|
Post by Enderminion on Feb 17, 2017 18:42:20 GMT
to calculate if it breaks physics or not deltav basicly if energy in < energy out, then it breaks physics
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Feb 17, 2017 18:52:05 GMT
to calculate if it breaks physics or not deltav basicly if energy in < energy out, then it breaks physics Thanks for the explanation. Is this a way to show me this empirically? I mean is there a simple way, we can show this? I know this is probably pretty annoying, which is one of the reasons some others got kind of annoyed in the past. But I want to be shown this, you know? Because otherwise I just have to take it on faith, and I only have faith in G-d. To make a comparison, if I were to show a guy back in WW1 a nuclear hand grenade, and demonstrate it for him, and show this huge powerful explosion from this little package, he would say, "That's impossible." We like to say "it breaks physics". But why is it impossible? That's what I am asking. Is there a way you can prove it with math or science? If you think about our weapons, we are reaching beyond a chemical/mechanical firing system like cannons, and are reaching down to the atomic level, because coilguns/railguns use the parts of the atoms of the rounds/ armatures involved to move them to that high speed. When you start playing around with atoms, all kinds of amazing things happen.
|
|
|
Post by Easy on Feb 17, 2017 19:03:15 GMT
to calculate if it breaks physics or not deltav basicly if energy in < energy out, then it breaks physics Is this a way to show me this empirically? I mean is there a simple way, we can show this? I know this is probably pretty annoying, which is one of the reasons some others got kind of annoyed in the past. But I want to be shown this you know? To make a comparison, if I were to show a guy back in WW1 a nuclear hand grenade, and demonstrate it for him, and show this huge powerful explosion from this little package, he would say it's not possible. We like to say "it breaks physics". But why is it impossible? That's what I am asking. Is there a way you can prove it with math or science? Kinetic Energy / Second = 1/2 * Projectile Mass * (Muzzle Velocity)² / Time between shots. Small note about weapon power bars. If a weapon needs 10MW to fire and the reaction wheels use 9MW to turn the weapon the weapon can draw 19MW of power when firing and turning. You can create low power situations on some ships if all the turrets attempt to rotate at the same time leading to slow turret rotation and a failure to fire.
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Feb 17, 2017 19:13:45 GMT
Kinetic Energy / Second = 1/2 * Projectile Mass * (Muzzle Velocity)² / Time between shots.
Small note about weapon power bars. If a weapon needs 10MW to fire and the reaction wheels use 9MW to turn the weapon the weapon can draw 19MW of power when firing and turning. You can create low power situations on some ships if all the turrets attempt to rotate at the same time leading to slow turret rotation and a failure to fire.Okay I'm with you there. So are you saying the total power draw of our weapons in game should use the total of all 3 systems of the weapon, the 1 mo wheels, 2 reloading system 3 and firing system? If so, I agree 100%. That would be an easy suggestion to implement ingame. If you are saying this is already the case, then I didn't know that. Thanks for mentioning. Kinetic Energy / Second = 1/2 * Projectile Mass * (Muzzle Velocity)² / Time between shots.Okay let's pick a stock gun/coilgun/railgun from the game. Do you feel they all break physics or just some of them?
|
|
|
Post by Easy on Feb 17, 2017 19:25:50 GMT
Kinetic Energy / Second = 1/2 * Projectile Mass * (Muzzle Velocity)² / Time between shots.Okay let's pick a stock gun/coilgun/railgun from the game. Do you feel they all break physics or just some of them? 13.0 MW 286mm Turreted Coilgun 10kg projectile 5.14km/s velocity 125ms reload 5.21ms cooldown time W = J/s = 0.5 * 10kg * (5.14*1000m/s)² / (.130s) = 1,016,138,461W = 1.016GW Please check my math.
|
|
|
Post by argonbalt on Feb 17, 2017 19:31:43 GMT
Kinetic Energy / Second = 1/2 * Projectile Mass * (Muzzle Velocity)² / Time between shots.
Small note about weapon power bars. If a weapon needs 10MW to fire and the reaction wheels use 9MW to turn the weapon the weapon can draw 19MW of power when firing and turning. You can create low power situations on some ships if all the turrets attempt to rotate at the same time leading to slow turret rotation and a failure to fire.Okay I'm with you there. So are you saying the total power draw of our weapons in game should use the total of all 3 systems of the weapon, the 1 mo wheels, 2 reloading system 3 and firing system? If so, I agree 100%. That would be an easy suggestion to implement ingame. If you are saying this is already the case, then I didn't know that. Thanks for mentioning. Kinetic Energy / Second = 1/2 * Projectile Mass * (Muzzle Velocity)² / Time between shots.Okay let's pick a stock gun/coilgun/railgun from the game. Do you feel they all break physics or just some of them? We have already done this before: WeaponCheck 1.xlsx (10.79 KB) Enter in all the variables needed for a weapon, if the power input turns red you are violating thermodynamics. If it is green you are good to go.
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Feb 17, 2017 19:37:48 GMT
Okay let me ponder this. Thanks for all the info.
|
|
|
Post by vegetal on Feb 17, 2017 22:10:55 GMT
Okay let me ponder this. Thanks for all the info. What people here are trying to say is: You cannot, in this universe, have more than 100% efficiency. It's one of the basic laws of thermodynamics, if you have X amount of energy going out the muzzle, you must have AT LEAST X amount of energy being pumped into your gun. The energy HAS to come from somewhere, it cannot be magically created, nor destroyed. So, when someone here says a gun is breaking physics, it's not something they are taking out of their asses, they just apply the kinetic energy formula (already posted above) and the result tells us if that is possible in real life or not. No matter how advanced or technology is, you cannot have more than 100% efficiency. And some guns here have like 8000% efficiency, so, yes, something is quite wrong with the way the game handles them. Sorry if that sounded rude in any way, I was just trying to explain this in the clearest way.
|
|
|
Post by vegetal on Feb 17, 2017 22:21:30 GMT
Interesting thought: This is the first game I've seen that we can complain in the forums "THIS IS BROKEN" and be automatically right.... By SCIENCE!
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Feb 17, 2017 22:47:03 GMT
PS COADE supposedly uses all real formulas from real research papers and so on. The computer must use similar calculations to the one's above to calculate everything in game. So how is it even possible for any weapon in the game to be broken?
The biggest selling point of COADE is that it uses real formulas from real science. Now I'm starting to wonder how realistic any of COADE is.
|
|
|
Post by Easy on Feb 17, 2017 23:11:05 GMT
PS COADE supposedly uses all real formulas from real research papers and so on. The computer must use similar calculations to the one's above to calculate everything in game. So how is it even possible for any weapon in the game to be broken? The biggest selling point of COADE is that it uses real formulas from real science. Now I'm starting to wonder how realistic any of COADE is. CoDE is extremely impressive at the level of detail and how much happens simultaneously all simulated in real time. Think of it as a more serious Kerbal as a teaching and experimentation tool that is mostly true most of the time. Another example you might have noticed is that materials do not soften and lose strength when near their melting point. But through CoDE you know what material properties are important for different applications whether it is a thermocouple, nuclear reactor, rocket, and all kinds of gizmos. You know what beam quality factor is on a laser.
|
|
|
Post by vegetal on Feb 17, 2017 23:24:18 GMT
Your math teacher is right, you must understand things by yourself.
I guess people here kinda expect a certain level of proficiency in physics, which I think isn't necessarily the case for everyone. I think it isn't the case for you, am I right?
I'm also not that proficient, I'm just really interested in the topic. So interested I just decided to go to college again and graduate in physics.
On CoaDE: You have to understand that the calculations going under the hood in this game are quite complex. The developer is actually a single dude, so this is quite impressive to be honest. But all that stuff is complicated, so it's easy to have something wrong, somewhere, or just an equation missing. From what I understand, getting everything right in a simulation like this must be a nightmare...
|
|
|
Post by caiaphas on Feb 18, 2017 0:14:23 GMT
So, when someone here says a gun is breaking physics, it's not something they are taking out of their asses... What I was really asking earlier is the same question my math teacher used to ask back in grade school. "Show me your work." I don't just want an answer, I want to know how YOU know for sure the answer is right and the steps you used to reach that conclusion. Then I can go back through the steps and be convinced. Sometimes it can seem like I am asking the same question over and over I bet. That's why some people can really get frustrated with me at times, because they aren't use to having to walk through the steps they used to reach the conclusions they make. But if I can see the steps, and go through them, and they make sense to me, then I really believe it from then on. Otherwise I always have doubts. By nature I am skeptical about everything until I have proof. Just the way my mind works. Maybe I should just say next time, "Please show me your work." Lol So thanks I will ponder this The general assumption on this forum seems to be that you have a working knowledge of at least basic physics and physics concepts; frankly that's a reasonable assumption to my thinking given how scientifically stringent this game is. The general reason you don't see people justifying "this coil-/railgun is broken", then, is because that calculation is frankly trivial, in absolute terms. It certainly was one of the first things I learned in high school physics. To break it down, the power a projectile outputs is defined as its energy output per the time over which it is output. You can get a measure of this by looking at projectile mass and its velocity once it exits the barrel. The kinetic energy contained in the projectile can then be calculated as 0.5mv^2 where m is projectile mass in kilograms, and v is projectile velocity in meters per second. You can estimate the time over which that energy is output by looking at the reload time (okay, technically you would need to look at the time it takes for the projectile to be accelerated down the barrel because that's the only time during which energy is being applied to the projectile, but reload time gives you an estimate of how much time it takes for a reactor to charge a capacitor battery, for example, which can then deliver that energy in a much shorter time). The power output of the gun is therefore E/t or 0.5mv^2/t where t is reload time. As a sidenote, total gun power draw shouldn't be calculated as the sum of the power draw of the loader, the gun, and the reaction wheels, UNLESS all three are always used all at the same time. If they're just used one at a time, then only that component is drawing power, and the gun's power draw as a whole is limited to the power draw of that component.
|
|
|
Post by apophys on Feb 18, 2017 1:04:00 GMT
As a sidenote, total gun power draw shouldn't be calculated as the sum of the power draw of the loader, the gun, and the reaction wheels, UNLESS all three are always used all at the same time. If they're just used one at a time, then only that component is drawing power, and the gun's power draw as a whole is limited to the power draw of that component. This is why we often calibrate our momentum wheels to take the same power draw as the rail/coil. While the gun is turning, it probably doesn't have the target in its sights anyway.
|
|
|
Post by caiaphas on Feb 18, 2017 1:21:55 GMT
As a sidenote, total gun power draw shouldn't be calculated as the sum of the power draw of the loader, the gun, and the reaction wheels, UNLESS all three are always used all at the same time. If they're just used one at a time, then only that component is drawing power, and the gun's power draw as a whole is limited to the power draw of that component. This is why we often calibrate our momentum wheels to take the same power draw as the rail/coil. While the gun is turning, it probably doesn't have the target in its sights anyway. And if it's sighting on a close-in target where it needs to be turning and shooting at the same time, something is wrong with your PD scheme.
|
|