|
Post by omnipotentvoid on Aug 1, 2017 17:44:48 GMT
It's been a while since I made a ridiculously large gun, and I thought I'd give it a try and see if I could get to a point where I exceed .01c with a 1g projectile. I succeeded. And the thing still "bounces" off of my heavy armor target at as close to 90° incident of impact as I can get. In fact, it doesn't penetrate beyond the third layer of armor. Now, I have made a similar thread before, but here I want to go beyond stating that the armor mechanic is broken. It is fairly clear that the projectile should be destroyed, there should be a big hole, etc. Rather, I want to show how broken it is and some of the implications (as far as I'm aware) of such high velocity projectiles. To fully understand these ridiculous impacts, more precisly why they are so, heres some math: Let us assume that the projectile is simply absorbed by the armor but stays reasonably intact (this is implicated by the game having it bounce). Further more let us assume uniform deceleration (this is easier and more forgiving as the highest deceleration is just after impact and is significantly higher than average). With the given armor scheme and the observed maximum penetration depth, this gives us a distance to decelerate of s=1.06m. With s=1/2*a*t 2 and t=v/a we get a=v 2/2s. Given the absorption of the projectil this gives us a velocity change v of 4.12*10 6m/s and thus an acceleration of just above 8*10 12m/s 2, or quadruple that if you assume a ricochet. The projectile mass is 10 -3kg, giving us a force of 8*10 9N or 8GN. The projectile has an area of about 3.421m -7, meaning it expieriences an aproximate 2.34*10 16Pa or 23.4PPa, 23.4 Peta Pascal! Again, quadrupel that in the case of the ricochet, as the change in velocity has doubled. As a point of reference: the only figure I have seen for electron degeneracy pressure ( link) is 29.4TPa, an order of magnitude smaller. Assuming the games penetration mechanics are correct (which they are not), here are some implications for projectiles aproaching 1%c given the above math: - Impacts will generate degenerate matter, which would then decay. This lessens the effect of wipple shields significantly, as it increases the time the projectile (or some part of it) remains intact for some time (relative to the time it takes the object to cross the gap between wipple shield and armor
- Impacts should give off a flash of radiation as electrons are dissasosiated and reasosiated from their atoms and some fusion/fission (likely) uccors
This also has some rather profund implications for hyper velocity projectiles in general (projectiles in the hundreds of km/s).
First of all, impact initiated fission (and possibly fussion) should be possible with these projectiles. Considering that you can get about 10T of explosive power out of about a gram of fissionable material in implosion style nukes, this would mean a significant increase in destructive power, if these materials can be used in these projectiles.
Far more significant in my opinion is the effect these projectiles would have on armor. Even at 100km/s on sub mm projectiles, the impact forces go far beyond the binding forces of the atoms of the strongest of our materials and the velocities involved are tens to hundreds of times beyond the speed of sound in our materials. This means that, on impact, armor would act like liquid. The resulting damage would thus mainly take the form of a massive cavitation bubble, similar to those seen in flesh with modern projectiles. These bubbles would not collapse back on themselves the same way, though, as the material would stop acting like a fluid below a certain speed. As the material slows, the material at the edge of the bubble would turn to plasma/gas/liquid as friction turns its kinetic energy into heat. As the edge slows below a critical velocity and becomes difuse, it will shatter the material there, fracturing the remaining armor and cause massive spalling. The plasma/gas expands rapidly as it forms causing a secondary explosion, causing even more direct damage and generating futher fractures and spalling in/from the already damaged armor. In fact it will do all this regardless of if it hits armor or a fuel tank or anything else, dumping all of its energy (2T of TnT equivalent in the case of my example) into whatever it hits. I feel if this was more accurately moddeled, high velocity railguns would do significantly more damage.
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Aug 1, 2017 19:41:14 GMT
Excuse me for asking, but which version of the game was this tested in, because you've still got 10 m of boron in there. Is that the old "lord boron" or is it the new boring boron?
Regards I think cavitation is indeed modeled, I tested it on a 50 m space station with a few hundred kg steel shots, and the armor at least appeared to cavicate, and as well, spall the crew compartment, even though the shot had no possible way to penetrate the target.
I also think that the outer layer of UHMPWE, due to the way that it fractures when bent may also concealing the result you are looking for with the way the armor is modeled in game.
|
|
|
Post by omnipotentvoid on Aug 1, 2017 20:05:01 GMT
Excuse me for asking, but which version of the game was this tested in, because you've still got 10 m of boron in there. Is that the old "lord boron" or is it the new boring boron? Regards I think cavitation is indeed modeled, I tested it on a 50 m space station with a few hundred kg steel shots, and the armor at least appeared to cavicate, and as well, spall the crew compartment, even though the shot had no possible way to penetrate the target. I also think that the outer layer of UHMPWE, due to the way that it fractures when bent may also concealing the result you are looking for with the way the armor is modeled in game. The armor was tested on the latest version, the boron is in there, because nothing ever reaches it, so I kind of forgot about it. As for cavitation being modelled, it isn't. A 1g projectile at 300km/s has the energy of roughly 10kg of tnt. This should rip a hole of at least a meter in diameter in a VCS plate depending on penetration depth if the projectile is absorbed. I believe that the game simply assumes the projectile is shocked into plasma and then expands to form holes (based on this blog post). This is why larger projectiles with the same energy would do more damage: theres more to be shocked into plasma. Cavitation may be impossible to modell though, so they may simply ignore it. Even if most of the projectile energy would be spent on cavitation rather than plasma. Also, the UHMPWE is the innermos layer of armor. I looked at the damage internally, there are still only pinpricks for damage.
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Aug 1, 2017 20:11:27 GMT
Yeah, I did a dumb on reading the armor model (I'm working in the outdoor section of the store today, and it's 105 F here).
What was the projectile made of, and did the bounce impart a significant spin to the target?
|
|
|
Post by omnipotentvoid on Aug 1, 2017 20:16:24 GMT
Yeah, I did a dumb on reading the armor model (I'm working in the outdoor section of the store today, and it's 105 F here). What was the projectile made of, and did the bounce impart a significant spin to the target? Graphene, tensile strength modified to 2.6TPa to account for railgun armature shape. But thats still more than an order of magnitude below the impact pressure. As for spin, non that I can tell. But the target does weigh 3.81MT vs the 1g projectile, so I wouldn't expect it to.
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Aug 1, 2017 20:25:49 GMT
I guess the next idea would be to test that 10 kg of TNT and see if the damage is at all comparable.
It's probably not, but it might shed some light on how the game calculates the damage.
Also, even a 1g shot flying at relativistic speeds, it should be able to at least slightly knock the target off course just a little bit.
|
|
|
Post by thehardestmetal on Aug 1, 2017 20:47:08 GMT
This has been a pretty big annoyance for me. I've found that only a few centimeters of something like Iridum, Osmium, or some other dense material will do this. Less dense materials will pull off some crazy bounces as well but they seem to be much less effective. The same thing happens often with low speed high energy impacts as well but is a bit less common.
For instance, I made a conventional cannon that will shoot a 1200mm 1 ton slug of Osmium at 3.15 km/s. A few centimeters of Iridum will more often than not bounce hits on armor that is nearly perpendicular to the shot. I upped the mass and energy with a new conventional cannon that shoots a 3200mm 5 ton slug of Osmium at around 2.1 km/s and the projectile bounced off even more frequently on same target at the same angles. I've even watched both of these guns bounce shot after shot off of an aluminum whipple shield that was only a few millimeters thick.
A bit more relevant to the current topic would be the long range railgun I have been continually improving upon. It will fire a 10g 5mm Osmium projectile at 115 km/s. It seems to do significantly better against slopes but on occasion will do nothing but bounce off of even thin armor. Another example of high velocity richocets is my point defense railguns. They fire a 2mm 1g Osmium projectile at 54.1km/s. They are significantly affected by sloping and often have very little impact because they just bounce right off instead of doing the damage they should.
Armor and projectile impacts need a rework. Armor doesn't behave realistically under extremely high impact velocities. Spalling doesn't really occur on non penetrating hits like it should, sheer impact forces of high mass and high energy projectiles doesn't seem to be implemented correctly, and projectiles with energies in the gigajoules bouncing off of whipple shields is pretty absurd.
I enjoy this game a lot but this stuff is really killing it for me.
|
|
|
Post by thorneel on Aug 1, 2017 21:59:13 GMT
Yeah, I did a dumb on reading the armor model (I'm working in the outdoor section of the store today, and it's 313.7 K here). ftfy It was asked to Sempai~ to give us the exact equations running things behind the hood, this would really help there. Bar that, something to visualise in detail what is happening would also help.
|
|