty batteries at once(at most) so that it'll be faster.
Quote from: deadbeat88 on November 21, 2013, 11:37:08 AM
Quote from: MrRobSteel on November 21, 2013, 09:52:04 AM
That's not how it works. It's drain on the whole powernet that doesn't change. Drain per battery is powernet drain divided by the number of batteries you have. So if you drain 50w and you have 50 batteries is 1w per battery.
that is correct.
also note that batteries have 50% efficiency so if you fill up around empty 10 batteries at once, it will take a very long time to reach their full level.
always fill up around 2-3 empty batteries at once(at most) so that it'll be faster.
The difference between filling 1 battery up with a solar panel and 10 up with a solar panel in one day is about 60Wd. 2-3 is roughly only a differnce of 5-10Wd
This whole topic stinks of un-fun micromanagement. I prefer these tactics not be effective in the final version.
You mean, you prefer if people who spend a lot of time thinking stuff over don't get better result than ones who half-ass it through? o_O
Quote from: Galileus on November 21, 2013, 01:12:24 PM
You mean, you prefer if people who spend a lot of time thinking stuff over don't get better result than ones who half-ass it through? o_O
Don't be ridiculous. I'm happy to have some kind of concept of "reserve" power and advantages to utilizing it, but If I have to manipulate the system to have it by destroying and building power connections to make it a reality I don't think it will be a fun part of the game.
By the same token if you could have a huge advantage constantly micromanaging any other aspect of the game, say combat for instance, the effect of micromanaging should be diminished in favour of the effectiveness of the overall design. Making the occasional adjustment is fine. ie. "Shoot that guy, not the other guy", but if you could do with 1 what would normally be done with 4, then the obvious path is for everyone to micromanage which I do not beleive is Tynan's intent, nor the way the games he draws inspiration from do it.
This is why games like Dwarf Fortress get so complicated to build. Because ridding the game of manipulations while keeping the strategies that underlie those manipulations is the true intent.
My impression is that the overall design process, macro management and adjustment therein are intended to be the fun part of Rimworld.
I still don't get your point. If you don't find micro-management fun, don't do it. It's not like you have to, you will be just fine with minor adjustments. If you don't want to count every watt in your battery to optimize it, nothing bad will happen, you can still play and win. But if some people want to do it, why forbid them? Why even consider it?
In every game you'll find someone min-maxing and getting optimal results. I must say I've never seen a game trying to forbid you from doing that. It's like putting a timer on skill-tree choice in RPG - just so that you make sure someone won't sit down and count all that DPS and what-a-not to find the optimal choice. I don't get it.
Quote from: Galileus on November 21, 2013, 01:45:08 PM
I still don't get your point. If you don't find micro-management fun, don't do it. It's not like you have to, you will be just fine with minor adjustments. If you don't want to count every watt in your battery to optimize it, nothing bad will happen, you can still play and win. But if some people want to do it, why forbid them? Why even consider it?
That is my point. I don't agree with your characterization that the concept put forward is mere optimization.
You say that it isn't required. However if I can remove or substantially mitigate a major hazard from the game then what I do is going to part of the gameplay, and therefore should be supported by the game interface, and not a function of manipulating a game mechanic. Greatly reducing short explosions and ensuring you have a reserve of power in those situations I believe falls into the category of "substantial mitigation", and I'm all in favour of it, if indeed Tynan desires us to be able to mitigate that risk.
But if it's going to be part of the game, then make it part of the game system, not a manipulation of destroying and building conduits. Perhaps make a conduit killswitch or breaker. Perhaps build in a power management interface. But something that makes the whole process overt and easier to manage if indeed I've designed that into my base.
Ah, now it sounds much more reasonable. I wouldn't say I have all that much problems with that in this scenario, but I definitely get the point and agree to some degree. Degree that doesn't go as far as saying "it stinks" ;)
I agree with jjgoldman. As it stands, I do the same as you guys with batteries; I build in racks of them, charge them up rack by rack and disconnect them when full. Sure, it's 'optimizing,' but a better description would be 'tedious.' It is not fun manually building and selling the conduits to make this work.
And it's clear that Tynan didn't really want this to be possible, at least not to this extent. Which is why he implemented shorts to discourage us from building massive energy reserves, so that darkness related events maintain their edge. The way they were implemented allows us to do it anyway, just tiresomely. I'm pretty sure he'll address this eventually, but there are probably more pressing concerns for now.
I, for one, would like the ability to maintain significant energy backups without gaming the system, at the cost of either extra investment/maintenance, a more complex energy system, or shorts that aren't all-or-nothing.
Why do people consider rack-charging-and-disconnecting to be micromanagement? For a game on the scale of RimWorld, I'd have thought it was just plain old management.
Thanks for the numbers OP. Much appreciated.
On the topic of the micro, if this is over the top micro to you guys, you should never try a game that actually requires micro..lol...As poster above says, this is very simple management mechanics. A game at this stage in development is always going to require things like this.
A future solution could be the addition of a power switch. So you don't have to connect or disconnect a battery building deleting laying conduit, you would just setup a switch somewhere close & flick it on & of when required. Even better, you could have a dedicated switch room or some other mechanics thrown in(eg:Switch 1 setup to flip on at night time to allow night storage to be used & then goes off at lunch next day once recharged using the morning sun)
Just an idea anyway.
Quote from: Stickle on November 21, 2013, 02:30:04 PMAnd it's clear that Tynan didn't really want this to be possible, at least not to this extent. Which is why he implemented shorts to discourage us from building massive energy reserves, so that darkness related events maintain their edge. The way they were implemented allows us to do it anyway, just tiresomely. I'm pretty sure he'll address this eventually, but there are probably more pressing concerns for now.
It seems to me that there's some "You're not allowed to win" ethos going on here, that the idea of RimWorld is that it must be a neverending "O'Brien Must Suffer" episode. Anyone remember Deep Space Nine? Remember how any episode focused on Chief of Operations Miles Edward O'Brien always,
always, involved that poor man living through some flavor of Hell or another?
(Hell, even some non-O'Brien Must Suffer episodes got in a lot of O'Brien Suffering. Remember Worf's bachelor party? That was an entirely-new, Klingon-flavored Hell for Miles to suffer through! The only consolation was that Bashir got to suffer through it with him. :) )
Point is, I don't like the "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" mentality that a lot of people on these forums seem to be espousing. "Don't build lots of batteries, because they'll short out and explode your base. You have to suffer through the long nights and if you're not, that's because you're being degenerate somehow."
What? Seriously, what?
That's up there with telling me that I'm
supposed to lose colonists every time those damn raiders come to pay a visit, and if I'm not taking casualties left and right, I'm playing wrong somehow.
Sod that. Let's get some motherfragging surge protectors up in this joint.
If you can negate the whole even by simply building 4 more batteries, where's the tension in that? If you can so simply negate any event, where's the tension in that? The very reason these events are in game is to provide challenge and keep you on your toes, sometimes go against a fatal mix of events that puts you at a considerable risk and forces to play it well to get through it unscathed. A considerable effort on player's part needs to be there in order to have a chance to negate whole events completely - and building/removing one connector is simply not that effort.
So yeah, O'Brien needs to suffer, and Bashir is there to make sure he does. And as long as we don't get another Weasly, I'm ok with that.
At the start of each game. I build 2 solar collectors and a room for 12 batteries. Gets me off to a good start. But when I can, I like to have an extra 12 batteries and upto 12 more solar collectors...more if neded
Quote from: Galileus on November 22, 2013, 05:50:56 AMIf you can negate the whole even by simply building 4 more batteries, where's the tension in that? If you can so simply negate any event, where's the tension in that? The very reason these events are in game is to provide challenge and keep you on your toes, sometimes go against a fatal mix of events that puts you at a considerable risk and forces to play it well to get through it unscathed. A considerable effort on player's part needs to be there in order to have a chance to negate whole events completely - and building/removing one connector is simply not that effort.
So yeah, O'Brien needs to suffer, and Bashir is there to make sure he does. And as long as we don't get another Weasly, I'm ok with that.
Building and removing one connector is too much effort. That's why surge protectors were invented.
Because getting random fuck-you events designed to punish you for doing the smart thing and saving up for times of sunlight scarcity during times of plenty is just kicking the player in the crotch.
Altough i do believe galileuso' brien loves getting kicked in the crotch.
I do think its a bit overdone at the moment.
If you lay your powerworks in a good decent way there should be a possibility to protect your batteries. The surge protectors don't always work in real life. So it should be possible to put them in game and make them prevent powersurges for a certain amount.
Also one needs to think if there is a surge protector on wich side does the short circuit happen. Maybe it happens on the wrong side and your battery park dies. I mean powerplants burn down as well. Power distribution houses aswell.
This does however ask for a way more complex powergame than there is now. I do see the possibilities and ways to protect yourself. But just like real life stuff happens.
But alteast we should be able to try and protect ourselves. Maybe give o'brien a cup to protect his crotch. It will still hurt like **** but atleast a little bit less.
I'm not against being able to protect oneself from such events, hell no. Late in the game it's completely viable to have a power switch and laugh that surge/eclipse combo in the face. Late in game there should be a complete different set of challenges. Like switch fail/surge/eclipse combo! Nah, that one is a joke obviously ;) But as Semmy points out - stuff happens and needs to happen. So early game Eclipse needs to be this big event and later there needs to be this surge/eclipse combo that keeps you biting your toenails, wondering if that low energy you gathered after the surge will keep your people alive during the eclipse. And to be sincere, I've never lost a man due to that combo. It gets them pretty stressed, but never drags anyone over the line.
But there is a "late game negation" and there is "why even bother putting it in?" negation. If you can negate whole negative event by just removing one connection... seriously, what's the point of that event? Of course that doesn't mean you can't take any measures against it - a real nutkick would be an event that cannot be ever addressed in any way. This is a seriously bad thing too. There needs to be a way to counter an event to some degree at least, especially if it is a global event with serious consequences.
Indeed if by building a simple surge protector solves your problem for 100% its no use putting it in.
Like with everything If there is a way to be 100% sure to win why not show the victorie screen when you start the game.
There should always be the possibility of loosing. But within reasonable limits. Not like dwarf fortress where at some point you are just doomed to get kicked in the groin by either the enemies Urist mcDiggs WhereEverHeWants or your fps.
But i would sure love it if there always is a way wich screws you over.
WOHOOOOO i got my surge protector.
KABOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOEM
Short circuit in your battery park.. And at that moment 5 goons run into my battery room trying to extinghuish the fire.
One gets his coat stuck in the fire and starts running around setting the rest on fire wich in turn start running around setting the rest on fire d-:
This reminds me of Cherry :'(
Quote from: Semmy on November 22, 2013, 10:57:43 AMWOHOOOOO i got my surge protector.
KABOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOEM
Short circuit in your battery park.. And at that moment 5 goons run into my battery room trying to extinghuish the fire.
One gets his coat stuck in the fire and starts running around setting the rest on fire wich in turn start running around setting the rest on fire d-:
Simple solution: Don't build battery PARKS. Build battery ROOMS with like, 5-10 batteries per room and at least two tiles between the battery lines and the walls. The only route for power to get out is through the surge protectors. Worst-case, you disassemble the stuff leading away from the battery room and let the motherfucker burn.
Because if fire's going to be stupidly deadly and the colonists are going to be stupid about putting it out, it's safer to just let the motherfucker burn than try to extinguish jack shit.
Fire is supposed to be deadly.. And i was talking about your goons catching fire the stupid munchkins always run into each other when on fire.
Its awsome.
Outside of muffs fire is one of the most uncontrollable things
Quote from: Semmy on November 22, 2013, 12:26:40 PMFire is supposed to be deadly.. And i was talking about your goons catching fire the stupid munchkins always run into each other when on fire.
Its awsome.
No, it's not awesome. It's very fucking stupid.
It's not fucking awesome at all when your idiot colonists run to beat out a fire and get lit on fire and then run around like headless chickens and meanwhile the guy next to him won't put him out because some asshole across the map has already claimed the job and fuck this shit.
It's better to lose a thousand metal worth of batteries than to have a colonist get himself fucking killed because the colonists-handling-fire AI is
so fucking terribly stupid.User was warned because of this post.
"Frell". Conveys the same message, but is much easier on eyes. I recommend you try it out.
Quote from: Galileus on November 22, 2013, 01:18:11 PM
"Frell". Conveys the same message, but is much easier on eyes. I recommend you try it out.
a tiny modbreak. Galileus if somebody says something in a wrong or different way it is unnecesary to respond. With your reply you are just throwing oil on the fire.
Lets keep ontopic please.
Forgive me if this was said, but I notice batteries have a Efficiency of 50% so it looks like there's plans for research to make that higher in the later ver.
You can never have too much power! Power overwhelming!
(stores 100 batteries worth of power)
That's seriously how I play rimworld.... Never too much power.
Quote from: TinnedEpic on November 23, 2013, 12:56:40 AM
You can never have too much power! Power overwhelming!
(stores 100 batteries worth of power)
That's seriously how I play rimworld.... Never too much power.
Know something about that :P In-game checklist:
- Do the produce enough food to eat themselves and sell in exchange for metal? Check!
- Are their rooms big, comfy and cute? Check!
- Do they have enough power stored to survive a year-long eclipse? Argh! NEED MOAR BATTERIES!
Quote from: Galileus on November 23, 2013, 06:51:51 AM
Quote from: TinnedEpic on November 23, 2013, 12:56:40 AM
You can never have too much power! Power overwhelming!
(stores 100 batteries worth of power)
That's seriously how I play rimworld.... Never too much power.
Know something about that :P In-game checklist:
- Do the produce enough food to eat themselves and sell in exchange for metal? Check!
- Are their rooms big, comfy and cute? Check!
- Do they have enough power stored to survive a year-long eclipse? Argh! NEED MOAR BATTERIES!
"Blah-blah power circuit failure... blah-blah-blah, 100000W discharged into your asshole."
But.. but.. I *love* micro-management. Thats why my computer desk has permanently featured a pencil, pad of paper and a culculator for the last twenty years!
i never have enough redundancy, hell, i even build fall back rooms, with their own battery banks, separated out, the rooms are in the back of my base, underground, they have everything needed to live separate of the main base, just sitting there with batteries full, paste dispensers, tables rooms, all just sitting there powered down waiting for me to switch on the lights and move everyone there just in case of massive raiders, fallbacks for fallbacks. (and NEVER enough batteries.)
Quote from: Ender on November 26, 2013, 08:27:33 PM
i never have enough redundancy, hell, i even build fall back rooms, with their own battery banks, separated out, the rooms are in the back of my base, underground, they have everything needed to live separate of the main base, just sitting there with batteries full, paste dispensers, tables rooms, all just sitting there powered down waiting for me to switch on the lights and move everyone there just in case of massive raiders, fallbacks for fallbacks. (and NEVER enough batteries.)
Now
that is properly paranoid.
This is really good! Thanks for putting in the effort to make this.
From a game perspective - ie me doing something to entertain myself -, I find batteries rather annoying. Though I really did like the note I got after my first explosion. It seemed rather impressed with how big the explosion was. I very rarely use them. I will at the start if my nearest geothermal isn't close enough for the initial build, but once I have the generator hooked up, I will dismantle them.
I did not realize you could charge and then disconnect to keep them from exploding. I just thought they were an explosion waiting to happen. There wasn't anything obvious to do to mitigate that risk. All of the other events, there's generally something obvious to do to hedge against that risk. The thing about batteries is that they are a hedge against a risk which opens you up to a further risk. By forgoing solar, you mitigate the eclipse/fog risk for early pain/expense. Solar flares only last a day and batteries are useless then.
For quite some time I've placed smaller batteries evenly across my colony. I also build multiple connecting power cables between buildings in hopes that it balances the overall network load. I just assume 'overall network' exists. And you know what? I haven't had a single explosion on a long while. I mean, they're rare now. On the other hand, I use mods. I don't know if my battery placement practices eliminated the explosions but I'm not going to build another battery room ever again. I don't have 100% certainty but I strongly suspect it's far better to build single batteries near the power-consuming devices than to cram one big room full of back-up batteries. And few batteries is better than no batteries at all, by far.
If I understand this correctly it must mean that the RED setup here is bad,
and the GREEN is good, right?
Because in the red setup the electricity has to pass through the battery witch "destroys" 50% of the energy?
(http://puu.sh/99As4/0efabcff63.jpg)
Quote from: Sion on May 31, 2014, 03:11:40 PM
If I understand this correctly it must mean that the RED setup here is bad,
and the GREEN is good, right?
Because in the red setup the electricity has to pass through the battery witch "destroys" 50% of the energy?
That's an interesting scenario. Batteries do transmit electricity. The question really is, will the battery mess with the flow of electricity. I always assumed batteries sucked up 50% of any EXCESS electricity, without hindering the flow at all. Someone should, uhhh, test for all that. Not that I'm lazy or anything... I suppose it's better to be safe than sorry, if one cannot be bothered to test, and avoid the RED configuration above.
My intuition with RimWorld batteries has been that they work as buffers and stabilizers... load balancers (on top of being energy storage devices). But what do I know. Ever noticed during solar flare events how electricity goes out in stages, areas at a time, seconds inbetween, and never all at once?
The geometry of your power grid has no effect on anything. The efficiency on a battery just means that if it consumes 2Wd of energy it will later emit 1Wd.
Quote from: Tynan on June 01, 2014, 09:33:46 PM
The geometry of your power grid has no effect on anything. The efficiency on a battery just means that if it consumes 2Wd of energy it will later emit 1Wd.
How does the battery know when to consume energy or transmit it if you use the red setup?
Quote from: Sion on June 02, 2014, 11:47:17 AM
Quote from: Tynan on June 01, 2014, 09:33:46 PM
The geometry of your power grid has no effect on anything. The efficiency on a battery just means that if it consumes 2Wd of energy it will later emit 1Wd.
How does the battery know when to consume energy or transmit it if you use the red setup?
if there is excess energy(just click on a battery light)
Well on a side note. Whenever I can find a hotel with good enough internet ima dl the unity devkit and anything else id need and take a stab at adding a switch. And maybe a fusebox component.
Id like to work on a proximity sensor and maybe a daylight sensor (shut off growing lights in the day when the sun is do8ng their job. Turn them on at night. The prox sensor could turn lights on in bedrooms and such only when people are there.
Stuff like that.