|
Post by zuthal on Apr 5, 2017 10:10:57 GMT
Bug description: When burning towards a non-accelerating enemy in combat view, the increase in closing velocity (as shown on the rangefinder, and calculated from the distance and time to intercept) is only ~half of the delta-V burned (as shown in the list of ships). Example pictures: With a capship: ~100 m/s of delta-V were burned, resulting in a ~50 m/s increase in closing velocity. With a missile: ~1 km/s of delta-V was burned, resulting in a ~500 m/s increase in closing velocity. How to reproduce: In a sandbox, set up a target that is either a station or a ship with minimal acceleration, and no weapons. Take a ship (preferably one with high acceleration) and get a minimum-velocity intercept. Set the ship to "homing" mode, and watch the delta-V display and the relative velocity display. System information: CoaDE 1.1.0 on Mac OS X 10.9.5 Mid 2012 13" Macbook Pro 2.5 GHz Intel i5 Quadcore 16 GB RAM Intel HD 4000 Integrated Graphics Chipset
|
|
|
Post by zuthal on Apr 5, 2017 10:01:40 GMT
I would set the minimum for engagement range for missiles at least to the missile's boost range - i.e., assuming the enemy does not accelerate, make it v*t+0.5*dv*t. where v is the closing velocity, dv is remaining missile delta-V and t is remaining missile burn time. So, for example, a missile coming in at 3 km/s, that has 2 km/s of delta-V and 20 seconds burn time left, should start at least 50 km away from the enemy ship.
|
|
|
Post by zuthal on Apr 3, 2017 14:19:13 GMT
I have created a new very low power reactor, could that please be added to the OP? Name | Author | Power | Exit Temp | Heat | Price | Mass | Shielded? | Image | Code | 50 kW 15 cm Reactor | zuthal | 50.2 kW | 2600 K | 327 kW | 137 c | 7.55 kg | NO | link
| link
|
|
|
|
Post by zuthal on Apr 3, 2017 12:28:58 GMT
shiolle, I wasn't saying that I think there currently is - I was saying how I think it should be instead.
|
|
|
Post by zuthal on Apr 2, 2017 19:53:18 GMT
Particle beam weapons (and also a derivative of them, free-electron lasers) would also, I think, more or less perfectly fit the bill for a spinal-mount weapon - after all, they are long and straight, and you can't direct the partical beam to multiple turrets as easily as you can do with a laser.
|
|
|
Post by zuthal on Apr 2, 2017 19:00:32 GMT
Maybe even have it be situation-dependent. The current, cafeteria-like one for civilian ships, then a more "calm" CIC-like one for combat ships out of combat, and a more "frantic" CIC-like one (orders being barked etc.) for combat ships in combat.
|
|
|
Post by zuthal on Feb 2, 2017 7:44:08 GMT
A preferences.txt was made, but setting fullscreen to false did not solve the crashing problem. Attached is the newest crashlog, with fullscreen disabled. I will try and see if I can reinstall the graphics drivers and such, to see if that maybe fixes it.
|
|
|
Post by zuthal on Feb 2, 2017 6:50:41 GMT
Two things in this game that might throw a player who is coming from KSP off:
1) Here, the maneuver preview recognises, that the engine burn takes time - in KSP, the maneuver node just assumes that the maneuver is an impulsive one (i.e. you burn all your delta-V at once), and requires you to figure out when to start your burn from the displayed burn time. Also, in CoaDE, you often have lower accelerations and thus longer burn times than in KSP, in addition to that fact that you are operating in the real solar system.
2) CoaDE recognises n-body effects, i.e. the influence of the gravity of objects other than your primary on your orbit. That means that especially in systems with a lot of objects, and with orbits that are very close to escaping altogether, the trajectory can get quite wonky.
|
|
|
Post by zuthal on Feb 2, 2017 6:33:16 GMT
I... do not think I did anything like that to my system recently, not to the best of my memory.
And regarding the standard list of options, completely deleting the CDE folder from the computer should, upon launching the game, make it launch with the standard options, right? Because I did that, reinstalled it cleanly, turned off Steam cloud sync... all in vain.
Sounds like I might need to reinstall opengl or something then?
|
|
|
Post by zuthal on Jan 24, 2017 18:55:03 GMT
Solar thermal would have to be low thrust, yes - that is because the maximum thrust power is limited by the solar constant and your collector area. Assuming you are at Earth (solar constant of 1370 W/m^2) and have a 10000 m^2 collector (e.g. a 100 m by 100 m square of alumised mylar), you have 13.7 MW of thrust power available. At 8 km/s for hydrogen, you can get, with 100% efficiency, at most 3425 Newton of thrust. At Mars, with only 600 W/m^2 of solar irradiance, you only get 1500 N - and it only gets worse from there.
Also, the methane NTR has another advantage over more exotic fuels used in SEP or NEP - the potential for ISRU on Mars. Since Mars probably has large amounts of subsurface ice, and has a carbon dioxide atmosphere, it would be possible to, using electrolysis of the ice and then the sabatier reaction, produce methane on mars - along with oxygen, which can be funneled to the crew ECLSS or liquefied and stored on-board for use in a LANTR-type "reverse afterburner", to generate a brief boost in thrust e.g. for takeoff at the cost of exhaust velocity (basically, switching to low gear to climb out of Mars's gravity well).
|
|
|
Post by zuthal on Jan 22, 2017 21:18:41 GMT
Saturn INT-21 would have had 75 tonnes capacity to LEO. A LEO-Mars Surface-Earth Surface trip, assuming that all velocities that can be reduced with aerobraking are fully reduced with aerobraking, required about 10 km/s of delta-V. Assuming a 6 km/s methane NTR, we can get away with a mass ratio of 5.3, i.e. we can have 14 tonnes of payload+structural mass - with an 8 km/s hydrogen NTR, we can instead get a mass ratio of 3.5 and ~21 tonnes payload+structural mass - though I'd be a bit more doubtful about that being able to develop TWR>1 on Mars's surface - and that is without any ISRU, of course.
|
|
|
Post by zuthal on Jan 22, 2017 14:35:46 GMT
Standard solid-core nuclear-thermal is actually fully tested and developed already, minus being tested in actual flight hardware, and as I said, for manned missions you want short travel time.
Though, especially when using advanced Methalox engines, doing it with just chemical engines doesn't seem entirely unfeasible either.
|
|
|
Post by zuthal on Jan 22, 2017 10:22:58 GMT
For a manned mission, I would definitely use an NTR. Even if you use a centrifuge system to provide artificial gravity, you still have radiation concerns, and want to minimise travel time. Electric propulsion simply does not give you the acceleration needed to take the relatively time-efficient Hohmann trajectories you'd want to take.
|
|
|
Post by zuthal on Jan 22, 2017 8:06:08 GMT
Update: I did a complete clean reinstall, also wiped all the user config folders, and it still crashes upon starting. Also, I am on Mac OS X 10.9.5 on a mid-2013 Macbook Pro, with a 2.5 GHz Intel i5 quadcore CPU, 16 gigs of RAM and Intel HD 4000 integrated graphics. Attached is the new crash log.
|
|
|
Post by zuthal on Jan 21, 2017 11:21:59 GMT
It has just now started to CTD on startup, for reasons unbeknownst to me. I have already validated the game files through Steam, that did not help it. Attached are crash report and my Userdesigns.txt. I also have diborane installed, in the CDE/Mods/Data folder.
|
|