This video now has timestamps for easier navigation: 00:00 Introduction 01:07 General efficiency and component cost 04:07 CRAM diamond pattern tetris 09:22 3D CRAM Tetris example 13:34 FtD 2D CRAM tetris vs 3D CRAM tetris 20:47 Why you need multiple barrels for CRAM cannons (mostly larger designs than D5) 33:35 What CRAM fuse to use, why is pendepth bad? 37:01 Big 3D cram tetris pattern design and options 54:27 Ending notes and information 55:20 Outro
You did a great job with the general gist of things but you came to some incorrect conclusions. You didn't account for a few things when you assumed that 2000mm is "always" better, that multiple barrels are always better, how you compared turrets, and how reconfigure pellets works. 2000 vs 1000mm: having quadruple the space for only half the downtime is better but on smaller turrets, the cost of the gauge increasers and double length barrel (for same accuracy) is not worth it. There is also a point to be made for in between gauges like 1333mm who has double the capacity of 1000 but only 4/3 the downtime because the added value is linear for some reason. Multi barrel: Similarly, Having more barrels requires more gauge increasers, barrel length, turret cap size, and slight tetris inefficiencies that can make not worth the measly 20 compactor connections and should be compared on the basis of the desired shell instead. Comparing tetris: You can't just compare cost efficiency at any random (though great for dps) pellet ration. You have to reconfigure the turret until you find the material/firepower for that turret. (I tried writing a program to calculate it but it ends up easier to just do slight adjustments and reconfigure than counting all pellet connections). You also can't compare layers based on connections either because of all the initial and armor costs. Comparing the "finished turret solves this but it is time consuming. Reconfigure: The reconfigure pellets button works perfectly for single barreled cannons as it does put higher cost pellets in higher connection location no matter the tetris. It does however fail at multi barreled turrets as it does not account for shared pellets and frankly, I cant think of a way to implement that for less nice turrets. Basically you understand it pretty well but you lost sight of the end product and desired use. These decisions should be made by comparing which achieves the desired effect more than a static value comparison. Besides the gauge bonus being linear, FTD seems to have balanced it to where different choices have separate uses.
You do have a point for low cost long range accurate crams the cost of barrels does indeed matter, is 1333mm some special child, intersection point efficiency something? (never heard that specific value..) I feel like multi barrels is worthwile, but in comes more into effect on 3d systems since the gauge is usually sufficiently fitted in the tetris and thus less so for 2d designs Yeah it is impossible gettin accurate values and we indeed need to complete turrets in order to do full comparisons, so I shall do!
@@GMODISM 1333mm had nice numbers for an example but I guess it's halfway in between 1k & 2k mm for payload compactor efficiency (not an important value). I just wanted to point out that there is a purpose to non 1k & 2k mm crams. I think multi barrels does not affect it significantly and one can argue that "3D tetris shines with many high and low connection locations but the 20 built in compactors push pellets to low connection locations increasing cost." Personally, 3D multi barrel is just too finicky to be fun to build. I wish there was a more concrete way but the reconfigure and check works well enough (for single barrels). Oddly though, I made the best tetris (I could think of) for an infinitely large turret and payload compactors would occupy 6 connection locations so the turret edge actually remedies that problem. As such larger (way too wide) turrets should have some 2D layers as they are more cost efficient for payload compactor connections than 3D. Or I just need to design a new tetris.
I think 1000mm is reasonable for stealth, but for most scenarios 2000mm seem to give the best damage. So 3D multi barrel obviously has advantages but it indeed takes a lot of time to make them, so it is up to the builder if they wanna spend the time for it. I think it seems like 3d is always better, to me at least, since I came up with the d3 3x3 rod I feel like that, it is a one barrel system and it is quite complex so its like 7 blocks high
So two questions. - Multibarrel on small turrets would seem to pay off more on smaller turrets as long as you kept the barrels short. with the bonus 20 packers paying off more. - Are there any handy graphs or guides that you recommend to find optimal sweet spots like the 1333 gauge?
I can't believe that I just made a new ship frame with 3d cram tetris ready before this toturial arrived (its the one I'm making for 'broadsword vs you' that actually has decoration or somewhat instead of meta)
On the matter of more efficiency from multibarrels, I agree with @nicopence3148. Let's say you have a CRAM tetris layout that can be split into four equal segments with X total pellets, thus firing every Y seconds. If you set that up as a single barrel, then you fire one shell of X power every Y seconds, for a firepower value of X/Y. If you set that up as four barrels, you fire one shell of X/4 power every Y/4 seconds, which means a firepower value of 4X/4Y, which is in other words just X/Y. The packer cooldown isn't divided by 4, because it's equal for all four barrels: the time spent loading each barrel remains exactly the same. The main advantage of a multibarrel setup is probably - I would argue - the redundancy, and to a lesser extent the option of a more continuous fire using synchronisation, if that is desired for whatever reason.
In light of recent battles on the channel I recorded I can definitely say that single barrel is better in doom cram territory, and the inherent cost saving from having multiple barrels is mostly relevant for small turrets and so small it matters little for doom crams, the reason behind this is that one doom cram shell is harder to take out than 4 almost doom cram shells. However the longer the loading time the more efficient it is theoretically as the cooldown does not scale with reload time, but is constant, thus 4 very slow reload times are better than one 4x the speed, it's proportionally lower. However redundancy is not a joke, if one goes with single barrel it's good to have insane amounts of HA around THE firing-piece, with multi barrel we can afford light armour. However the firing sync sycks so hard I probably would advocate for never doing that and just make the cannons have differed reload speeds for a more continuous fire.
This video now has timestamps for easier navigation:
00:00 Introduction
01:07 General efficiency and component cost
04:07 CRAM diamond pattern tetris
09:22 3D CRAM Tetris example
13:34 FtD 2D CRAM tetris vs 3D CRAM tetris
20:47 Why you need multiple barrels for CRAM cannons (mostly larger designs than D5)
33:35 What CRAM fuse to use, why is pendepth bad?
37:01 Big 3D cram tetris pattern design and options
54:27 Ending notes and information
55:20 Outro
You did a great job with the general gist of things but you came to some incorrect conclusions.
You didn't account for a few things when you assumed that 2000mm is "always" better, that multiple barrels are always better, how you compared turrets, and how reconfigure pellets works.
2000 vs 1000mm: having quadruple the space for only half the downtime is better but on smaller turrets, the cost of the gauge increasers and double length barrel (for same accuracy) is not worth it. There is also a point to be made for in between gauges like 1333mm who has double the capacity of 1000 but only 4/3 the downtime because the added value is linear for some reason.
Multi barrel: Similarly, Having more barrels requires more gauge increasers, barrel length, turret cap size, and slight tetris inefficiencies that can make not worth the measly 20 compactor connections and should be compared on the basis of the desired shell instead.
Comparing tetris: You can't just compare cost efficiency at any random (though great for dps) pellet ration. You have to reconfigure the turret until you find the material/firepower for that turret. (I tried writing a program to calculate it but it ends up easier to just do slight adjustments and reconfigure than counting all pellet connections). You also can't compare layers based on connections either because of all the initial and armor costs. Comparing the "finished turret solves this but it is time consuming.
Reconfigure: The reconfigure pellets button works perfectly for single barreled cannons as it does put higher cost pellets in higher connection location no matter the tetris. It does however fail at multi barreled turrets as it does not account for shared pellets and frankly, I cant think of a way to implement that for less nice turrets.
Basically you understand it pretty well but you lost sight of the end product and desired use. These decisions should be made by comparing which achieves the desired effect more than a static value comparison. Besides the gauge bonus being linear, FTD seems to have balanced it to where different choices have separate uses.
You do have a point for low cost long range accurate crams the cost of barrels does indeed matter,
is 1333mm some special child, intersection point efficiency something? (never heard that specific value..)
I feel like multi barrels is worthwile, but in comes more into effect on 3d systems since the gauge is usually sufficiently fitted in the tetris and thus less so for 2d designs
Yeah it is impossible gettin accurate values and we indeed need to complete turrets in order to do full comparisons, so I shall do!
@@GMODISM 1333mm had nice numbers for an example but I guess it's halfway in between 1k & 2k mm for payload compactor efficiency (not an important value). I just wanted to point out that there is a purpose to non 1k & 2k mm crams.
I think multi barrels does not affect it significantly and one can argue that "3D tetris shines with many high and low connection locations but the 20 built in compactors push pellets to low connection locations increasing cost." Personally, 3D multi barrel is just too finicky to be fun to build.
I wish there was a more concrete way but the reconfigure and check works well enough (for single barrels).
Oddly though, I made the best tetris (I could think of) for an infinitely large turret and payload compactors would occupy 6 connection locations so the turret edge actually remedies that problem. As such larger (way too wide) turrets should have some 2D layers as they are more cost efficient for payload compactor connections than 3D. Or I just need to design a new tetris.
I think 1000mm is reasonable for stealth, but for most scenarios 2000mm seem to give the best damage.
So 3D multi barrel obviously has advantages but it indeed takes a lot of time to make them, so it is up to the builder if they wanna spend the time for it.
I think it seems like 3d is always better, to me at least, since I came up with the d3 3x3 rod I feel like that, it is a one barrel system and it is quite complex so its like 7 blocks high
So two questions.
- Multibarrel on small turrets would seem to pay off more on smaller turrets as long as you kept the barrels short. with the bonus 20 packers paying off more.
- Are there any handy graphs or guides that you recommend to find optimal sweet spots like the 1333 gauge?
I'ma just go ahead and note down that 1333 number for future use.
Getting better gmodism
Odd question, but do you have a workshop link for your empty test platform? My wooden box for testing looks so inferior in comparison
I don't but I could upload it I guess XD
I can't believe that I just made a new ship frame with 3d cram tetris ready before this toturial arrived
(its the one I'm making for 'broadsword vs you' that actually has decoration or somewhat instead of meta)
What a sync! XD
On the matter of more efficiency from multibarrels, I agree with @nicopence3148. Let's say you have a CRAM tetris layout that can be split into four equal segments with X total pellets, thus firing every Y seconds. If you set that up as a single barrel, then you fire one shell of X power every Y seconds, for a firepower value of X/Y. If you set that up as four barrels, you fire one shell of X/4 power every Y/4 seconds, which means a firepower value of 4X/4Y, which is in other words just X/Y. The packer cooldown isn't divided by 4, because it's equal for all four barrels: the time spent loading each barrel remains exactly the same.
The main advantage of a multibarrel setup is probably - I would argue - the redundancy, and to a lesser extent the option of a more continuous fire using synchronisation, if that is desired for whatever reason.
In light of recent battles on the channel I recorded I can definitely say that single barrel is better in doom cram territory, and the inherent cost saving from having multiple barrels is mostly relevant for small turrets and so small it matters little for doom crams, the reason behind this is that one doom cram shell is harder to take out than 4 almost doom cram shells.
However the longer the loading time the more efficient it is theoretically as the cooldown does not scale with reload time, but is constant, thus 4 very slow reload times are better than one 4x the speed, it's proportionally lower.
However redundancy is not a joke, if one goes with single barrel it's good to have insane amounts of HA around THE firing-piece, with multi barrel we can afford light armour.
However the firing sync sycks so hard I probably would advocate for never doing that and just make the cannons have differed reload speeds for a more continuous fire.
How do you make the disconnected CRAM parts not glow red?
you need to make them connected, for example making sure the firing piece goes to them
Well atleast my crams will not supershit anymore
They will not, glad it helps!
Min max is best max
ONLY MAXXXXXXXX
ALL THE WOOD
MASSIVE DESTRUCTION!