|
|
Post by bigbombr on Dec 19, 2016 18:54:13 GMT
Like the title says, I think it would make more sense to have laser range based on an intensity threshold instead of an arbitrary slider. This would prevent people using laser pointers as range extenders and would allow us to truly use the new frequency quadrupled lasers to their full potential.
Example: by adding a second frequency doubler to a 10 GW Ti-Saphire laser (wavelength = 198 nm) with a max size apperture (23.57 m radius, 47.14 m diameter), you get an effective range (presuming I haven't made any mistakes with the calculation) of 387.1 Mm (presuming an intensity threshold of 100 MW/m²). Weight: 48t, cost: 738 kc. This means this is a very feasible design.
|
|
|
|
Post by someusername6 on Dec 19, 2016 19:02:58 GMT
I agree with this.
This will also require better integration between strategic / maneuvering and tactical views though -- there are scenarios where you need to make burns "zoomed in" at a smaller resolution than 300 Mn. Ships should still be able to make those burns, even while under a 10 GW laser.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigbombr on Dec 19, 2016 19:06:07 GMT
To give a sense of how extreme this range is: the average distance from the Earth to the moon is 384.4 Mm.
|
|
|
|
Post by leerooooooy on Dec 19, 2016 19:27:46 GMT
To give a sense of how extreme this range is: the average distance from the Earth to the moon is 384.4 Mm. Hiding behind satellites would become an effective strategy |
|
|
|
Post by cuddlefish on Dec 19, 2016 20:53:10 GMT
Is that with 10 gigawatts in, or 10 gigawatts out?
|
|
|
|
Post by someusername6 on Dec 19, 2016 21:24:46 GMT
10 GW in.
That said, I have a turreted 198 nm laser with output power of 141 MW, cost of 235kc, with intensity at range of 1000 km of 6.93 GW / m^22. That's still a range of 69.3 Mn, same order of magnitude as the original post, and the point remains.
Edit: increased the aperture to 23.5 m, got intensity of 157 GW / m^2 at 1000 km, which gives an effective range of 157 Mn at the desired threshold intensity of 100 MW / m^2.
|
|
|
|
Post by goduranus on Dec 20, 2016 0:29:29 GMT
I think the minimum effective intensity should be based on what is needed to melt the lowest melting point armor material available, which is lithium at about 10kw/m^2(3.96 million km with someusename's laser).
Also, Silica Aerogel begins melting away at 50kw/m^2(1.77 million km with someusename's laser). .
|
|
|
|
Post by cutterjohn on Dec 20, 2016 1:13:43 GMT
Like the title says, I think it would make more sense to have laser range based on an intensity threshold instead of an arbitrary slider. This would prevent people using laser pointers as range extenders and would allow us to truly use the new frequency quadrupled lasers to their full potential. Laser pointers aren't extending anything's range. They just allow you to arbitrarily start combat at a range you wish to start it at. The way the game starts the combat round at the weapons max range is just a quality of life feature meant to speed gameplay up. Its not supposed to be about balance. Really, we should just be able to select an 'engagement range' that we choose, so we don't have to do the dummy laser thing. I think the minimum effective intensity should be based on what is needed to melt the lowest melting point armor material available, which is lithium at about 10kw/m^2(3.96 million km with someusename's laser). Also, Silica Aerogel begins melting away at 50kw/m^2(1.77 million km with someusename's laser). . You can take out radiators at practically zero energy if they're riding the edge of their melting temperature. As before, engagement range is an arbitrary quality of life feature that we should be able to override at any range we want. |
|
|
|
Post by cuddlefish on Dec 20, 2016 1:15:37 GMT
That would be good - and I'd honestly like an automatic start in at 5 seconds (current rel. vel.) prior to entering range, so that you have time to get guns pointed, or start a dodge, even in high-speed passes.
|
|
|
|
Post by goduranus on Dec 20, 2016 1:38:04 GMT
Most common radiator is ~3900K Amorphous Carbon, but most people run their radiators at 2500K, you'll need like a few dozen MW/m^2 or something.
|
|
|
|
Post by lieste on Dec 20, 2016 2:01:43 GMT
That would be good - and I'd honestly like an automatic start in at 5 seconds (current rel. vel.) prior to entering range, so that you have time to get guns pointed, or start a dodge, even in high-speed passes. You can go into your fleet and set 'orient broadside' right at the start of your scenario. As well as deselecting any weapons you want (though this does remove them from the 'able to initiate an intercept' range table) or opting to ignore ranges (though I've stopped doing that because it feels cheesy against the box of rocks AI and stock designs). |
|
|
|
Post by goduranus on Dec 20, 2016 15:31:03 GMT
How about we set the minimum laser intensity to depending on what materials are used to build the enemy ship?
So, if the laser's intensity exceeds the black body radiation intensity of the lowerest melting point material in the enemy fleet, then the fleets will be pulled into combat.
If the enemy fleet is built entirely out of Molybedum, then combat will only happen when laser intensity exceeds 20MW/m^2. If the enemy fleets are armored with vulnerable aerogel or uses lithium turbopumps, then the battle will start when the laser intensity is only 10-50kW/m^2.
The ship screen could then cite the lowest melting point bulk material used on a ship, and compute the laser intensity that could pull it into a laser engagement.
|
|
|
|
Post by someusername6 on Dec 20, 2016 16:11:45 GMT
I'd rather not have ships divine what materials other ships are made out of.
I prefer a default range based in intensity is fine (e.g. range for 100 MW/m^2), which can be overridden by the module designer or on the combat screen.
Mostly we need more range for the most powerful lasers, and better integration between tactical and strategic views (e.g. firing during burns).
|
|
|
|
Post by goduranus on Dec 20, 2016 16:37:57 GMT
They won't be divining the enemy ship's materials, the assumption is that he laser will always be firing, even when far out if range, but no damage is done until the laser's intensity exceeds the enemy armor's black body radiation. Any range where the laser intensity is less would not have to be simulated.
Implementing laser ranges depending on enemy armor material would have 2 benefits:
1 it gives the player an option to negate enemy's lasers that are set to unltra long range by using higher melting point armor, so the player wouldn't have to fly through hours of arbitrary laser range where lasers of do no damage
2 it realistically prevents aerogel from being used as laser armor for capital ships, since aerogel would melt away millions of kilometers before fleets enter metal-cutting range
Implementing an arbitrary cut off based on manually set intensity levels might create situations enemies would not fire on you despite being able to do damage, or situations where enemies fire on you despite not being able to damage you.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigbombr on Dec 21, 2016 15:07:43 GMT
I really hope this gets added, as it makes more sense than what we currently have, and is more similar to how projectile weapons get treated.
|
|
