|
Post by nivik on Oct 19, 2016 20:21:35 GMT
Not as micro as most, and not combat-tested yet, but this is an early attempt. 6 km/s of dV, 95 ton NEFP (with the remote control and fuel tanks as the "penetrator", which I'm not sure if that actually works or not). Fuel mix is fluorine/ammonia. I went for the maximum density non-explosive fuel mix I could. I like nonexplosive. Magazine detonations suck. Final length is 165cm, wet mass 12.2kg, cost 54c. I haven't calculated the range yet, but based on the jerk-acceleration formula, I'm calculating around 120km of powered envelope. That may wind up being optimistic, however; it seems awfully high and my math may be off. -snip- For burnout range (assuming straight-line flight, from the launching point), you can simply calculate it using the delta-V and the burn time. This works because the acceleration increases linearly with time (due to fuel being consumed at a constant rate). Thus you can simply take the average acceleration, which is dV divided by burn time, and then plug that into the equation for uniformly accelerated motion, i.e. D=1/2*a*t^2, with a being your average acceleration and t the burnout time. Or, if you resolve it all, it simplifies to D=1/2*dV*t, which gives a burnout range of ~97 km. Hmm. Alright. I've been using jerk and initial acceleration, since the linear acceleration increase maps to constant jerk.
|
|
|
Post by zuthal on Oct 20, 2016 1:33:49 GMT
Yeah, of course you can expand classical equation of motion for distance travelled with a 1/6*j*t^3 term, however then you have to actually calculate both a_0 and jerk. My equation works with only values that the game directly tells you, so it is easier to use, I feel.
|
|
|
Post by nivik on Oct 20, 2016 14:30:03 GMT
Yeah, of course you can expand classical equation of motion for distance travelled with a 1/6*j*t^3 term, however then you have to actually calculate both a_0 and jerk. My equation works with only values that the game directly tells you, so it is easier to use, I feel. It probably is. :3
|
|
|
Post by coaxjack on Oct 24, 2016 21:49:36 GMT
Does it look like reduced-distance proximity fusing will come with the next missile guidance update? I was attempting to create a crude tandem-warhead design today. By putting an additional warhead in the tail of my go-to small missile I was hoping to exploit the hole the nose-mounted EFP charge created by then detonating the secondary fragmentation warhead inside the armor of the target, but the 1 meter minimum was preventing that. Now that I think about it, a negative distance could be useful too, considering that's how the actual delay fusing on bunker busters works.
|
|
|
Post by cuddlefish on Oct 24, 2016 21:54:20 GMT
Does it look like reduced-distance proximity fusing will come with the next missile guidance update? I was attempting to create a crude tandem-warhead design today. By putting an additional warhead in the tail of my go-to small missile I was hoping to exploit the hole the nose-mounted EFP charge created by then detonating the secondary fragmentation warhead inside the armor of the target, but the 1 meter minimum was preventing that. Now that I think about it, a negative distance could be useful too, considering that's how the actual delay fusing on bunker busters works. I think the focus at the moment is on getting the fuses to actually fulfill their current specifications.
|
|
|
Post by dwwolf on Oct 25, 2016 6:50:06 GMT
Does it look like reduced-distance proximity fusing will come with the next missile guidance update? I was attempting to create a crude tandem-warhead design today. By putting an additional warhead in the tail of my go-to small missile I was hoping to exploit the hole the nose-mounted EFP charge created by then detonating the secondary fragmentation warhead inside the armor of the target, but the 1 meter minimum was preventing that. Now that I think about it, a negative distance could be useful too, considering that's how the actual delay fusing on bunker busters works. I think the focus at the moment is on getting the fuses to actually fulfill their current specifications. I do notice more rear armor hits and com plete penetrations on dual and triple EFP packages as well as more ragged entry holes in general. I'm going to experiment with reduced explosive charges on the rear explosive drivers. Aint Science! grand
|
|
|
Post by dragonkid11 on Oct 30, 2016 5:42:04 GMT
So...I have made my own micro missile design and decided to put 50 of them into my drones.
Works pretty well, so I tested out various different types of warhead including a nuclear micro missile.
It...seems to get stuck at the launcher and ended up getting rammed out by the next missiles.
Out of 50 missiles launch, only 45 make it out intact.
And one time, the missiles ended up exploding at point blank range, destroying the drone itself.
During firing, the drone is accelerating towards the target too, trying to give as much velocity towards the target as possible for the missile to reach faster.
And of course, launching the missiles when the drone or vessel isn't moving is perfectly fine.
Increasing the launch speed decrease the chance of missile destroying themselves but I also would like to keep the drone as light as possible.
So, any tips?
|
|
|
Post by cuddlefish on Oct 30, 2016 8:14:52 GMT
The other alternative I can think of is to stagger the launch times a bit more - that means downgrading your coolant system on the launcher itself as much as possible. It'd be nice if they let us set manual ROF caps at some point, but there are many higher priority targets to resolve first.
|
|
|
Post by Pttg on Oct 30, 2016 23:57:43 GMT
Heck, you can give any missile an extra 1-2km/s by using a coilgun instead of a launcher.
It's really beautiful to see a sleety line missiles closing with the enemy. They can try to lase them, but it's like trying to stop a firehose by throwing rocks into the stream.
|
|
|
Post by dragonkid11 on Oct 31, 2016 0:19:19 GMT
Tried out a extended version of my micro missiles by adding twice as much fuel tank, increasing their weight to 5 kg.
For warship? Works pretty well.
For drone...
They just exploded right as they get launched by the launcher, like just straight up exploded before the next missile appears or anything really.
This is going to be a problem.
|
|
|
Post by fenrin49 on Nov 19, 2016 5:32:04 GMT
ive been using these 10 kilo ones little 200 gram osmium penetrator disk shields which on this design seem reliable - simple fuel and silly plastic engines makes it decently cheap throwing them out of a gun at 1 km/s and some absurd fire rate i have been finding that lower component count seems to reduce lag these single fuel tank 1 layer of armour missiles are about 30% less laggy than a preveious 2 fuel tank 2 armour layer design somthing to keep in mind when throwing 300 out at a time cost is not totaly optimized the nukes could be more optimized using just under 500 gram micro nukes right now
|
|