Why is 1940's oilfire smoke so dense and dirty?

[Friedrich]

Seriously, does the intensity of smoke not have any factors involved besides size and number of funnels? Really, the amount of smoke should be determined by the engine's output, and beyond 100% efficiency smoke interference should be reduced, since it is being dissipated more efficiently.

[Purgato]

I assume it's more of a placeholder at the moment.
They'll probably get around to modeling some differences once more of the main game play features are more fleshed out and implemented.

I do admit it would be nice to see a visual difference between an inefficient funnel(s) and very efficient one beyond just performance though.

[Cptbarney]

Agree to both, around 110% smoke should be pretty clean and above that very clear as well.

[Friedrich]

My problem isn't just the visuals, but the fact that this has an impact on ship performance as well. There is a big difference between hot exhaust air distorting light, and a cloud of black smoke blotting out anything short of the sun, if that. Like, funnel capacity going up above 100% efficiency should start to reduce smoke interference, for example.

[Purgato]

6 hours ago, Friedrich said:

Like, funnel capacity going up above 100% efficiency should start to reduce smoke interference, for example.

I'm not sure that's how it should be done. It may incentivize people more if instead of just the efficiency of the funnel changed the smoke, it was more dependent on what you put in.
 

ie: Switching your engines over to oil will reduce the overall amount of smoke produced compared to coal, making it even more useful beyond it just making your funnel's more efficient.
Because no matter how well you funnel up your ship, you're still burning coal, and tons of it, there's gonna be smoke.
The funnels should still matter, but they shouldn't make the smoke better too few funnels should just start adding on penalties if you're over a certain threshold.

tl;dr, make the oil more important and make the amount of smoke the engine produces a flat amount (based on speed/tech and weight) that gets worse with worse funnel efficiency. 

[Friedrich]

On 2/14/2020 at 1:54 AM, Purgato said:

I'm not sure that's how it should be done. It may incentivize people more if instead of just the efficiency of the funnel changed the smoke, it was more dependent on what you put in.
 

ie: Switching your engines over to oil will reduce the overall amount of smoke produced compared to coal, making it even more useful beyond it just making your funnel's more efficient.
Because no matter how well you funnel up your ship, you're still burning coal, and tons of it, there's gonna be smoke.
The funnels should still matter, but they shouldn't make the smoke better too few funnels should just start adding on penalties if you're over a certain threshold.

tl;dr, make the oil more important and make the amount of smoke the engine produces a flat amount (based on speed/tech and weight) that gets worse with worse funnel efficiency. 

I think you misunderstand what I meant. Greater than 100% efficiency should reduce interference, since the smoke wouldn't be as dense. That doesn't mean there won't be smoke, just that it isn't such a dense cloud. Otherwise I agree with you.

[arkhangelsk]

30 minutes ago, Friedrich said:

I think you misunderstand what I meant. Greater than 100% efficiency should reduce interference, since the smoke wouldn't be as dense. That doesn't mean there won't be smoke, just that it isn't such a dense cloud. Otherwise I agree with you.

I don't think it should be modeled because let's face it, the effect is insignificant. For one thing, in terms of the total amount of particles, you are still putting them up even if you increase the airflow. If the opacity is reduced very slightly, no one will notice the difference and it will be the amount that kills you more than the exact opacity.