|
Post by jasonvance on Dec 30, 2016 22:51:57 GMT
The large single lasers designs don't really work for the way the game's damage function works. Do time to kill tests on 2GW/m^2 vs 100MW/m^2 and you will notice they eat through material at about the same rate. Critical intensity of aramid fiber is 2.3MW/m^2 (any higher intensity will not eat through any faster every material has these caps). I haven't tested every materials resistance but I wouldn't suggest any higher than 100MW/m^2 for time to kill maximization / power drain min-maxing. If you want to increase the speed at which you burn through material you need multiple lasers all adding their individual chip damage (this isn't super realistic but it is how the game currently works) I just grabbed one of my obsolete designs, but here's an example better fitting your criterion. A 13.6% increase in cost vs a 35.1% increase in mass. Redundant radiators change this to 5.7% increase in cost vs a 56.7% increase in mass. Edit: these radiators are still extremely vulnerable to basically everything, but changing them is only going to sway things further to the advantage of the higher temperature. Whatever works for your designs I guess and makes you happy. I'm guessing you are running much smaller apertures and pumping enough energy into them to make up for it which is one idea, but you are probably losing mass in the reactor and it's radiators then. I haven't fully min-maxed for that and will concede that point to you if you have. But you can pretty much agree from the below screenshots silver and moly is not worth it on this ~100MW/m^2 at 1000km design. This is what I see when I try silver: Al: Silver:
|
|
khenderson
New Member
my god, it's full of missiles
Posts: 40
|
Post by khenderson on Dec 30, 2016 23:10:41 GMT
I just grabbed one of my obsolete designs, but here's an example better fitting your criterion. A 13.6% increase in cost vs a 35.1% increase in mass. Redundant radiators change this to 5.7% increase in cost vs a 56.7% increase in mass. Edit: these radiators are still extremely vulnerable to basically everything, but changing them is only going to sway things further to the advantage of the higher temperature. Whatever works for your designs I guess and makes you happy. I'm guessing you are running much smaller apertures and pumping enough energy into them to make up for it which is one idea, but you are probably losing mass in the reactor and it's radiators then. I haven't fully min-maxed for that and will concede that point to you if you have. But you can pretty much agree from the below screenshots silver and moly is not worth it on this ~100MW/m^2 at 1000km design. This is what I see when I try silver: I was never claiming silver is always the superior option, merely pointing out that it does have an advantage you skipped over. Furthermore, I seem to be missing the point of your screenshots, since they're not factoring in the radiators (the reason for using silver or molybdenum). Edit: and they're both operating at 933 degrees.
|
|
|
Post by jasonvance on Dec 30, 2016 23:19:13 GMT
Whatever works for your designs I guess and makes you happy. I'm guessing you are running much smaller apertures and pumping enough energy into them to make up for it which is one idea, but you are probably losing mass in the reactor and it's radiators then. I haven't fully min-maxed for that and will concede that point to you if you have. But you can pretty much agree from the below screenshots silver and moly is not worth it on this ~100MW/m^2 at 1000km design. This is what I see when I try silver: I was never claiming silver is always the superior option, merely pointing out that it does have an advantage you skipped over. Furthermore, I seem to be missing the point of your screenshots, since they're not factoring in the radiators (the reason for using silver or molybdenum). Edit: and they're both operating at 933 degrees. Not sure if you are trolling or what... scroll up a few posts to the post you replied to and see that laser with radiators is 3.32 tons and 19.3kc then look that if i switch it to silver it is now 4.02 tons and 70.7kc WITHOUT radiators yet there is now way to save negative tonnage and cost in radiators.
|
|
khenderson
New Member
my god, it's full of missiles
Posts: 40
|
Post by khenderson on Dec 30, 2016 23:33:58 GMT
I was never claiming silver is always the superior option, merely pointing out that it does have an advantage you skipped over. Furthermore, I seem to be missing the point of your screenshots, since they're not factoring in the radiators (the reason for using silver or molybdenum). Edit: and they're both operating at 933 degrees. Not sure if you are trolling or what... scroll up a few posts to the post you replied to and see that laser with radiators is 3.32 tons and 19.3kc then look that if i switch it to silver it is now 4.02 tons and 70.7kc WITHOUT radiators yet there is now way to save negative tonnage and cost in radiators While I'm not trying to troll you, you certainly appear to be missing my point. Therefore, I'll simply bow out of this part of the discussion.
|
|
|
Post by leerooooooy on Dec 31, 2016 17:06:52 GMT
I was never claiming silver is always the superior option, merely pointing out that it does have an advantage you skipped over. Furthermore, I seem to be missing the point of your screenshots, since they're not factoring in the radiators (the reason for using silver or molybdenum). Edit: and they're both operating at 933 degrees. Not sure if you are trolling or what... scroll up a few posts to the post you replied to and see that laser with radiators is 3.32 tons and 19.3kc then look that if i switch it to silver it is now 4.02 tons and 70.7kc WITHOUT radiators yet there is now way to save negative tonnage and cost in radiators. Dude you are boasting about 3 tons for a 25 MW laser, while there are 1 GW designs staying below 2.5 tons. It is such a horrible design it's ridiculous to use it as example.
|
|
|
Post by David367th on Dec 31, 2016 17:32:57 GMT
2.5 tons with radiators? At a GW with 4% efficiency that's about what, 960 MW of heat getting output at 1235 K? Or are we talking about those 2000K some lasers that take a hit to efficiency to use higher heat components?
|
|
|
Post by inbrainsane on Dec 31, 2016 18:27:55 GMT
Not sure if you are trolling or what... scroll up a few posts to the post you replied to and see that laser with radiators is 3.32 tons and 19.3kc then look that if i switch it to silver it is now 4.02 tons and 70.7kc WITHOUT radiators yet there is now way to save negative tonnage and cost in radiators. Dude you are boasting about 3 tons for a 25 MW laser, while there are 1 GW designs staying below 2.5 tons. It is such a horrible design it's ridiculous to use it as example. Be careful and do not call jasonvance lasers 'horrible'. There is a concept behind all this. And the concept is the 20xLaser 100MW/m2 at 1Mn Death Star Drone. Build it on your own and then try to find something that beats it. And then you will realise a few things: - Lasers can not be armoured efficiently.
- When aiming for enemy turrets, a 25MW laser rigged for proper intensity is about as fast a killer as a 1GW laser.
- The 1GW laser is more expensive when you take radiators and power supply into account.
- A single drone with 20x25MW lasers (jasonvances design) will kill 15 single-1GW-laser-drones at 1Mm distance. Easily.
Believe me. Jasonvances lasers are very valid and very cool. If you look at one of my earlier posts, where I compare those 125MW Nd:YAG+Krypton to his 100MW Ti:Sapphire/Xenon, you will see that on paper the Kryptons have better performance. However, when I compare them on the battlefield (drones with Ti:Sapphire/Xenon vs drones with Nd:YAG+Krypton for even total mass and cost), the Ti:Sapphire/Xenon drones win every single time. And I am quite sure, a flight of 25MW drones would beat a flight of 100MW drones (both flights same mass and cost again).
|
|
|
Post by caiaphas on Dec 31, 2016 20:38:16 GMT
...is that so?
Excuse me, I need to engage in a little industrial espionage field testing...
On a side note, are the critical intensities located in the raw data files, 'cause I'm not seeing them in the actual thing that pops up when you hover over the material in-game.
|
|
|
Post by inbrainsane on Dec 31, 2016 20:48:47 GMT
When you test killer drones vs killer drones, make sure to let AI vs AI play or when you play one party, then set aim for lasers of enemy. If you dont, the AI fleet will always win. Also, put a radiation shield between your guns and the rest of your drone. 20cm graphite. If you dont, everything kills everything always immediately. If you do, you can count the popped guns as a good reference.
|
|
|
Post by caiaphas on Dec 31, 2016 21:08:15 GMT
When you test killer drones vs killer drones, make sure to let AI vs AI play or when you play one party, then set aim for lasers of enemy. If you dont, the AI fleet will always win. Also, put a radiation shield between your guns and the rest of your drone. 20cm graphite. If you dont, everything kills everything always immediately. If you do, you can count the popped guns as a good reference. Thanks for the advice!
|
|
khenderson
New Member
my god, it's full of missiles
Posts: 40
|
Post by khenderson on Dec 31, 2016 21:27:14 GMT
Not sure if you are trolling or what... scroll up a few posts to the post you replied to and see that laser with radiators is 3.32 tons and 19.3kc then look that if i switch it to silver it is now 4.02 tons and 70.7kc WITHOUT radiators yet there is now way to save negative tonnage and cost in radiators. Dude you are boasting about 3 tons for a 25 MW laser, while there are 1 GW designs staying below 2.5 tons. It is such a horrible design it's ridiculous to use it as example. I believe what you missed is that the turrets are 35.6 meters in diameter. So while they're operating at a low power level, they have very large apertures to give them the desired intensity.
|
|
|
Post by jasonvance on Dec 31, 2016 22:33:21 GMT
Not sure if you are trolling or what... scroll up a few posts to the post you replied to and see that laser with radiators is 3.32 tons and 19.3kc then look that if i switch it to silver it is now 4.02 tons and 70.7kc WITHOUT radiators yet there is now way to save negative tonnage and cost in radiators. Dude you are boasting about 3 tons for a 25 MW laser, while there are 1 GW designs staying below 2.5 tons. It is such a horrible design it's ridiculous to use it as example. There is a point I keep making that everyone seems to ignore or forget. Laser damage is capped to the ablation rate of the material you are firing upon. For example aramid fiber has a critical intensity of 2.3MW/m^2 (Thanks to Zuthal for doing the math on that). If you fire a 1000000000GW death beam with 9^999999999999999 MW/m^2 intensity at it it will burn away at the same speed as a 2.3MW/m^2 laser. Every material has it's own max ablation rate in game. Some of the more heat resistant ("nuke armor") has a much higher ablation rate so capping to 2.3MW/m^2 could end up getting you stuck on unable to get through the nuke layer. *Note* I did choose 100 MW/m^2 somewhat arbitrarily so there might be a more efficient lower intensity (which would reduce size, cost, power requirements). While not hyper realistic it is how the game currently works. My lasers are min-maxed for the game mechanics. The only way to burn through materials faster is to put multiple lasers on target as each laser's damage is calculated individually. That laser is min-maxed for holding ~100Mw/m^2 at 1,000km for the cheapest price possible (including all elements required which includes radiators and reactors). On a side note if you wanted to know how much cost and mass you are adding from your power requirement you get ~2900 Watts / credit and 54 Wattts / gram with reasonably optimized reactors. You can do the math on your GW lasers and figure out how much they actually weigh and cost off that. Combined with the fact that they don't actually kill anything faster I would say my lasers are fairly well optimized...
|
|
|
Post by inbrainsane on Dec 31, 2016 22:51:44 GMT
Dude you are boasting about 3 tons for a 25 MW laser, while there are 1 GW designs staying below 2.5 tons. It is such a horrible design it's ridiculous to use it as example. There is a point I keep making that everyone seems to ignore or forget. Laser damage is capped to the ablation rate of the material you are firing upon. For example aramid fiber has a critical intensity of 2.3MW/m^2 (Thanks to Zuthal for doing the math on that). If you fire a 1000000000GW death beam with 9^999999999999999 MW/m^2 intensity at it it will burn away at the same speed as a 2.3MW/m^2 laser. Every material has it's own max ablation rate in game. Some of the more heat resistant ("nuke armor") has a much higher ablation rate so capping to 2.3MW/m^2 could end up getting you stuck on unable to get through the nuke layer. *Note* I did choose 100 MW/m^2 somewhat arbitrarily so there might be a more efficient lower intensity (which would reduce size, cost, power requirements). While not hyper realistic it is how the game currently works. My lasers are min-maxed for the game mechanics. The only way to burn through materials faster is to put multiple lasers on target as each laser's damage is calculated individually. That laser is min-maxed for holding ~100Mw/m^2 at 1,000km for the cheapest price possible (including all elements required which includes radiators and reactors). On a side note if you wanted to know how much cost and mass you are adding from your power requirement you get ~2900 Watts / credit and 54 Wattts / gram with reasonably optimized reactors. You can do the math on your GW lasers and figure out how much they actually weigh and cost off that. Combined with the fact that they don't actually kill anything faster I would say my lasers are fairly well optimized... People need to try and test. On paper they wont believe it. And, uhm, jasonvance, I found a way to challenge your setup. By using 20x1GW, I could make my turrets super small and still have enough intensity. And super small turrets have two advantages: Lasers miss them at 1Mm and they can be cost-effectively armored with 20cm of graphite and they are still super small. See the results here: Attachment DeletedAttachment DeletedAttachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by leerooooooy on Jan 1, 2017 17:18:30 GMT
Dude you are boasting about 3 tons for a 25 MW laser, while there are 1 GW designs staying below 2.5 tons. It is such a horrible design it's ridiculous to use it as example. I believe what you missed is that the turrets are 35.6 meters in diameter. So while they're operating at a low power level, they have very large apertures to give them the desired intensity. Which is a retarded turret size, a stupidly small damage spot, and not enough energy in to melt something like a radiator. 35m turret is obscene even for GW lasers, having multiple smaller laser costs so much less exactly because of the colossal cost of reaction wheels.
|
|
khenderson
New Member
my god, it's full of missiles
Posts: 40
|
Post by khenderson on Jan 1, 2017 19:04:11 GMT
I believe what you missed is that the turrets are 35.6 meters in diameter. So while they're operating at a low power level, they have very large apertures to give them the desired intensity. Which is a retarded turret size, a stupidly small damage spot, and not enough energy in to melt something like a radiator. 35m turret is obscene even for GW lasers, having multiple smaller laser costs so much less exactly because of the colossal cost of reaction wheels. I don't think the point was melting radiators, but rather the much more vulnerable weapons themselves. And the mass of the reaction wheels is a non-factor if you manually enter the turret size for a precise match with the aperture mirror. The only real drawback is that it makes armoring the turret prohibitive. Prior to 1.08, his apparently all offense design philosophy probably was the most cost effective. I don't know if it still is or not. Personally I'm having trouble destroying small missiles now. A ship that previously could destroy 400 of a particular 10 kg flak missile, is now taking ~20 hits from only 185.
|
|