|
|
Post by AtomHeartDragon on Feb 16, 2018 11:52:58 GMT
The economy is by far the sketchiest part of COADE: - material pricing is often dubious - for example deuterium and hydrogen deuteride being cheaper than hydrogen is plain wrong and even with unlimited and precise additive manufacturing I doubt we will be able to layer bulk quantities of diamond we just can't now cheaper than RCC we can already produce in bulk quantities.
- Relative lack of engineering expenses is off as well - armour, which is just dumb layers of material is currently by far more expensive than precision made weapons and engines.
- Then there is the fact that economy is fluid - once there is sufficient demand for something that can be manufactured, someone will find a way to mass produce it cheaply, OTOH if the demand is for natural resource, it will get more expensive
Meanwhile, physics stays constant and I don't expect, say, osmium to suddenly get lighter if everyone starts using it to armour their ships. Physics reigns supreme, COADE is built with full reverence to this fact and we really should all be building featherweight ships rather than hoboships.
Just saying.
|
|
|
|
Post by zorbeltuss on Feb 16, 2018 16:02:57 GMT
The economy is by far the sketchiest part of COADE: - material pricing is often dubious - for example deuterium and hydrogen deuteride being cheaper than hydrogen is plain wrong and even with unlimited and precise additive manufacturing I doubt we will be able to layer bulk quantities of diamond we just can't now cheaper than RCC we can already produce in bulk quantities.
- Relative lack of engineering expenses is off as well - armour, which is just dumb layers of material is currently by far more expensive than precision made weapons and engines.
- Then there is the fact that economy is fluid - once there is sufficient demand for something that can be manufactured, someone will find a way to mass produce it cheaply, OTOH if the demand is for natural resource, it will get more expensive
Meanwhile, physics stays constant and I don't expect, say, osmium to suddenly get lighter if everyone starts using it to armour their ships. Physics reigns supreme, COADE is built with full reverence to this fact and we really should all be building featherweight ships rather than hoboships.
Just saying.
Your opinion of: "People who are not playing the game like me are wrong." has been noted. |
|
|
|
Post by AtomHeartDragon on Feb 16, 2018 18:41:55 GMT
Your opinion of: "People who are not playing the game like me are wrong." has been noted. Well, if they weren't wrong they would be playing just like me, duh.  Seriously, though, other than exploiting insane corner cases most folks on these boards probably play the game more as intended than myself. I'm just in for plausible space battles and cool ships. Still, I do hope to coax at least few into exploring both lower tech engineering (not relying on cheap and light multi-GW power) and what can be done with right, rather than cheap materials - I'm interested in the results. |
|
|
|
Post by Fgdfgfthgr on Feb 17, 2018 3:05:38 GMT
So use Nickel Phosphorus Microlattice for everything?  |
|
|
|
Post by jtyotjotjipaefvj on Feb 17, 2018 3:27:17 GMT
Meanwhile, physics stays constant and I don't expect, say, osmium to suddenly get lighter if everyone starts using it to armour their ships.
Physics reigns supreme, COADE is built with full reverence to this fact and we really should all be building featherweight ships rather than hoboships. Physics is a bitch, he don't reign over me! If I want to make my armor out of light osmium, I will. See here:  |
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Feb 17, 2018 4:59:30 GMT
do note, mass is per m^3, while cost is per kg, therefore, mass optimization is cost optimization
|
|
|
|
Post by AtomHeartDragon on Feb 17, 2018 9:12:17 GMT
So use Nickel Phosphorus Microlattice for everything? There are a lot of potentially cool materials that are neglected because "muh hoboships!", hell even RCCs main vice is that it's hideously expensive Meanwhile, physics stays constant and I don't expect, say, osmium to suddenly get lighter if everyone starts using it to armour their ships.
Physics reigns supreme, COADE is built with full reverence to this fact and we really should all be building featherweight ships rather than hoboships. Physics is a bitch, he don't reign over me! If I want to make my armor out of light osmium, I will. See here:  Yeah, about that - partial tiles really do need to be rounded up at all times (as long as they are rounded to begin with). |
|
|
|
Post by jtyotjotjipaefvj on Feb 17, 2018 11:39:30 GMT
Yeah, about that - partial tiles really do need to be rounded up at all times (as long as they are rounded to begin with). Armor mass in general is computed incorrectly. Volume seems to be computed as area times depth, which is incorrect for thicker plates. The end caps are also completely weightless, at least if they are flat. See here for an in-depth explanation: childrenofadeadearth.boards.net/thread/1958/armor-mass-incorrect |
|
|
|
Post by zorbeltuss on Feb 17, 2018 15:41:49 GMT
Seriously, though, other than exploiting insane corner cases most folks on these boards probably play the game more as intended than myself. I'm just in for plausible space battles and cool ships. Still, I do hope to coax at least few into exploring both lower tech engineering (not relying on cheap and light multi-GW power) and what can be done with right, rather than cheap materials - I'm interested in the results. Well if you're trying to get other players to explore things that you are interested in how about avoiding things like: There are a lot of potentially cool materials that are neglected because "muh hoboships!", hell even RCCs main vice is that it's hideously expensive Insulting people is not a good way of convincing them to join you. |
|
|
|
Post by AtomHeartDragon on Feb 17, 2018 16:42:00 GMT
Seriously, though, other than exploiting insane corner cases most folks on these boards probably play the game more as intended than myself. I'm just in for plausible space battles and cool ships. Still, I do hope to coax at least few into exploring both lower tech engineering (not relying on cheap and light multi-GW power) and what can be done with right, rather than cheap materials - I'm interested in the results. Well if you're trying to get other players to explore things that you are interested in how about avoiding things like: There are a lot of potentially cool materials that are neglected because "muh hoboships!", hell even RCCs main vice is that it's hideously expensive Insulting people is not a good way of convincing them to join you. Pray tell where have I insulted anyone? |
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Feb 17, 2018 22:11:33 GMT
Well if you're trying to get other players to explore things that you are interested in how about avoiding things like: Insulting people is not a good way of convincing them to join you. Pray tell where have I insulted anyone? The term "hoboship", mostly can be percieved as an insult to anyone with a different build doctorine. Mass minimalization is just a fancy term for cost optimization, and this would be true in most cases, except where to cut mass, the cost skyrockets (E.G. some of the radioisotopes which cost a few Zeta credits to be used). |
|
|
|
Post by jtyotjotjipaefvj on Feb 18, 2018 0:15:22 GMT
The term "hoboship", mostly can be percieved as an insult to anyone with a different build doctorine. You have to be pretty thin-skinned to get mad over that. It sounds more humorous than insulting to me. |
|
|
|
Post by zorbeltuss on Feb 18, 2018 0:42:19 GMT
There are a lot of potentially cool materials that are neglected because "muh hoboships!" This is the part I have problems with, the term hoboship it's not the most smooth but well, the part 'because "muh hoboships!"' is just mocking other players however benign one can assume the term hoboship to be. |
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Feb 18, 2018 2:26:34 GMT
The term "hoboship", mostly can be percieved as an insult to anyone with a different build doctorine. You have to be pretty thin-skinned to get mad over that. It sounds more humorous than insulting to me. I find it amusing as well, it's just my job to point out the obvious, obviously. |
|
|
|
Post by AtomHeartDragon on Feb 18, 2018 10:45:39 GMT
You have to be pretty thin-skinned to get mad over that. It sounds more humorous than insulting to me. I find it amusing as well, it's just my job to point out the obvious, obviously. At first I wanted to object, but then I looked at the nick and - at the risk of outstepping my own competences - well, yeah. There are a lot of potentially cool materials that are neglected because "muh hoboships!" This is the part I have problems with, the term hoboship it's not the most smooth but well, the part 'because "muh hoboships!"' is just mocking other players however benign one can assume the term hoboship to be. - The term is concise and I have seen it used in other places (steam workshop where there is series of "hobo %ship_type" spacecraft optimized for low cost)
- No one in other places seems to mind, for example RPG players don't seem to have any problems when someone refers to adventurers in general as "murderhobos"
- The term was used half-mockingly, but in a rather lighthearted manner - I had my ships called "art" but even though I'm not sure if it wasn't done mockingly, I don't care nearly enough to raise this subject, conversely there have been much harder (and personal) rubs on this forum that were seemingly taken in a stride.
The bottom line is that there is no point getting your anything in a twist over someone's perceived tone on the net. It's easy to misinterpret, easy to overreact and if someone is a genuine asshole out to insult people they'll make sure they get through to you if you miss it at first.
Mass minimalization is just a fancy term for cost optimization Only when using the same materials. I've never seen anyone performing cost optimization using Ni-P microlattice, basalt fibre or RCC. Anyway, building a ship is multivariate optimization, and ideally you should strive to push as close to mass (because of industrial output and logistics involving in injecting an invasion fleet into desired trajectory and then into orbit at destination), cost (duh) and manpower (not implemented, but fairly critical) budgets as possible. If you churn out hoboships to the point where you saturate mass and manpower budgets, while barely scratching the cost one, it means that you could potentially have made much more powerful and durable ships, presumably conserving more of this manpower and mass (and presumably not having people do absolutely everything to avoid getting stuffed into a potassium can hotglued to an engine pumping fluorine into raging inferno contained in paper-thin diamond shell - slowly graphitizing when in use - using lithium turbopumps). Meanwhile cost optimization has been done to death, buried, excavated, beaten some more, excavated again, resurrected, shot dead and beaten again past the point of liquefication. Other sorts of optimization? Not so much. And as a result there are tons of interesting materials (and potentially designs relying on them to be effective) virtually untouched because they are expensive. |
|
