|
Post by darthroach on Mar 18, 2017 20:45:52 GMT
Late to the party, but I had a thought. What if it's the IR seeker that's being burnt out on the laser, not the optic itself? Perhaps the seeker is placed on the focusing mirror that extends over the lading cavity and this is what is being damaged, mission-killing the laser. One would think there would be significant amounts of sensor redundancy and datalinking.
|
|
|
Post by darthroach on Mar 18, 2017 20:44:36 GMT
With all due respect, mr moderator, I don't think hacking works like you think it does. And whatever means of hacking the drones you might come up with, the engineers back home designing the drones would have already predicted before the first one rolled off the assembly line. Jamming? Quite plausible, yes. Hacking/hijacking? No. As an internet security professional, I don't think you understand how hacking works. Engineers suck at predicting all edge cases. And edge cases are how hacks happen Ok, how are you going to hack a bunch of drones relying primarily on tightbeam comms and inertial guidance? Some exploits may no doubt emerge from time to time, but these are exactly as you say - edge cases. No one is going to have electronic warfare as their first, second or even third line of defense. A lucky break, perhaps.
|
|
|
Post by darthroach on Mar 17, 2017 23:15:50 GMT
If these platforms can be hacked or corrupted than the same automation which grants ease of access and deployment could be it's own worst enemy. With all due respect, mr moderator, I don't think hacking works like you think it does. And whatever means of hacking the drones you might come up with, the engineers back home designing the drones would have already predicted before the first one rolled off the assembly line. Jamming? Quite plausible, yes. Hacking/hijacking? No.
|
|
|
Post by darthroach on Mar 16, 2017 22:17:10 GMT
I prefer preformance for the most part Now obviously, it's not a game breaking issue. Just pointing out that it exists so that if qswitched has the time and ability, it can be fixed along with all sorts of other inconveniences and bugs.
|
|
|
Post by darthroach on Mar 16, 2017 22:08:15 GMT
deltav why do you think the RFP is space Pakistan? He read the mission descriptions, I would presume.
|
|
|
Post by darthroach on Mar 16, 2017 21:50:16 GMT
These are just point lights without shadows , omnis with shadows is usually very expensive. You can also notice flickering when you have a lot of radiators. This happens when you hit the upper limit of number of lights and the algorithm is trying to decide which one to draw. All very fine and well, but is there are workaround? Considering the fact that gigawatt nuclear reactors are in the game, and people are using them, and they require radiators, this is the sort of bug that would be nice if it was fixed.
|
|
|
Post by darthroach on Mar 16, 2017 21:42:08 GMT
Though the first time I read about the idea was on Atomic Rockets regarding some sci-fi novel where aliens get BTFO by a gigantic orion battleship. That would be Footfall. I am currently reading it, only 100 pages remaining and it is still being built Yes, thank you. I suppose you're in for some explosive 100 pages.
|
|
|
Post by darthroach on Mar 15, 2017 14:00:28 GMT
This actually looks fairly competitive. I'm stealing it.
|
|
|
Post by darthroach on Mar 15, 2017 9:56:54 GMT
How does one actively cool a 1mm diameter wire in the middle of a terawatt reaction chamber? As cool as these MPD torchships are, they might as well be FTL as far as realism is concerned. Heat rejection is probably the biggest hurdle in high performance propulsion. Well, my MPDs have cathodes 1 meter across... I'm not even sure you can have a 1mm wire, VanChrome or not, that won't get destroyed by EMF in a 1 TW setup. The example I have here is an average MPD with 2.6% wastage, meaning I need to dump 64 KW of heat, most of it from the cathode. MPDs require much less cooling than you might think, due to high efficiency. The system Apophys ran the calc with had some amazing 99.7% efficiency, and he noted it was possible to build 99.97% efficient (or better!) setups. Electrical drives have vastly reduced needs for heat rejection, in exchange for requiring ludicrous amounts of power and offering minuscule thrust. Your thruster is extremely tame compared to some of the stuff I see around these parts. This thead, for example: childrenofadeadearth.boards.net/thread/1039/thruster-exhaust-damage-forcesThat's a 456GW thruster. With a 1mm anode. 99.7% doesn't mean much when 0.3% is still 1.368GW of heat.
|
|
|
Post by darthroach on Mar 15, 2017 6:57:04 GMT
Apophys did a calculation on this before; active cooling can circumvent the MPD overheating problem. How does one actively cool a 1mm diameter wire in the middle of a terawatt reaction chamber? As cool as these MPD torchships are, they might as well be FTL as far as realism is concerned. Heat rejection is probably the biggest hurdle in high performance propulsion.
|
|
|
Post by darthroach on Mar 15, 2017 0:56:03 GMT
Maybe the lighting is fine and it is actually because the armour itself should be molten away by those insane radiators we know and love? If this was the case, and it was hot armour re-emitting light, you'd expect it to persist even after the heat source is gone - the game already does this after nuclear explosions and kinetic hits, for example. Too bad it's not the case: ETA: Now that I look at it, it's fairly obvious that the armour is transparent to the radiator - the one hidden from view is still emitting light in this screenshot.
|
|
|
Post by darthroach on Mar 14, 2017 23:36:30 GMT
I am scared to ask what those radiators are for. In this case, illustration. I was experimenting with all sorts of multi-GW laser ships using some of the ridiculous reactors from the standardization thread, and noticed that the incandescent filaments radiators above around 2000K and ~GW output make the insides of ships look like tanning beds.
|
|
|
Post by darthroach on Mar 14, 2017 18:57:22 GMT
It seems like the engine is having some difficulty projecting light from radiators operating at high temperatures - the inside of the ship is lit up even though there is no path for the light to get there: Nothing on the inside of the ship that could be producing this light, so go figure.
|
|
|
Post by darthroach on Mar 14, 2017 15:55:30 GMT
Q-ships were historically employed for defensive purposes against commerce raiding against powers that were already engaged in unrestricted warfare against the Q-ship employers. You could easily imagine a similar use in the CoaDE universe that wouldn't provoke any particular escalation beyond the already-existing unrestricted warfare. By now the Qship tangent has taken us off topic, I think. The reason they were brought up to begin with was to debate whether they'd make a counter to surface defenses or not.
|
|
|
Post by darthroach on Mar 14, 2017 12:11:48 GMT
I am wondering, how do you defend a fleet from missiles and drones? keep in mind the enemy has enough missiles that you can't doge them. Lots of lasers, some close range sandblasters as last resort That being said, I haven't really put too much work into laser-resistant missiles or NEFP minimissile spam so I don't know how well lasers do vs a maximum tryhard attack.
|
|