|
Post by caiaphas on Jan 1, 2017 21:22:50 GMT
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. From the new laser wobble, right?
|
|
|
Post by David367th on Jan 1, 2017 21:27:32 GMT
A quick note on lasser inaccuracy, I know that lasers now suffer inaccuracy from sensor diffusion at range. However normally the gunner is going to spread the laser over the entire surface of the missile, it's better to target the engine to force the gunner to aim in one specific spot, which happens to be down the center axis.
|
|
|
Post by jasonvance on Jan 1, 2017 21:46:26 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 mean you have seen exactly how expensive my 35m laser is... (where all this started from) it is 27kc (with the laser, including radiators, power, and the radiators for the power) if that is too expensive I would like to see another effective 1,000km laser for cheaper... as for kill times here is 5GW worth of "ineffective small laser beams" against 100cm silica aerogel vs a single 10GW "flashlight" (multiple meter spot size with a slightly higher intensity and a tiny aperture) Don't just take my word for it though actually run the tests yourself against whatever design you want. *Note I also did small target testing (50 flak and striker missiles)* Note the larger the number the quicker they were killed it is counting down from 1,000km The space flashlight (10GW enormous spot size) could destroy 50 missiles by ~250km (missiles closing at a rate of 1km/s) A 10GW single laser with the smallest possible spot size could destroy all missiles by 150km 5GW of 25MW lasers destroys all 50 missiles by the 750km mark (half the total power of the other two above) 10 GW huge spot size time to kill: 1 minute 42 seconds 5 GW 25MW tiny spot size time to kill: 4 seconds
|
|
|
Post by newageofpower on Jan 1, 2017 21:52:44 GMT
Details on exact spot size. If the intensity falls below ablation threshold, then yes, you need a smaller spot size.
|
|
khenderson
New Member
my god, it's full of missiles
Posts: 40
|
Post by khenderson on Jan 2, 2017 3:43:24 GMT
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 mean you have seen exactly how expensive my 35m laser is... (where all this started from) it is 27kc (with the laser, including radiators, power, and the radiators for the power) if that is too expensive I would like to see another effective 1,000km laser for cheaper... as for kill times here is 5GW worth of "ineffective small laser beams" against 100cm silica aerogel vs a single 10GW "flashlight" (multiple meter spot size with a slightly higher intensity and a tiny aperture) Don't just take my word for it though actually run the tests yourself against whatever design you want. *Note I also did small target testing (50 flak and striker missiles)* Note the larger the number the quicker they were killed it is counting down from 1,000km The space flashlight (10GW enormous spot size) could destroy 50 missiles by ~250km (missiles closing at a rate of 1km/s) A 10GW single laser with the smallest possible spot size could destroy all missiles by 150km 5GW of 25MW lasers destroys all 50 missiles by the 750km mark (half the total power of the other two above) 10 GW huge spot size time to kill: 1 minute 42 seconds 5 GW 25MW tiny spot size time to kill: 4 seconds Since I'm the one that brought up the decreased effectiveness of anti-missile defenses, I tested 20 of the lasers you used in your responses to me Attachment Deletedagainst 185 of the previously mentioned 10 kg flak missiles. Attachment DeletedWhen I launched them at the computer with a 4.8 km/s closing speed, and starting at 1000 km, only a handful were destroyed by the time the computer started dodging. Approximately 160 landed hits. When the computer launched them at me, also starting from 1000km, but topping out at ~2.1 km/s (thanks to tactical view delta-v bug), almost half survived and landed hits. I disabled dodging in order to destroy as many as possible. In other words, I'm stuck going back to the drawing board when it comes to my anti-missile defenses.
|
|
|
Post by jasonvance on Jan 2, 2017 10:03:20 GMT
I mean you have seen exactly how expensive my 35m laser is... (where all this started from) it is 27kc (with the laser, including radiators, power, and the radiators for the power) if that is too expensive I would like to see another effective 1,000km laser for cheaper... as for kill times here is 5GW worth of "ineffective small laser beams" against 100cm silica aerogel vs a single 10GW "flashlight" (multiple meter spot size with a slightly higher intensity and a tiny aperture) Don't just take my word for it though actually run the tests yourself against whatever design you want. *Note I also did small target testing (50 flak and striker missiles)* Note the larger the number the quicker they were killed it is counting down from 1,000km The space flashlight (10GW enormous spot size) could destroy 50 missiles by ~250km (missiles closing at a rate of 1km/s) A 10GW single laser with the smallest possible spot size could destroy all missiles by 150km 5GW of 25MW lasers destroys all 50 missiles by the 750km mark (half the total power of the other two above) 10 GW huge spot size time to kill: 1 minute 42 seconds 5 GW 25MW tiny spot size time to kill: 4 seconds Since I'm the one that brought up the decreased effectiveness of anti-missile defenses, I tested 20 of the lasers you used in your responses to me against 185 of the previously mentioned 10 kg flak missiles. When I launched them at the computer with a 4.8 km/s closing speed, and starting at 1000 km, only a handful were destroyed by the time the computer started dodging. Approximately 160 landed hits. When the computer launched them at me, also starting from 1000km, but topping out at ~2.1 km/s (thanks to tactical view delta-v bug), almost half survived and landed hits. I disabled dodging in order to destroy as many as possible. In other words, I'm stuck going back to the drawing board when it comes to my anti-missile defenses. I do kind of want to point out the fact that those missiles are extremely effective is because of the partial armor bug. The front 1.34cm noses cone armor doing most of the defense is not adding any mass or cost to the over all missile. 1.34cm on the front 18% of the missile of AC should weigh in at about ~7kg and cost 155c. The added mass would greatly decease the missile's delta-v or greatly increase the cost with increased fuel. I really hope that bug gets fixed soon (in the mean time however you could crank that baby up to 10 meters and switch it to aramid fiber and dunk on any laser defense). Bug post here: childrenofadeadearth.boards.net/thread/610/major-problems-partial-armoring-additions?page=1&scrollTo=8359
|
|
khenderson
New Member
my god, it's full of missiles
Posts: 40
|
Post by khenderson on Jan 2, 2017 12:36:51 GMT
Since I'm the one that brought up the decreased effectiveness of anti-missile defenses, I tested 20 of the lasers you used in your responses to me against 185 of the previously mentioned 10 kg flak missiles. When I launched them at the computer with a 4.8 km/s closing speed, and starting at 1000 km, only a handful were destroyed by the time the computer started dodging. Approximately 160 landed hits. When the computer launched them at me, also starting from 1000km, but topping out at ~2.1 km/s (thanks to tactical view delta-v bug), almost half survived and landed hits. I disabled dodging in order to destroy as many as possible. In other words, I'm stuck going back to the drawing board when it comes to my anti-missile defenses. I do kind of want to point out the fact that those missiles are extremely effective is because of the partial armor bug. The front 1.34cm noses cone armor doing most of the defense is not adding any mass or cost to the over all missile. 1.34cm on the front 18% of the missile of AC should weigh in at about ~7kg and cost 155c. The added mass would greatly decease the missile's delta-v or greatly increase the cost with increased fuel. I really hope that bug gets fixed soon (in the mean time however you could crank that baby up to 10 meters and switch it to aramid fiber and dunk on any laser defense). Bug post here: childrenofadeadearth.boards.net/thread/610/major-problems-partial-armoring-additions?page=1&scrollTo=8359While I'm not taking advantage of the bug for massless armor, it certainly appears that the partial armor is more effective than it should be. On the other hand, the delta-v bug handicap appears to outweigh any benefit this missile receives from partial armoring. Using a version without partial armor, but a manually entered intercept at ~4.3 km/s, 100-120 survive until the computer starts dodging. I'd estimate that another 20-40 might be destroyed if it didn't dodge. Attachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by leerooooooy on Jan 2, 2017 14:27:27 GMT
I don't think the point was melting radiators, but rather the much more vulnerable weapons themselves. You don't need a 30+ meters turret for that. Even if you fine tune the radius to get minimal mass, you still waste tons compared to higher power lasers and offer the enemy a gigantic, unarmored target. The obscenely large size also makes it unfit for launchers and gun payloads, so such a weapon is not even good for drones
|
|
|
Post by leerooooooy on Jan 2, 2017 14:34:37 GMT
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. stuff Consider the following: you can put the same stupidly large turret on the GW laser too, get similar spot size, and get lower cost given the same total output (because you need less turrets). Or you can get a ton of lighter lasers with smaller turrets, and save so much on mass. Really, you say you have 5 GW of those 25 MW lasers, that is 200 of them: at 3 tons each that is 600 tons just of lasers, which is kinda going to hurt Dv. And the radiators, given your choice of output temp, are going to take up even more mass and cost.
|
|
khenderson
New Member
my god, it's full of missiles
Posts: 40
|
Post by khenderson on Jan 2, 2017 15:51:15 GMT
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. From the new laser wobble, right? Yes, or rather sensor resolution limits. Lasers that used to stay on target at 1000 km now miss small targets even at relatively short ranges.
|
|
|
Post by jasonvance on Jan 2, 2017 21:57:19 GMT
Consider the following: you can put the same stupidly large turret on the GW laser too, get similar spot size, and get lower cost given the same total output (because you need less turrets). Or you can get a ton of lighter lasers with smaller turrets, and save so much on mass. Really, you say you have 5 GW of those 25 MW lasers, that is 200 of them: at 3 tons each that is 600 tons just of lasers, which is kinda going to hurt Dv. And the radiators, given your choice of output temp, are going to take up even more mass and cost. Getting the same output from the GW laser is the problem because of the damage cap. So I will once again make the same point that everyone ignores or forgets... Laser damage is capped at the critical intensity of the material you are firing upon. Building a 1GW laser with an intensity of 10,000 MW/m^2 will not burn through at the same rate as 100 lasers firing at 100 MW/m^2. In fact against low critical intensity armor (aramid fiber 2.3MW/m^2 or silica aerogel 3.1MW/m^2). the 100 lasers will burn through 100x faster than the single 10,000MW/m^2 laser. Yes this isn't realistic but it is how the game mechanics works. The whole point is to have a bunch of low power lasers to drill through material. If you are worried about mass limitations you can reopt for mass I always run into cost limits though. The point is those 200 lasers are literally 200x better than a single laser. Seriously though run the tests yourself, or I can record some more tests (I have 2 good videos on it already). 3.32 tons included the radiators btw, and with the low power requirements 3.7tons includes all of the power per laser (and it's radiator) so the total weapon mass of 200 lasers is 740 tons (yes that is heavy but considering it is literally 200x better than a single 5GW laser I will keep with it). You have all the numbers there shouldn't be any question of how much my laser will cost or weigh for any component including power and radiators the question is how much does your GW laser designs cost to provide similar time to kill results against the same targets.
|
|
|
Post by Rocket Witch on Jan 4, 2017 17:48:09 GMT
You know someone else might have the same question Mmm, well, I thought the lasers were spherical propellant tanks and wondered how to make one. Did anyone manage to make yellow or orange lasers?
|
|
|
Post by leerooooooy on Jan 4, 2017 17:48:37 GMT
Getting the same output from the GW laser is the problem because of the damage cap. So I will once again make the same point that everyone ignores or forgets... Laser damage is capped at the critical intensity of the material you are firing upon. Building a 1GW laser with an intensity of 10,000 MW/m^2 will not burn through at the same rate as 100 lasers firing at 100 MW/m^2. In fact against low critical intensity armor (aramid fiber 2.3MW/m^2 or silica aerogel 3.1MW/m^2). the 100 lasers will burn through 100x faster than the single 10,000MW/m^2 laser. Yes this isn't realistic but it is how the game mechanics works. The whole point is to have a bunch of low power lasers to drill through material. If you are worried about mass limitations you can reopt for mass I always run into cost limits though. The point is those 200 lasers are literally 200x better than a single laser. Seriously though run the tests yourself, or I can record some more tests (I have 2 good videos on it already). 3.32 tons included the radiators btw, and with the low power requirements 3.7tons includes all of the power per laser (and it's radiator) so the total weapon mass of 200 lasers is 740 tons (yes that is heavy but considering it is literally 200x better than a single 5GW laser I will keep with it). You have all the numbers there shouldn't be any question of how much my laser will cost or weigh for any component including power and radiators the question is how much does your GW laser designs cost to provide similar time to kill results against the same targets. Or you could not have a 3 ton turret for each laser in your massive laser array made of hundreds of individual lasers. Turret mass scales with their radius to the third, while mirror effectiveness scales with their radius squared, so for big numbers you really don't want YUGE turrets.
|
|
|
Post by David367th on Jan 4, 2017 18:33:16 GMT
You know someone else might have the same question Mmm, well, I thought the lasers were spherical propellant tanks and wondered how to make one. Did anyone manage to make yellow or orange lasers? No spherical tanks, yellow, or orange lasers yet unfortunately You can make orange and yellow but they have to be black box.
|
|
|
Post by jasonvance on Jan 5, 2017 1:41:22 GMT
Getting the same output from the GW laser is the problem because of the damage cap. So I will once again make the same point that everyone ignores or forgets... Laser damage is capped at the critical intensity of the material you are firing upon. Building a 1GW laser with an intensity of 10,000 MW/m^2 will not burn through at the same rate as 100 lasers firing at 100 MW/m^2. In fact against low critical intensity armor (aramid fiber 2.3MW/m^2 or silica aerogel 3.1MW/m^2). the 100 lasers will burn through 100x faster than the single 10,000MW/m^2 laser. Yes this isn't realistic but it is how the game mechanics works. The whole point is to have a bunch of low power lasers to drill through material. If you are worried about mass limitations you can reopt for mass I always run into cost limits though. The point is those 200 lasers are literally 200x better than a single laser. Seriously though run the tests yourself, or I can record some more tests (I have 2 good videos on it already). 3.32 tons included the radiators btw, and with the low power requirements 3.7tons includes all of the power per laser (and it's radiator) so the total weapon mass of 200 lasers is 740 tons (yes that is heavy but considering it is literally 200x better than a single 5GW laser I will keep with it). You have all the numbers there shouldn't be any question of how much my laser will cost or weigh for any component including power and radiators the question is how much does your GW laser designs cost to provide similar time to kill results against the same targets. Or you could not have a 3 ton turret for each laser in your massive laser array made of hundreds of individual lasers. Turret mass scales with their radius to the third, while mirror effectiveness scales with their radius squared, so for big numbers you really don't want YUGE turrets. Build something better and submit it to the laser drill challenge. childrenofadeadearth.boards.net/thread/663/challenge-000km-laser-drill-mass
|
|