|
|
Post by underwhelmed on Feb 10, 2017 5:37:53 GMT
I've been puzzling through cross sections... Naively, I'd expect a cylinder to have a cross section of 2LR (assuming you sliced it straight down the middle, lengthwise), but based on the stats provided, they seem much closer to LR instead. And based on aspect ratio, it'll deviate from this significantly as well - what gives?
|
|
|
|
Post by newageofpower on Feb 10, 2017 5:44:02 GMT
I've been puzzling through cross sections... Naively, I'd expect a cylinder to have a cross section of 2LR (assuming you sliced it straight down the middle, lengthwise), but based on the stats provided, they seem much closer to LR instead. And based on aspect ratio, it'll deviate from this significantly as well - what gives? Something I wonder myself as well. |
|
|
|
Post by bdcarrillo on Feb 10, 2017 12:55:51 GMT
Looking at a few designs, it looks like the reported hull diameter is a maximum, not the average value used for the cross section calculation.
Since the length is a simpler, known figure, you can work the formula backwards to sanity check the average hull diameter.
You can simplify the formula to LD for the maximum possible cross section. L*avgD for the average cross section. Of course it will change with aspect ratio, but there's no telling if that's modelled.
|
|
|
|
Post by Easy on Feb 10, 2017 14:11:13 GMT
For a conic ship it seems to be CS = (L*(R_Fat + R_Skinny) + pi*R_Fat²) / 2.
For a cylinder it simplifies to CS = (2*L*R + pi*R²) / 2 = R(L+pi*R/2).
At least that is my wild speculation.
|
|
|
|
Post by bdcarrillo on Feb 10, 2017 14:35:58 GMT
For a conic ship it seems to be CS = (L*(R_Fat + R_Skinny) + 2*pi*R_Fat²) / 2. For a cylinder it simplifies to CS = (2*L*R + 2*pi*R) / 2 = R(L+pi). At least that is my wild speculation. Cross section implies a 2 dimensional slice, no need to account for circumference in the formulas. |
|
|
|
Post by Easy on Feb 10, 2017 14:43:06 GMT
For a conic ship it seems to be CS = (L*(R_Fat + R_Skinny) + 2*pi*R_Fat²) / 2. For a cylinder it simplifies to CS = (2*L*R + 2*pi*R) / 2 = R(L+pi). At least that is my wild speculation. Cross section implies a 2 dimensional slice, no need to account for circumference in the formulas. I am averaging the broadside cross section (2RL) for a cylinder, with the nose-on area of piR². because piR² is much smaller than 2RL it looks like 1RL with a little extra. I should have used piR² rather than 2piR². |
|
|
|
Post by bdcarrillo on Feb 10, 2017 15:11:40 GMT
You can't view a ship full broadside AND nose on at the same time. Full broadside (L*avg D) is largest possible cross section, and nose on is the smallest (piR^2) using the largest radius part of the ship. The aspect angle will cause the cross section vary between those two values.
|
|
|
|
Post by underwhelmed on Feb 10, 2017 15:33:05 GMT
This theoretical cross section of LD is great and all, but for many of my small missiles with a cylindrical profile and no features sticking out like radiators, the actual cross section closely resembles (1/2)LD instead. I'm wondering if there's actually a bug in how it's calculated.
|
|
|
|
Post by bdcarrillo on Feb 10, 2017 15:49:24 GMT
This theoretical cross section of LD is great and all, but for many of my small missiles with a cylindrical profile and no features sticking out like radiators, the actual cross section closely resembles (1/2)LD instead. I'm wondering if there's actually a bug in how it's calculated. Hmm... We need some screenshots of simple cylindrical vessels to work this out |
|
|
|
Post by lieste on Feb 10, 2017 15:57:00 GMT
LD is the near the maximum CS for a slender cylinder. 0.5LD approximates the CS at a 30 degree nose angle for this type.
|
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Feb 10, 2017 16:22:26 GMT
the bigger something is the more cross section it has
|
|
|
|
Post by theholyinquisition on Feb 10, 2017 16:41:11 GMT
the bigger something is the more cross section it has I can't. Nothing I can say can improve on this. |
|
|
|
Post by underwhelmed on Mar 1, 2017 23:54:55 GMT
So... I just noticed with the new patch, my micro-missiles have approximately double their previous cross-section.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rocket Witch on Mar 2, 2017 12:36:38 GMT
So... I just noticed with the new patch, my micro-missiles have approximately double their previous cross-section. Everything has doubled in cross-section. From patchnotes: |
|
|
|
Post by underwhelmed on Mar 2, 2017 13:52:41 GMT
Yep... In other words, I wasn't crazy, there really was a bug in how it was calculated.
|
|
