|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Jan 20, 2018 0:59:16 GMT
A whole bunch of payloads equalling the same explosive and density mass of a big payload, or that single big payload?
I'm asking, mostly because I just realized you can nudge stuff "outwards" and I can make a payload cluster about the same size of a standard larger cluster.
I've got a standard anti-kinetic ship that I test with, and I can't seem to figure out if there's any tangible difference (mostly because the thing eats flak, and basically anything else just fine and keeps on going).
|
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Jan 20, 2018 1:24:25 GMT
more smaller flaks is better
|
|
|
|
Post by Rocket Witch on Jan 20, 2018 2:00:54 GMT
If it makes a difference then clearly there is some kind of "20x 1MW lasers are better than 1x 20MW" thing going on and that can be considered a bug.
|
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Jan 20, 2018 2:51:56 GMT
If it makes a difference then clearly there is some kind of "20x 1MW lasers are better than 1x 20MW" thing going on and that can be considered a bug. I'm leaning towards thinking this is true. However when I do the math of multiplying all the variables of the stock TNT flak payload by 5 (since I can't make a payload length longer than 5 without limit editing), the bigger payload comes out, almost literally .1134 times more efficent in terms of shrapnel piece quantity, and costs about 20% more credits. Seems more payloads works out better in terms of sheer cost effectiveness, (because of reasons), but a bigger payload gives you marginally more shrapnel per payload. The only left out factor would be the armor, and the longer, bigger payload also costs more in this regard if we factor in wether or not this is going to be bigger than the fuel tanks. |
|
|
|
Post by vegemeister on Jan 20, 2018 8:01:58 GMT
Long, skinny flak bombs require less explosive for the same fragment weight. But a single long, skinny flak bomb is difficult to fit in the missile. By using multiple flak bombs, you can get a short/fat payload that makes lots of small fragments.
This is not an exploit, because realistically you would use pre-cut shrapnel (think tetrahedral buckshot or long rods). The explosive would just be for dispersal. You wounldn't even have to use explosive. Centrifugal launch might be the best way to get even distribution of shrapnel.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rocket Witch on Jan 20, 2018 13:06:52 GMT
AdmiralObvious Is it still more effective when you keep the same height/width ratio? At least the bigger stick doesn't look any wider to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Jan 20, 2018 17:56:56 GMT
AdmiralObvious Is it still more effective when you keep the same height/width ratio? At least the bigger stick doesn't look any wider to me. I'm going to try and test that next. However, maintaining the same ratio will change the density of the shrapnel coming off, as well as the quantity of pieces coming off, so I'd need to math it out a little harder. |
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Jan 21, 2018 20:02:32 GMT
Okay, doubling the mass and keeping (approximately) the same aspect ratios seems to deliver about a 5% more efficient payload (assuming I can do math right, which I know I can't), with a negligible price increase of literally a few credits once again ignoring craft armor. |
|
|
|
Post by jtyotjotjipaefvj on Jan 22, 2018 12:24:44 GMT
Could this be just some mass loss caused by the shrapnel layer getting partially vaporized by the explosive? I'm not sure what other explanation there could be, you end up with 19.8 kg of shrapnel when starting with a 20 kg shrapnel vest. Another option might be just rounding errors in the simulation somewhere.
Edit: wait, I was looking at the mass of the whole bomb. Are you sure the difference doesn't just come from explosive mass?
|
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Jan 22, 2018 17:56:12 GMT
Could this be just some mass loss caused by the shrapnel layer getting partially vaporized by the explosive? I'm not sure what other explanation there could be, you end up with 19.8 kg of shrapnel when starting with a 20 kg shrapnel vest. Another option might be just rounding errors in the simulation somewhere. Edit: wait, I was looking at the mass of the whole bomb. Are you sure the difference doesn't just come from explosive mass? I set the shrapnel to 19.8 kg so I would double the density of the standard 10 kg flak bomb. I don't think we're losing any shrapnel pieces, and I do think the game might have rounding errors. |
|
|
|
Post by jtyotjotjipaefvj on Jan 22, 2018 18:20:00 GMT
Could this be just some mass loss caused by the shrapnel layer getting partially vaporized by the explosive? I'm not sure what other explanation there could be, you end up with 19.8 kg of shrapnel when starting with a 20 kg shrapnel vest. Another option might be just rounding errors in the simulation somewhere. Edit: wait, I was looking at the mass of the whole bomb. Are you sure the difference doesn't just come from explosive mass? I set the shrapnel to 19.8 kg so I would double the density of the standard 10 kg flak bomb. I don't think we're losing any shrapnel pieces, and I do think the game might have rounding errors. In that case, isn't this just explained by the game rounding the displayed shrapnel mass? I doubt there's any difference between multiple warheads and one that produces an identical pattern on its own. |
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Jan 22, 2018 22:32:56 GMT
I set the shrapnel to 19.8 kg so I would double the density of the standard 10 kg flak bomb. I don't think we're losing any shrapnel pieces, and I do think the game might have rounding errors. In that case, isn't this just explained by the game rounding the displayed shrapnel mass? I doubt there's any difference between multiple warheads and one that produces an identical pattern on its own. I'm pretty sure i'm doing the math wrong somehow, or my calculator is messed up, but I usually end up getting 3 to 5 percent more shrapnel the bigger the payload gets. |
|
