|
Post by bdcarrillo on Feb 14, 2017 15:28:52 GMT
Physics violations aside, the current range calculation system incorporates time of flight into a percent chance to hit threshold. Lighter projectile/higher speed means that we've gravitated toward light, long range guns. The high rates of fire are just secondary to the long reach of these weapons. The amaller projectiles simply take less energy to load and fire.
Once we get control of modifying the range/hit percent, I think we'll see a resurgence of slower firing heavier weapons, delivering significantly more KE.
|
|
|
Post by David367th on Feb 14, 2017 15:36:10 GMT
Physics violations aside, the current range calculation system incorporates time of flight into a percent chance to hit threshold. Lighter projectile/higher speed means that we've gravitated toward light, long range guns. The high rates of fire are just secondary to the long reach of these weapons. The amaller projectiles simply take less energy to load and fire. Once we get control of modifying the range/hit percent, I think we'll see a resurgence of slower firing heavier weapons, delivering significantly more KE. For rail guns you can change the hit/range chance. By making an already working rail gun's barrel thicker or thinner you can change the velocity and the weapons spread. A thicker barrel will increase range for 1m^2 targets, but decrease the range for 1km^2 targets and velocity. Meaning the grouping will be tighter. Thinner barrel will do the opposite of higher velocity but sparser grouping.
|
|
|
Post by newageofpower on Feb 14, 2017 15:40:42 GMT
Physics violations aside, the current range calculation system incorporates time of flight into a percent chance to hit threshold. Lighter projectile/higher speed means that we've gravitated toward light, long range guns. The high rates of fire are just secondary to the long reach of these weapons. The amaller projectiles simply take less energy to load and fire. Once we get control of modifying the range/hit percent, I think we'll see a resurgence of slower firing heavier weapons, delivering significantly more KE. My issue though, is that a storm of 2 MJ sand is more efficient at killing ships than a single 100MJ impactor; those kilograms of ammo add up really quick. Yes, 100 MJ impactors would be useful if we had magitech armor that behaved like Vanadium/Osmium/Diamond/Aramid but weighed as much as aerogel, but then missile swarms would go from 'requisite part of fleet tactics' to 'the horror, the horror'. For rail guns you can change the hit/range chance. By making an already working rail gun's barrel thicker or thinner you can change the velocity and the weapons spread. A thicker barrel will increase range for 1m^2 targets, but decrease the range for 1km^2 targets and velocity. Meaning the grouping will be tighter. Thinner barrel will do the opposite of higher velocity but sparser grouping. Thinner barrels increase velocity due to inductance and railgun physics being simulated with monolithic barrels. IRL, we'd use Boron/Spectra bracing around superconducting rails, at least at multi-hundred MW inputs.
|
|
|
Post by bdcarrillo on Feb 14, 2017 16:43:02 GMT
I'd challenge the storm of sand vs heavier slugs premise.
Right now we're operating with bugged weapons that can fire far too rapidly, shooting 1g pellets or discs of material that likely shouldn't survive the stresses of being shot from some extreme power weapons. Our meta is dominated by defying physics.
Once these bugs are sorted out, I think we'll naturally see more realistic projectile weights in line with modern munitions. We'll also see that armor is more feasible as weapons come back in line with physics.
|
|
|
Post by David367th on Feb 14, 2017 16:46:59 GMT
I'd challenge the storm of sand vs heavier slugs premise. Right now we're operating with bugged weapons that can fire far too rapidly, shooting 1g pellets or discs of material that likely shouldn't survive the stresses of being shot from some extreme power weapons. Our meta is dominated by defying physics. Once these bugs are sorted out, I think we'll naturally see more realistic projectile weights in line with modern munitions. We'll also see that armor is more feasible as weapons come back in line with physics. There's nothing we can really do about it. I have a Drone Railgun that is firing a VanChromeSteel 1g rod, and even with a 10W loader it has a reload of 90ms
|
|
|
Post by newageofpower on Feb 14, 2017 16:56:47 GMT
I'd challenge the storm of sand vs heavier slugs premise. Right now we're operating with bugged weapons that can fire far too rapidly, shooting 1g pellets or discs of material that likely shouldn't survive the stresses of being shot from some extreme power weapons. Our meta is dominated by defying physics. Once these bugs are sorted out, I think we'll naturally see more realistic projectile weights in line with modern munitions. We'll also see that armor is more feasible as weapons come back in line with physics. My coils are physics/thermodynamics compliant. The game does model if your 1g osmium slug or mag-glass penny is capable of surviving acceleration without exploding. The biggest problem right now, imho, is that materials get weaker at high temperatures. My series of Apophys reactors would need external bracing to function IRL, although, thermocouple area shouldn't be modeled as the surface of a cylinder, and coolant mass should be an order of magnitude less on large reactors (by using a non-cylindrical thermocouple). If reactor power becomes significantly harder to minmax, and we get armored/braced gun barrels, then perhaps lasers won't shut guns down so easily as they do now. Of course, implementing FELs, turboelectric power and droplet radiators may push the envelope back the other way.
|
|
|
Post by omnipotentvoid on Feb 14, 2017 17:05:50 GMT
My issue though, is that a storm of 2 MJ sand is more efficient at killing ships than a single 100MJ impactor; those kilograms of ammo add up really quick. Depends on how you define efficiency and quantify damage. While sandblasters are certainly the KE weapon with the fastest times to kill in the game right know, both damage per J and probably damage per g of projectile are very poor for extremely light projectiles (if damage is quantified as I state here). Additionally, guns need to be more accurate the less damage they do per impact in order to avoid spreading damage out and thus requiring significantly more shots to kill the target. Guns capable of penetrating armor need not worry about this at all and can fire as effectively at maximum accurate range to hit as at close range. I don't expect the equivalent of naval battles in space, I don't think sandblasters are the optimum KE weapon. Think about it, if we take the idea behind the sandblaster to the extreme (reducing projectile weight in order to increase speed, eventually reaching a mass of 0 and a speed of c) they effectively approach being lasers. And while lasers are certainly are effective, there must be some merit to using KE weapons, or else we wouldn't use them. This should make it clear that there is a more complex efficiency curve behind KE weapons and the prevalent faster and lighter meta for KE weapons is either an artifact of simulation limitations, or due to us not yet finding the tactical relevance of heavier KE weapons. Most likely it's a mixture of both. And as far as efficiency goes, my 20m coilguns seem to achieve an energy efficiency of of 6500000%, can your railguns do that?
|
|
|
Post by lieste on Feb 14, 2017 17:08:07 GMT
No, there are serious issues with power/acceleration/time/stress as currently modelled.
Even 'physics compliant' railguns use between 2 and hundreds of times their "rated" power during each discharge, and coil guns can wander off into the millions.
With the appropriate power density as a transient during the firing cycle, the stress on the rails could be out by many orders of magnitude.... or the final velocities be far lower than currently granted.
And that is without the additional issues given by adding payloads to either coilgun or railguns, especially the absolutely broken needle and fleck gun types.
|
|
|
Post by newageofpower on Feb 14, 2017 17:13:00 GMT
And as far as efficiency goes, my 20m coilguns seem to achieve an energy efficiency of of 6500000%, can your railguns do that? I refuse to build a coil or rail that exceeds 90% efficiency.
|
|
|
Post by omnipotentvoid on Feb 14, 2017 18:57:59 GMT
And as far as efficiency goes, my 20m coilguns seem to achieve an energy efficiency of of 6500000%, can your railguns do that? I refuse to build a coil or rail that exceeds 90% efficiency. You can stop the 5 ton, 1.5TJ slugs with less than 10m of nitrile rubber, if that makes you feel any better. Most of the energy they have seems to vanish on impact. Doesn't even leave glowing craters in the rubber.
|
|
|
Post by newageofpower on Feb 14, 2017 19:02:32 GMT
I refuse to build a coil or rail that exceeds 90% efficiency. You can stop the 5 ton, 1.5TJ slugs with less than 10m of nitrile rubber, if that makes you feel any better. Most of the energy they have seems to vanish on impact. Doesn't even leave glowing craters in the rubber. Damage modelling has been known to be borked for awhile now.
|
|
|
Post by bdcarrillo on Feb 14, 2017 21:51:28 GMT
So in the current structure of the game we bang our heads against built-in limitations and physics anomalies.
|
|
|
Post by omnipotentvoid on Feb 14, 2017 22:04:30 GMT
So in the current structure of the game we bang our heads against built-in limitations and physics anomalies. Basically. This is alway the problem with simulation games played by people who have at least some advanced knowledge of the simulation subject. They will almost instantly attempt to push the simulation to the limit, revealing any weaknesses it holds. Take DCS. Most members of this community would be utterly overwhelmed by the amount of details (especially all the buttons). A trained pilot, on the other hand, is likely to put himself in situations that reveal shortcomings of the simulation within hours of starting.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Feb 15, 2017 12:09:24 GMT
So in the current structure of the game we bang our heads against built-in limitations and physics anomalies. Basically. This is alway the problem with simulation games played by people who have at least some advanced knowledge of the simulation subject. They will almost instantly attempt to push the simulation to the limit, revealing any weaknesses it holds. Take DCS. Most members of this community would be utterly overwhelmed by the amount of details (especially all the buttons). A trained pilot, on the other hand, is likely to put himself in situations that reveal shortcomings of the simulation within hours of starting. Or, more to the point of space, "Rogue System" the DCS of space
|
|
|
Post by bdcarrillo on Feb 15, 2017 13:11:34 GMT
Basically. This is alway the problem with simulation games played by people who have at least some advanced knowledge of the simulation subject. They will almost instantly attempt to push the simulation to the limit, revealing any weaknesses it holds. Take DCS. Most members of this community would be utterly overwhelmed by the amount of details (especially all the buttons). A trained pilot, on the other hand, is likely to put himself in situations that reveal shortcomings of the simulation within hours of starting. Or, more to the point of space, "Rogue System" the DCS of space I recall videos of that game... (For me)There's just something tactile that's missing with modern gaming and interfacing with that level of detail. Wandering further off topic: Makes me wonder what the gunnery or astronavigation consoles look like that our crewmembers are using...
|
|