|
Post by apophys on May 12, 2017 12:12:59 GMT
Could nuclear reactors be cheaper than the Sr-90 RTG I used? You must not have looked closely at the standards thread. Merry Christmas (yeah, my reactors there are nearly half a year old; still good). Here's 10 GW: ThermoelectricFissionReactorModule 10.1 GW Thermoelectric Fission Reactor 2 ReactorCoreDimensions_m 0.2 0.48 NuclearReactor Coolant Sodium Moderator Boron Nitride ModeratorMass_kg 4 Fuel U-233 Dioxide FuelMass_kg 89 FuelEnrichment_Percent 0.97 ControlRodComposition Boron Nitride ControlRodMass_kg 104 NeutronReflector Boron Nitride ReflectorThickness_m 0.575 AverageNeutronFlux__m2_s 2.2e+020 InnerTurbopump Composition Amorphous Carbon PumpRadius_m 1.8 RotationalSpeed_RPM 490 ThermocoupleInnerDimensions_m 10 27 Thermocouple PTypeComposition Osmium NTypeComposition Tungsten Length_m 0.001 ThermocoupleExitTemperature_K 2400 OuterCoolant Sodium OuterTurbopump Composition Calcium PumpRadius_m 1 RotationalSpeed_RPM 540 I think we only need three requirements. Mass, cost, and missile count, if we limit that last one then there won't be a need for 1 gw or whatever lazers I don't think you understand. Lasers are a main weapon, not just point defense. Now with the Limits.txt available, it's possible to use lasers at 10 Mm range. I can route 9 GW of power into effective 10 Mm range lasers in 10 Mc on one ship, like so: Though for a real entry, I'd probably use 10x 1GW drones... I'm all for the laser meta. Not sure why some people want to artificially limit it.
|
|
|
Post by goduranus on May 12, 2017 13:04:45 GMT
Counterlasers can be spoofed by placing fake turrets on your ship as fodder, AI doesn't prioritize lasers first so it will waste time burning down fodder turrets. Is that new? I though the AI prioritized active lasers. I still see "Active Lasers" at the top of the list in Weapons Doctrine/Target Prioirities. Maybe it's my mistake them. I was sure that adding more turrets increased the survivability of lasers.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on May 12, 2017 13:26:37 GMT
Is that new? I though the AI prioritized active lasers. I still see "Active Lasers" at the top of the list in Weapons Doctrine/Target Prioirities. Maybe it's my mistake them. I was sure that adding more turrets increased the survivability of lasers. it does, more emitters means you can lose some and still be at 100%
|
|
|
Post by tukuro on May 12, 2017 13:45:26 GMT
The limits in this seem very low. how about 3kt and 40MC ? 40 Mc is equal to 250,000 micromissiles. Another solution is to have weapon based categories. Missiles vs Missiles, Lasers vs Lasers, Guns vs Guns. As long we do not have an in-depth sensor system (and the ability to blind or burn out sensors), missiles will continue to dominate.
|
|
|
Post by bigbombr on May 12, 2017 14:13:28 GMT
... Another solution is to have weapon based categories. Missiles vs Missiles, Lasers vs Lasers, Guns vs Guns. As long we do not have an in-depth sensor system (and the ability to blind or burn out sensors), missiles will continue to dominate. 10 Mm lasers beat missiles because the in game AI for missiles doesn't take orbital mechanics into account.
|
|
|
Post by bigbombr on May 12, 2017 15:16:05 GMT
... I'm all for the laser meta. Not sure why some people want to artificially limit it. This. Lasers lag the least of all weapon systems.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on May 12, 2017 15:33:12 GMT
how about for the first one, 5kt and 125Mc, with no mods or editing of limits.txt?
|
|
|
Post by randommechanicumguy on May 12, 2017 16:09:33 GMT
how about for the first one, 5kt and 125Mc, with no mods or editing of limits.txt? We could try that one out. Even if it turns out to be a horrible missile v laser lag fest. I feel like we've disussed alot
|
|
|
Post by tukuro on May 12, 2017 16:15:14 GMT
how about for the first one, 5kt and 125Mc, with no mods or editing of limits.txt? We could try that one out. Even if it turns out to be a horrible missile v laser lag fest. I feel like we've disussed alot It will. 125 Mc is enough for hundreds of thousands of armour-piercing missiles. You'll need to take missiles out of it or severely limit them. I don't see what's wrong with small craft. Even 3 Mc is enough to produce a lagfest. I don't see what these huge ships offer outside of freezing games seconds into entering combat.
|
|
|
Post by randommechanicumguy on May 12, 2017 16:27:03 GMT
We could try that one out. Even if it turns out to be a horrible missile v laser lag fest. I feel like we've disussed alot It will. 125 Mc is enough for hundreds of thousands of armour-piercing missiles. You'll need to take missiles out of it or severely limit them. I don't see what's wrong with small craft. Even 3 Mc is enough to produce a lagfest. I don't see what these huge ships offer outside of freezing games seconds into entering combat. i think we should make a drone+missle limit with the addition of the weight and cost limits. i could be wrong
|
|
|
Post by batflag on May 12, 2017 17:18:51 GMT
I'm excited about the idea of this tournament, because it would be an organized attempt to execute qswitched's experiment. Given that, I think the spirit of the rules of the tournament should be to reflect realism, within the compromising limits of AI behavior and computing power. So the decisions to make are:
1. How many missiles or drones should be allowed? I think microswarms are realistic, so this should be set as high as possible while still producing a reasonable frame rate. I think we would all like to see recordings, so 10 FPS might be a good minimum. The actual limit is then the highest number that the simulating computer can support. My little laptop tops out at around 300. Too many projectiles might also run up against this limit, but I don't see a simple way to create a rule for this.
2. How fast should guns be able to fire? Should we set aside the argument that the barrels would deform at high temperatures below melting point that would occur during sustained high rate of fire?
3. Should modified materials be allowed? I think that some mods which are in the spirit of realism would be fine theoretically, but practically it may become too complicated to come to consensus on what is and is not allowed.
4. Can limits be edited? This is the same situation as modified materials. It may or may not be in the spirit of realism, but it may be difficult to come to consensus. The danger of editing limits is (I'm guessing) in some situations qswitched set those limits because he was aware of ways in which his models became inaccurate at the extremes.
5. Do we set limits on material compatibility? Fluorine?
6. Do we set a minimum delta-v for the fleet?
7. Weapons firing through the armor should probably be restricted.
8. Should things that would generally be unpleasant to the crew be allowed? Reactors 1 degree from meltdown, reactors blasting radiation everywhere except for the (temporary) shielding of 1 cm of lithium-6, paper thin crew capsule walls? Personally, I think this is not completely unrealistic, in a total war / Firefly reaper situation. Though it would be nice to know which fleets are running on the edge and which aren't.
|
|
|
Post by princesskibble on May 12, 2017 20:37:53 GMT
As long we do not have an in-depth sensor system (and the ability to blind or burn out sensors), missiles will continue to dominate. They will still dominate because we will have semi-active radar guided missiles! <3 5. Do we set limits on material compatibility? Fluorine? 8. Should things that would generally be unpleasant to the crew be allowed? Reactors 1 degree from meltdown, reactors blasting radiation everywhere except for the (temporary) shielding of 1 cm of lithium-6, paper thin crew capsule walls? Personally, I think this is not completely unrealistic, in a total war / Firefly reaper situation. Though it would be nice to know which fleets are running on the edge and which aren't. I agree with this! And, trying the first time to make a nuclear reactor last night, how do you know how far it is from meltdown?
|
|
|
Post by David367th on May 12, 2017 22:43:45 GMT
5. Do we set limits on material compatibility? Fluorine? 8. Should things that would generally be unpleasant to the crew be allowed? Reactors 1 degree from meltdown, reactors blasting radiation everywhere except for the (temporary) shielding of 1 cm of lithium-6, paper thin crew capsule walls? Personally, I think this is not completely unrealistic, in a total war / Firefly reaper situation. Though it would be nice to know which fleets are running on the edge and which aren't. I agree with this! And, trying the first time to make a nuclear reactor last night, how do you know how far it is from meltdown? By understanding what melts first, usually the nuclear fuel, and then watching the core temps on the left as you drop them. Either by lowering enrichment, increasing coolant flow, or lowing neutron flux.
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on May 12, 2017 23:34:05 GMT
I'm excited about the idea of this tournament, because it would be an organized attempt to execute qswitched's experiment. Given that, I think the spirit of the rules of the tournament should be to reflect realism, within the compromising limits of AI behavior and computing power. So the decisions to make are: 1. How many missiles or drones should be allowed? I think microswarms are realistic, so this should be set as high as possible while still producing a reasonable frame rate. I think we would all like to see recordings, so 10 FPS might be a good minimum. The actual limit is then the highest number that the simulating computer can support. My little laptop tops out at around 300. Too many projectiles might also run up against this limit, but I don't see a simple way to create a rule for this. My PC can typically handle roughly 400-450 missiles before the FPS boggs down to a noticeably low level. When I try recording with OBS, that framerate is reduced even further, due to the way the recording software works. It still will record a white (windows whitewash frozen program) screen even if the game is hanging.
|
|
|
Post by Rocket Witch on May 13, 2017 0:39:58 GMT
I'm excited about the idea of this tournament, because it would be an organized attempt to execute qswitched's experiment. Given that, I think the spirit of the rules of the tournament should be to reflect realism, within the compromising limits of AI behavior and computing power. So the decisions to make are: [.....] 1. I think the performance bottleneck is in the range of 200–400 for most PCs, so I would say 200 per fleet, which would total at a potential 400 maximum on the field when we get Macross Missile Massacre builds on both sides. 2. 25ms might be a reasonable limit, similar to stock 33mm and 60mm, though it's very difficult to place a value on for all situations. I would suppose no limit in regard to thermal stresses, as it's not something that has been catalogued to any degree. Unlike a couple lists I'll mention below, we don't have a simple reference people can just look at and know what their limitations are. 3. I maintain an organised list of these; everything except the categories of Nanomaterials, Miscellaneous and Novelty could be allowed. I would additionally disqualify the LiHF tripropellant spoof since its current implementation means no huge hydrogen tanks are necessary, and unless we get actual triprop support the complexity of the system is also undermined. Regardless, it would be a lot easier if everyone kept to stock materials, especially for the person hosting the battles, so even as the most prolific material modder my vote is against allowing them. 4. Again for vastly increasing the simplicity of hosting I would keep it stock, especially because limits.txt in mods directory isn't currently supported so there could be accidents with it getting overwritten. The host could provide a prefab limits.txt for people to use, but that's still not great for participants since it will mess up their other designs if they were using higher limits for other purposes already. 5. We can use this: childrenofadeadearth.boards.net/thread/1209 . I'm unsure how complete it is but as long as I don't change it mid-tournament it will at least provide a bit more realism than stock. 6. 5km/s seems like an okay lower limit, at least by stock standards and many ships I've seen. Some people do use dual NTR/NPDT setups but the AI won't disable/enable the drives at correct times so I think we can rule considerations about hybrid propulsion out. 8. As with thermal stresses on guns, I would let the game decide what's valid here. The arbitrariness of safety limits have a habit of being argued over, especially in a war context. Some people are happy being 10K from meltdown, others might say anything fom that to 1500K. As with a lot of other things we don't have a big table saying what's appropriate unless someone wants to go and make it. Until someone does, spending forever knocking this out isn't probably won't get far. Nor do I think separating things into many categories to make everyone happy will do much good since this tourney will have something like 20 participants total.
|
|