|
Post by jennydracos on Nov 5, 2016 21:08:22 GMT
The biggest problem with missiles as it stands is that you have to assume that every missile has a better computer than the one sitting on your desk. But we have to model every single one with...the one sitting on your desk, which also has to model the targets, the decoys, and spacetime. That means no way to tell the difference between a flare and a ship, even when you start to get close and size makes a difference. No way to split missiles in a swarm to engage different targets. No way to spin a NEFP for a good shot. No way to predict target acceleration to build a good intercept, even.
There are a lot of places where the limitations of the simulation are shortcomings, and missile AI is I think one of the most frustrating.
|
|
|
Post by someusername6 on Nov 5, 2016 22:47:52 GMT
The biggest problem with missiles as it stands is that you have to assume that every missile has a better computer than the one sitting on your desk. But we have to model every single one with...the one sitting on your desk, which also has to model the targets, the decoys, and spacetime. That means no way to tell the difference between a flare and a ship, even when you start to get close and size makes a difference. No way to split missiles in a swarm to engage different targets. No way to spin a NEFP for a good shot. No way to predict target acceleration to build a good intercept, even. There are a lot of places where the limitations of the simulation are shortcomings, and missile AI is I think one of the most frustrating. I'd like to eventually be able to code up the AI, or at least some simple rules, for missiles and drones. But I realize that exposing a small scripting language might not be trivial.
|
|
|
Post by teeth on Nov 5, 2016 22:54:19 GMT
I'd like to eventually be able to code up the AI, or at least some simple rules, for missiles and drones. But I realize that exposing a small scripting language might not be trivial. There's a game called From The Depths that has LUA controllers you can use for everything imaginable from missiles and guns to controlling your craft, but these two games are very far apart in their complexity and realism so I'm not sure if the same thing would work here.
|
|
|
Post by redmars on Nov 6, 2016 2:04:38 GMT
The biggest problem with missiles as it stands is that you have to assume that every missile has a better computer than the one sitting on your desk. But we have to model every single one with...the one sitting on your desk, which also has to model the targets, the decoys, and spacetime. That means no way to tell the difference between a flare and a ship, even when you start to get close and size makes a difference. No way to split missiles in a swarm to engage different targets. No way to spin a NEFP for a good shot. No way to predict target acceleration to build a good intercept, even. There are a lot of places where the limitations of the simulation are shortcomings, and missile AI is I think one of the most frustrating. To be fair, we don't get proper ECM, either. IIRC, qswitched wrote in one of the blogs that the assumption was that these things mostly cancelled each other out. Personally, I'm fine with missiles being a bit dumb given that sensors and countermeasures aren't modeled. Improvements to the basic guidance would be appreciated, however, re: Railguns, I actually think they're awesome, you just have to be realistic about what you expect from them. A bunch of low calibre, high-velocity, quick-firing guns are pretty good at sanding off a capital ship's radiators. After that you can use something more beefy for the kill.
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Nov 6, 2016 6:43:29 GMT
A good counter to flares in the current environment is to use cheap missiles as a screen for a drone salvo. Drones ignore flares, so the missiles don't need to hit, they just need to keep the enemy PD occupied until the drones get in firing range. Any PD strong enough to chew through the missile screen and get to the drones behind it is likely to run hot enough to make flares an expensive proposition. Technically, if beam-riding missiles were an option we could even give the drones targeting lasers so that the missiles can hit too... why have targeting lasers, the enemy does it for you
|
|
|
Post by ross128 on Nov 6, 2016 13:46:55 GMT
I suppose it is technically true that you could just calibrate the missile to home on a range of frequencies likely to be emitted by enemy lasers, sort of like ARMs that home on enemy radar. Although your missiles flying directly down the barrel of enemy PD might increase their attrition rate a bit.
Still, if the swarm does manage to push through that would result in hits on the laser array, so Anti-Laser Missiles could be used for suppression of enemy point defense (SEPD? Or would we keep using SEAD because it's more familiar?) as long as they can survive long enough to push the swarm through the beam.
|
|
|
Post by coaxjack on Nov 6, 2016 18:16:27 GMT
That presents an interesting problem again, which is something this game seems to generate in spades: If you were using a SESpaD missile or missile bus/drone, how would it even home on the laser emitter without being fried? If you're using a seeker that would be resilient (or "dull" enough, if you follow?) against military grade lasers, surely it couldn't be sensitive enough to accurately home in? I'm very familiar with laser seeker heads as I used to deal with them in the military, and they work off of reflected coded-pulsed light, not direct lasing in the MW/m2 level. I guess there could be some kind of step-down optical device, the opposite of a photo-multiplier tube...
|
|
reviire
New Member
I'm pretty great
Posts: 44
|
Post by reviire on Nov 7, 2016 0:14:50 GMT
That presents an interesting problem again, which is something this game seems to generate in spades: If you were using a SESpaD missile or missile bus/drone, how would it even home on the laser emitter without being fried? If you're using a seeker that would be resilient (or "dull" enough, if you follow?) against military grade lasers, surely it couldn't be sensitive enough to accurately home in? I'm very familiar with laser seeker heads as I used to deal with them in the military, and they work off of reflected coded-pulsed light, not direct lasing in the MW/m2 level. I guess there could be some kind of step-down optical device, the opposite of a photo-multiplier tube... Well, there's uh, laser bleed off, isn't there? You can still see the laser being fired even if it's not being aimed directly at you. I'm not sure if current missiles are advanced enough to distinguish that, but I imagine future missiles could.
|
|
|
Post by coaxjack on Nov 7, 2016 0:22:25 GMT
Oh, right. Kind of overlooked the part where missiles are launched 20 at a time, ha. There's still a problem where a real spicy laser could fry each seeker head in turn in a few seconds, like when you send in missiles with crappy armor and they are destroyed in about 4 milliseconds each.
|
|
|
Post by ross128 on Nov 7, 2016 0:32:03 GMT
That is part of why I mentioned that flying directly into the beam would probably increase your attrition rate a bit. Though I suppose a warhead that seeks enemy beams could be deliberately made low-sensitivity and heavily filtered, since it's meant to seek a really bright target. Where as a beam-rider with a dedicated targeting laser would need to be sensitive enough to pick up the targeting laser's reflection, so if the enemy were to shine a beam on it, well... it wouldn't go well for the sensor. A beam-rider with targeting drones does retain its usefulness against targets that don't have lasers of their own though, so there's that. Though with the power level of lasers we have, an interesting twist on targeting lasers would be if we just used weapons-grade lasers to make a hot-spot on the designated target for heat-seekers to chase, overpowering the enemy's flares by brute force.
|
|
|
Post by redparadize on Nov 7, 2016 1:01:31 GMT
A good counter to flares in the current environment is to use cheap missiles as a screen for a drone salvo. Drones ignore flares, so the missiles don't need to hit, they just need to keep the enemy PD occupied until the drones get in firing range. Any PD strong enough to chew through the missile screen and get to the drones behind it is likely to run hot enough to make flares an expensive proposition. Technically, if beam-riding missiles were an option we could even give the drones targeting lasers so that the missiles can hit too... Yeah that's kinda my strategy. AI laser always target closest first, so a constant stream of missile cover drones while they fire. If the stream of missiles is dence enough then it will eventually get trough, but will be countered by flare. Except for constant stream of low yield nuke missile (thats what I use), flare will prevent close explosion but repeated far explosion work well enough. Flare missile is the way to go, as they counter even big nuke. But against human it would get a bit more complicated. Player could chose to target low armored drone and let the missile hit. Or if it have strong enough laser kill the drone in time to redirect fire to missile. That's the reason why I developed heavy multi-usage drone Aka pocket battleship. Their layout wont allow enemy to target missile launcher or radiator. Their armor is strong enough to counter laser and most coil gun long enough to deliver the killing blow.
|
|
|
Post by bigbombr on Nov 7, 2016 13:59:18 GMT
That is part of why I mentioned that flying directly into the beam would probably increase your attrition rate a bit. Though I suppose a warhead that seeks enemy beams could be deliberately made low-sensitivity and heavily filtered, since it's meant to seek a really bright target. Where as a beam-rider with a dedicated targeting laser would need to be sensitive enough to pick up the targeting laser's reflection, so if the enemy were to shine a beam on it, well... it wouldn't go well for the sensor. A beam-rider with targeting drones does retain its usefulness against targets that don't have lasers of their own though, so there's that. Though with the power level of lasers we have, an interesting twist on targeting lasers would be if we just used weapons-grade lasers to make a hot-spot on the designated target for heat-seekers to chase, overpowering the enemy's flares by brute force. Is this modeled in-game? I thought someone said missiles sometimes chase their super-heated companions.
|
|
reviire
New Member
I'm pretty great
Posts: 44
|
Post by reviire on Nov 8, 2016 5:58:10 GMT
On the topic of missiles, if we had capacitors or some other power storage, or maybe just some really good reactors, do you think nuclear missiles with a laser on top would work? In a book I read, completely forgot the name, there were missiles that had gamma lasers on top. Although, they also did use antimatter propulsion.
|
|
erin
Junior Member
Smash Mouth Plays From The Depths Of Hell As You Traverse A Deep, Rat-Infested Cave
Posts: 57
|
Post by erin on Nov 8, 2016 7:09:13 GMT
On the topic of missiles, if we had capacitors or some other power storage, or maybe just some really good reactors, do you think nuclear missiles with a laser on top would work? In a book I read, completely forgot the name, there were missiles that had gamma lasers on top. Although, they also did use antimatter propulsion. If it was a nuclear missile, the laser was probably bomb-pumped, i.e. the gamma/x-ray emission of the explosion was used to power a laser that would remain briefly intact just long enough to translate the nuke's power into a useful beam. There were some experiments run to see if such systems would be viable for SDI purposes, but unclassified data on them is inconclusive on the matter. I reckon since drones are already disposable, arming them with their own warheads isn't a bad idea.
|
|
reviire
New Member
I'm pretty great
Posts: 44
|
Post by reviire on Nov 9, 2016 2:50:24 GMT
On the topic of missiles, if we had capacitors or some other power storage, or maybe just some really good reactors, do you think nuclear missiles with a laser on top would work? In a book I read, completely forgot the name, there were missiles that had gamma lasers on top. Although, they also did use antimatter propulsion. If it was a nuclear missile, the laser was probably bomb-pumped, i.e. the gamma/x-ray emission of the explosion was used to power a laser that would remain briefly intact just long enough to translate the nuke's power into a useful beam. There were some experiments run to see if such systems would be viable for SDI purposes, but unclassified data on them is inconclusive on the matter. I reckon since drones are already disposable, arming them with their own warheads isn't a bad idea. I figured out the book, Jupiter War and related sequels, by Neal Asher. 99% sure anyway.
|
|