View Full Version : Endurance voyages - Battery vs Diesel
Well considering my Carribean hunting grounds thread has been highjacked by range finding juckies i did some maths ;)
Basically i can travel 84nm using batterys for the same amount of fuel as it would cost me to travel 21 nm on diesels.
Quick maths for you.
SUBMERGED
23 hours submerged @ 3kt = 69nm
3 hours recharging @ 5kt = 15nm
Total 84nm for the loss of 3 hours fuel at "Ahead slow"
SURFACED
3 hours crusing @ 7kt = 21nm
Total 21nm for the loss of 3 hours fuel at "Ahead slow"
Doing this increases range by 75% in my book, did i go wrong somewhere?
Stix
EDIT, This is in GWX.
Yes, you went wrong.
You are assumeing that you are useing the same ammount of fuel in 3 hours. Just because you have the same speed setting does not mean you are useing the same ammount of fuel with chargeing on/off.
If you want to do a definitive test you must:
1) note down the weather conditions (these must not change in the test)
2) Run at 1/3 speed. when you are at the maximum knots for 1/3. Ask the navigator for your maximum range. Note it down. This is "Max Range 1"
3)
i) Start at periscope depth.
ii) Run at 1/3 speed underwater until your battery is totally dead
iii) Surface and run at 1/3 on the surface until your battery is at 100%
iv) note the distance. This is the "test distance"
4) As soon as the batteries are charged run at 1/3 speed. as soon you are at the maximum knots for 1/3 ask the navigator for your maximum range. Note it down. This is "Max Range 2"
3) Run at 1/3 speed. when you are at the maximum knots for 1/3. Ask the navigator for your maximum range. Note it down. This is "Max Range 3"
4) As soon as step (3) is complete run at 1/3 for "test distance"
5) when you reach the end of "test distance" ask the navigator for your maximum range. Note it down. This is "Max Range 4"
Repeat the test at least once
It is essensial that there are no time gaps between the steps of the test.
If "Max range 1" - "Max range 2" is greater than "Max range 3" - "Max range 4" than using electrics is less efficient.
If the results are not clear than repeat the test, but do steps 3i, 3ii and 3iii twice to dubble the test distance.
Corsair
12-23-06, 05:47 AM
Yes, you went wrong.
You are assumeing that you are useing the same ammount of fuel in 3 hours. Just because you have the same speed setting does not mean you are useing the same ammount of fuel with chargeing on/off.
Why would not you be using the same amount of fuel ? Both engines work the same way when reloading, only difference is the right one is coupled to the alternator instead of being coupled to the driving shaft...
And definitely yes if you submerge during the day and run surfaced at night you will go further than driving surfaced all the time (except of course if you want to have the same speed on surface with one engine instead of two) and you probably will live longer...;)
Yes, you went wrong.
You are assumeing that you are useing the same ammount of fuel in 3 hours. Just because you have the same speed setting does not mean you are useing the same ammount of fuel with chargeing on/off.
Why would not you be using the same amount of fuel ? Both engines work the same way when reloading, only difference is the right one is coupled to the alternator instead of being coupled to the driving shaft...
And definitely yes if you submerge during the day and run surfaced at night you will go further than driving surfaced all the time (except of course if you want to have the same speed on surface with one engine instead of two) and you probably will live longer...;)
:damn::damn::damn:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=369438&postcount=19
Read and understand that. I can not make it any more simple.
There is a simple efficancy loss in chargeing the battrys. No system can run above 100% efficancy!
Hmmmm, that test doesn't make sense to me mate. i understand what you are saying but it won't calculate fuel burn.
It all comes down to does SH3 GWX model increased fuel burn while batterys are recharging or simply slower speed i.e. same fuel burn but less power to the props because of increased load from the altinators.
Stix
Corsair
12-23-06, 05:57 AM
@ Letum
If you want to believe it, it's your absolute right...:lol:
But you still have to demonstrate that a diesel engine running at a fixed rpm uses more fuel when it is driving an alternator than when it is driving the boat shaft. ;)
Hmmmm, that test doesn't make sense to me mate. i understand what you are saying but it won't calculate fuel burn.
It all comes down to does SH3 GWX model increased fuel burn while batterys are recharging or simply slower speed i.e. same fuel burn but less power to the props because of increased load from the altinators.
Stix
The test calculates the diffrance between the loss of Km from the maximum range for surface and submerged/chargeing along a set distance.
This has a direct relationship to fuel burn.
Corsair
12-23-06, 06:00 AM
Hmmmm, that test doesn't make sense to me mate. i understand what you are saying but it won't calculate fuel burn.
It all comes down to does SH3 GWX model increased fuel burn while batterys are recharging or simply slower speed i.e. same fuel burn but less power to the props because of increased load from the altinators.
Stix
There is no increased load. One engine is decoupled from the driving shaft (thus the drop down in speed) and is actioning an alternator instead for reloading the batteries. This engine still works at the same rpm and has no extra load, it's just used for something else.
@ Letum
If you want to believe it, it's your absolute right...:lol:
But you still have to demonstrate that a diesel engine running at a fixed rpm uses more fuel when it is driving an alternator than when it is driving the boat shaft. ;)
You guys are driveing me mad!
There is efficancy loss when chargeing the battrys, but no efficancy gain when powering the screw from e-motors.
Running and chargeing e-motors results in a net efficancy loss. Less efficancy = more fuel for the same distance / time.
Ducimus
12-23-06, 06:04 AM
Good greif.
Look, its late and im tired so im going to put this in undersimplified terms.
In SH3 you basically have this:
http://www.ducimus.net/sh3/fuel_stuff.JPG
ENG_Power effects, how large a unit of fuel/energy the game will use. It also effects top speed. Increase this number, you engines will suck a largerfuel/energy unit.
Eng_RP are used in AI detection routines (IE, how noisy are you?) and are i beleive how many units of energy are being used exponentially at a given point in time, depending on what settign you define. slow, 1/3rd, etc.
Orginaly the submerged endurance was MUCH larger. So large infact, that you rarely ran low on batteries. With upgraded battery units, you probably never ran out of electricity. I dont recall of ever having run a battery dry in stock SH3.
What was the battery fix? It reduced the maximum range of your undwater endurance. So your power pool to draw from isnt so vast, and thats ALL it does. Everything else remains the same.
Energy expenditure does not fluxuate excpet by what you tell it to do via throttle settings. Your surface range varies by your uboats mass and displacement and its relationship with weather. You see this every time you play. at your crusiing speed you might be doing 9 kts on a clear day and 7 kts in a heavy sea.
Now, lets talk about Hydrodynamics, or rather, LACK THEREOF. Drag, and such is not modled. This means that your not subject to any restriction of forward momentum while submerged. By cruising at a low RPM setting to achieve say 2 kts or so you get the maximum mileage out of your batteries. Your batteries will run dry around the same time you run out of oxygen, maybe a little before that. Anyway because the maximum capacity of the batteries isnt very large, it only takes about 3 hours to recharge them on the surface. Thats only 3 hours of being subjected to drag and running your diesals such to top off a smaller battery that will see you through an entire day and then some if you manage it wisely.
Energy expenditure does not fluctuate except by what you tell it to do via throttle settings.
If by "throttle settings" you mean the speed settings in SH3 then yes it does!
You set Speed in SH3, not throttle.
If you think my calculations are wrong then please feel free to show me where my Math is wrong. Its very basic stuff.
There is a good reason surface ships don't run off batteries some of the time like u-boats do. It is because it is less fuel efficient.
If it was more fuel efficient then all ships would run of electric motors and just charge them up with diesel every now and again.
Corsair
12-23-06, 06:13 AM
@ Letum
If you want to believe it, it's your absolute right...:lol:
But you still have to demonstrate that a diesel engine running at a fixed rpm uses more fuel when it is driving an alternator than when it is driving the boat shaft. ;)
You guys are driveing me mad!
There is efficancy loss when chargeing the battrys, but no efficancy gain when powering the screw from e-motors.
Running and chargeing e-motors results in a net efficancy loss. Less efficancy = more fuel for the same distance / time.
Why would there be an efficiency loss ? The engine generates the same power, while reloading this power is used to drive an alternator for reload, while not reloading the same power is used to drive the propeller shaft...
Why would there be an efficiency loss ? The engine generates the same power, while reloading this power is used to drive an alternator for reload, while not reloading the same power is used to drive the propeller shaft...
YaY! I think your starting to catch on!
Every time energy is changed (i.e. from chemical fuel to kinetic) some energy is lost, usually through heat.
Energy is also lost when the energy passes through components. (i.e. wear on the drive shaft)
The efficiency loss on e-motors is greater because the energy goes through more systems and changes.
On the surface it changes from fuel to the propeller motion and finally to the boats motion. It passes through the motor, the drive shaft and the screw. The main efficiency losses are in the motor, which heats up, and the screw, which is never 100% efficient.
On e-motors it must go from fuel to the motor to the alternator, the batteries, the e-motors, the drive shaft and then the prop. Efficiency is lost at the D-motor, the alternator, the batteries, the e-motor and the screw. The alternator and the batteries both get hot when they are charged.
When fuel is used less efficantly the boat can not go as far.
I thought of a simpler way of saying it: :D:D
With a 100% efficient charging system you get as much out of the batteries as you put in.
No charging system is 100% efficient , so you get slightly less out of the batteries then you put in.
Lets say charging efficiency is at 90%
1 unit of fuel = 1 unit of energy
If you burn 100units of fuel you will put 90units of energy in the battery.
If you can go 1 mile one one unit of fuel/energy you will go 90 miles, but burn 100 units of fuel.
10 units of fuel have been lost as heat because the charging system is only 90% efficient.
On the surface you will go 100 miles on 100 units of fuel because you don't have the 10% loss in charging the batteries.
Claiming you go further running on batteries is saying that you get more out of your batteries than you put in. This is obviously impossible!
*edit* sorry, my spell check bugger things up for a second there
IRONxMortlock
12-23-06, 08:22 AM
Claiming you go further running on batteries is saying that you get more out of your batteries than you put in. This is obviously impossible!
I think this real life concept is understood by all, otherwise we'd all be cruising around on perpetual motion machines wouldn't we.:yep:
The question is, has this been modelled into the game? According to Ducimus's information it appears that we can in fact create energy in game.
________
karinASS (http://www.girlcamfriend.com/cam/karinASS/)
Claiming you go further running on batteries is saying that you get more out of your batteries than you put in. This is obviously impossible!
I think this real life concept is understood by all
Apperantly not....
The question is, has this been modelled into the game? According to Ducimus's information it appears that we can in fact create energy in game.
Ducimus neither proves or disproves it.
I'm going to run the test* so I can find out. I will post the results soon.
*see above
OK, first test results are in from this test:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=369448&postcount=3
Boat:IXC with IX/2 conning tower, deck gun and MAN Turbocharger
For the periscope depth run and the battery charge after:
Weather: 5
Test Distance:155.9km
Max distance1: 14120km
Max distance2: 10936km
For the surface only run:
Weather: 6
Test Distance: Test distance (115.9km)
Max distance3: 14488km
Max distance4: 13901km
Conclusion
Indecisive; further tests needed.
The submerged run used 3184kms worth of fuel in 155.9km. It is using almost 20.5kms worth of fuel to go 1km.
The surface run used 587kms worth of fuel to go 155.9km. It is using 3.7 kms worth of fuel to go 1km.
On the surface these number suggest that surface running is far more efficient, This is made even more dramatic when you account for the worse weather on the surface run. However, if the numbers where totally accurate then the surface run should have used 155.9kms worth of fuel to go 155.9km. i.e. 1kms worth of fuel to go 1km!
This difference could have been caused by:
1) Innacurate testing
2) Inaccurate NO maximum range prediction
3) The weather.
I will conduct the test twice more to get better results and reach a proper conclusion.
Corsair
12-23-06, 09:37 AM
If I were you, I'd rather spend my time playing...:D
Hakahura
12-23-06, 09:46 AM
Corsairs right!
What are we doing here, when theres tonnage to rack up!
Corsairs right!
What are we doing here, when theres tonnage to rack up!
The more you know your self and your boat; the more you will sink. ;)
Anyway, Ive just finished another 2 runs. I took a average of 4 max range predictions this time.
Something went seriously wrong with the 3rd test as my results made no sense. the 2nd test however got results similar to the first test.
It looks like SH3 models batteries correctly.
According to my test results
It is less efficient to run submerged (in GWx at least)
know thine self :up:
Ducimus
12-23-06, 12:45 PM
As i wake up this morning with the coffee stilll brewing, i knew Letum would be hard at work trying to prove his ideas before i even clicked on this thread. :lol:Knock yourself out mate, i know what works and what doesn't.
If you really want to stretch endurance, grab a snorkel and stay submerged the entire patrol. Raise the snorkel only long enough to recharge the batts and then lower it again. I'll bet you'll go a bit farther then you normally could ;)
As i wake up this morning with the coffee stilll brewing, i knew Letum would be hard at work trying to prove his ideas before i even clicked on this thread. :lol:Knock yourself out mate, i know what works and what doesn't.
If you really want to stretch endurance, grab a snorkel and stay submerged the entire patrol. Raise the snorkel only long enough to recharge the batts and then lower it again. I'll bet you'll go a bit farther then you normally could ;)
Get some numbers, get some credability.
Ducimus
12-23-06, 12:55 PM
I honestly have better things to do then arguing over things that have worked for the past year. I really don't feel the need to prove anything. I don't have to be "right" in an argument. You don't have to beleive me. You've been all over this subject in the past and im not surpised your all over it now- it's oddly entertaining ::rotfl:
Two parting thoughts:
- If its so important to you, Try running to GR89 entirely on electric power, using the diesals long enough to recharge the batts, and for nothing else. Then try the same trip on the surface.
- Like most things in life, Theres how a book says things should be done, and then theres how things are really done.
Have fun, topics all yours now.
FongFongFong
12-23-06, 02:29 PM
Now this has probably already been covered in this thread, but
Tried something similar in GWX just a couple of days ago
but I noticed that I actually used fuel while standing still
charging batteries.
So GWX is using extra fuel to charge.
Pointing out a small flaw in the original post in this thread.
Fuel to travel on the surface +
fuel to charge batteries
vs total distance
Ducimus
12-23-06, 02:47 PM
I noticed that I actually used fuel while standing still
charging batteries.
Yup, one engine is taken "off the line" as the saying goes and put into charging the batteries. Runs at about 500 RPMs (flank speed) for however long it takes to recharge the batteries. Next time your recharging your battries, look at the RPM gauges in the control room.
Sailor Steve
12-23-06, 05:21 PM
Like most things in life, Theres how a book says things should be done, and then theres how things are really done.
Have fun, topics all yours now.
I was actually going to say something completely different, but I have to answer this. And the answer is, there are how things are done in real life, and there are how things are done in a game; and in this case the game has little to do with real life. The answer about surface ships was closest: if running batteries was more efficient then everybody would do it that way, only using diesel or steam to recharge the batteries.
Working on a game for over a year doesn't make it anything more than a game.
Sailor Steve
12-23-06, 05:30 PM
What I was originally going to suggest was this: I'm wondering whether cruising on diesels at two knots wouldn't increase the range in the game just as well.
The problem with Stix's calculations is that yes, the range increases but so does the time. Yes, in-game you can travel 84 miles using the same amount of fuel as you do travelling 21 miles on diesels, but you travel that 84 miles in 24 hours versus 168 miles in 24 hours on diesels. You save fuel, but it takes forever to get anywhere. As I suggested above, try cruising at 3 or 4 knots for 24 hours (84nm should be 3.5 knots average); you should go about the same distance. Check to see how much fuel you've used. Try it again at 2 or even 1 knot. Make sure the weather is perfectly clear and calm every time.
Ducimus
12-23-06, 06:37 PM
Yes, in-game you can travel 84 miles using the same amount of fuel as you do travelling 21 miles on diesels, but you travel that 84 miles in 24 hours versus 168 miles in 24 hours on diesels. You save fuel, but it takes forever to get anywhere.
Thats what time compression is for ;)
Honestly i always wondered if it was true that running submerged most of the time saved on fuel until i proved it to myself with a patrol to GR89. I plotted out the course after leaving lorient harbor, to the grid, and back to port. The range to course end, exceeded my maximum range at current speed. In short, i did not have enough fuel to make the trip. If i remember correctly with the calculations i had at the time, i would have run out of fuel somewhere in the vacinity of, or just north of gibralter on the return trip.
It was 1944, aircraft in abundance, i submerged after just leaving port, and did not surface again until i reached GR89. I had no fuel to chase targets at all. I went down there, did my alloted 24 hours and headed home, with no diviations, and no surfacing. If a sound contact appeared and wasnt in an approachable position i HAD to let it pass.
The entire patrol i raised the snorkel only long enough to charge batteries. At 100% charge i immediatly brought the snorkel back down. Long story short, i made the trip back to port, i had a few drops of fuel to spare (quite literally im sure), and had a 130 day patrol. It was an agonizling long patrol, but i was determined to do it, and i did. I didnt sink a single ship the entire patrol, but i made it back, which turned into my goal at the time just to see if i could do it.
edit: btw, if you submerge at 0500, and surface at 0 hour, you have like 20% batteries left, and it takes 2 and a half hours to recharge to 100%
I'm wondering whether cruising on diesels at two knots wouldn't increase the range in the game just as well.
No it wouldn't.
I understand what you are saying, but its not a case of the slower you go; the further you go.
Think of riding a bike. You could take all day to go one mile, you could go one mile in a few minutes or you could find a comfortable steady pace.
Even if you have all day, you will chose the steady speed. This is because at the slow speed you use more energy. The extra energy is lost because most motors (and bodies) have numerically constant economy penalties at any speed.
With the bike analogy, one such constant is the energy required to power your brain or keep your body temperature at a minimum. These are unavoidable inefficiencies that will be there at 1mph or at 100mph. A diesel motor has these inefficiencies also and so does a water screw.
The slower you go; the more time constant inefficiencies waste energy; the less efficient you are.
Going fast is also going to use more energy. This is because some inefficiencies are greater the higher the speed is. A dubbeling of the speed will require something like a squaring of the energy expended. This is mainly because the forces of friction are greater at high speed.
In-between extreme slow speed and extreme fast speed there is a speed that is most economical.
There are a few other factors that involve gearing and external forces on the vehicle that feed back into the motor, but we don't need to go into that. (thank god)
The most economical speed for your car is about 55mph. Your car will go further at 55mph than it will at 10mph.
For a VIIC U-boat the most economical speed is somewhere around 7knts.
It is easy to prove that UBI soft have modeled this. Just run your VIIC at 1knt and ask your navigator for your maximum range (do it twice and take a average)
Now repeat this at 16knts and at 7 knts. The range he reports at 7knts will be the highest.
Corsair
12-24-06, 07:05 AM
OK here we are again...:D
Without making tests, it's easy to make a fast calculation.
Let's say a VIIb has an autonomy of 8000 miles at 8 knts (it's close and makes it easier).
We run it on the surface at 8 knts, this gives us 1000 hours (which is the unit used on boats for fuel consumption)
Assuming the weather stays nice and beautiful (for making things easier) our sub A will run 8000 miles @ 8 knots in 41.66 days (1000 hrs / 24)
The same sub B runs in the same nice weather conditions, but is submerged 12 hours @ 3 knts, reloads batteries 3 hrs @ 5 knts and runs surfaced 9 hrs @ 8 Knts every day. This gives us 36 + 15 + 72 = 123 miles a day, which is average 5.125 Knts.
Since our sub B uses its diesels only 12 hrs a day, the 1000 hrs of autonomy give us now 83.33 days, for a total distance of 123 * 83.33 = 10 250 miles
So although it will take twice the time, sub B will travel 2.250 miles i.e. roughly 28% further than sub A in the same weather conditions.
Merry Xmas to all of you..:rock:
fredbass
12-24-06, 07:57 AM
Ducimus: I think you'd better drop this one. It seems somebody is confused between the game and reality. (I won't name names) He might have some sort of autism. :hmm:
Ducimus: I think you'd better drop this one. It seems somebody is confused between the game and reality. (I won't name names) He might have some sort of autism. :hmm:
I take it you are referring to me? Please let me refer you to the calculations I have made in game. They give good proof that SH3 is faithful to real-life fuel usage.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=369558&postcount=18
OK here we are again...:D
Without making tests, it's easy to make a fast calculation.
Let's say a VIIb has an autonomy of 8000 miles at 8 knts (it's close and makes it easier).
We run it on the surface at 8 knts, this gives us 1000 hours (which is the unit used on boats for fuel consumption)
Assuming the weather stays nice and beautiful (for making things easier) our sub A will run 8000 miles @ 8 knots in 41.66 days (1000 hrs / 24)
The same sub B runs in the same nice weather conditions, but is submerged 12 hours @ 3 knts, reloads batteries 3 hrs @ 5 knts and runs surfaced 9 hrs @ 8 Knts every day. This gives us 36 + 15 + 72 = 123 miles a day, which is average 5.125 Knts.
Since our sub B uses its diesels only 12 hrs a day, the 1000 hrs of autonomy give us now 83.33 days, for a total distance of 123 * 83.33 = 10 250 miles
So although it will take twice the time, sub B will travel 2.250 miles i.e. roughly 28% further than sub A in the same weather conditions.
On the bit I have underlined:
You are assuming that because the speed setting is the same; you are using the same amount of fuel. Sub B only uses it's diesels 12 hours a day, but one of the diesels is running at 500rpm for 3 hours in order to charge the batteries. Because one of the motors is running faster the 1000hrs of autonomy no longer applies.
Corsair
12-25-06, 07:28 AM
Oh my God ....:D
No comment. I let you do the math yourself.
Assuming a differential fuel burning per engine is modelled and the reload engine burns 2 x fuel you will find there is still 1000 extra nautical miles...
Now I am out of the thread :damn:
Sailor Steve
12-26-06, 12:56 PM
Corsair, I see two problems:
1) Why isn't sub B recharging his batteries for 3 hours and then diving again? This would seem more practical if you are correct.
2) Asking the same question for the third time, if this works in real life then why aren't surface ships equipped with a similar system to increase their range?
The problem is that the energy available is finite, no matter what the source, and evergy is lost during a transfer process such as recharging batteries. If it worked in real life then real life submariners would have talked about it, and I don't recall reading about anybody claiming to extend patrol distance by this method.
It's a game thing, and if it works in the game then I think the game is wrong.
Corsair, I see two problems:
1) Why isn't sub B recharging his batteries for 3 hours and then diving again? This would seem more practical if you are correct.
2) Asking the same question for the third time, if this works in real life then why aren't surface ships equipped with a similar system to increase their range?
The problem is that the energy available is finite, no matter what the source, and evergy is lost during a transfer process such as recharging batteries. If it worked in real life then real life submariners would have talked about it, and I don't recall reading about anybody claiming to extend patrol distance by this method.
It's a game thing, and if it works in the game then I think the game is wrong.
And according to the mesurements I have done in game, it doesn't work in game so the games not wrong. :D
Sinking Fast
12-27-06, 12:05 AM
First I'm a newbie and running shiii stock. I'd like to finish my campaign without all the mods. I'm stuck with a IXB with all the goodies because I didn't realize I lose all the goodies when I change boats. Being renown poor (due to every possible upgrade to what appears to be the wrong boat) I don't have the 6500 required to get a IXC anyway.
I've been assigned several endurance runs some of which I didn't appear to have the range to make so I did not try. I've made two endurance runs the first off Halifax and the second off Northfolk. In both cases after I got there and and asking the navigator my maxium range at the current speed he tells me I'm 2000km short of making it home and this at 8 to 9 knots. In one case I still had over half my fuel left according to the gage. In both cases I had increased speed to catch a target and send it to the bottom. In both cases I had let the gage return to normal speed of 8 or 9 knots before asking. In both cases I made it back home with 2000km of fuel to spare running on the surface. I only dive when absolutely neccessary. So far the extra flak gun helps. You tend to drive off single air attacks but it's an expensive upgrade.
The only thing I can think of is there is a bug. The navigator doesn't appear to know you have reduced speed right away even through gage says you have. I guess the Caribbean is out of the question I can't catch tankers moving away at 8 to 9 knots.
Sinking Fast
The navigator's range guess is usually a long way off from your real range.
If you ask him the range twice in rapid succession he will give you two different ranges, often several thousand miles out. He is more accurate in clear weather, but he always gives you a number well under your real range.
This is because he works on your actual speed and not your set/predicted speed.
The best way to calculate range is to guess on your first patrol, but on the way back, wait until the game reports that you have 25% fuel. Once that happens make a mark on the map and set your speed to what ever the most economical speed for your boat is. Now measure the distance you can cover until the game reports 10% fuel. Now times the result by 1.6666666... and you will have your real range.
If you run the same test, but using the submerged running theory you will notice your range has been reduced.
Dantenoc
03-06-07, 01:15 AM
I don't care if you can create energy out of nothing, I'm with Homer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWorVoeZd3A
"In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" :rotfl:
Ducimus
03-06-07, 01:21 AM
I don't care if you can create energy out of nothing, I'm with Homer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWorVoeZd3A
"In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" :rotfl:
:roll: - tis a shame thermal dynamics dont exist in this game.
http://home.arcor.de/alternativ-traffic/ThreadNecro.jpg
Zero Niner
03-06-07, 05:30 AM
Hey Ducimus
Mind if I use your thread necromancy image? There's another forum I post at that could use this... :)
Ducimus
03-06-07, 12:18 PM
Hey Ducimus
Mind if I use your thread necromancy image? There's another forum I post at that could use this... :)
LOL its not mine, i just google image searched it and used one that allowed remote linking :rotfl:
Rykaird
03-06-07, 03:21 PM
I noticed that I actually used fuel while standing still
charging batteries.
Yup, one engine is taken "off the line" as the saying goes and put into charging the batteries. Runs at about 500 RPMs (flank speed) for however long it takes to recharge the batteries. Next time your recharging your battries, look at the RPM gauges in the control room.
Yikes! Does this elevate my sound signature and increase chances for being detected?
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.