|
Post by zuthal on Nov 9, 2016 14:04:23 GMT
I meant by that that a conventional cannon, designed to match a real-life weapon as closely as possible, is underperforming and overweight.
|
|
|
Post by zuthal on Nov 8, 2016 19:38:38 GMT
Laser proof missile walls aren't nearly as laser-proof anymore, due to the aerogel being nerfed quite badly.
|
|
|
Post by zuthal on Nov 8, 2016 19:22:02 GMT
That would allow them, yes, since the real-life propellant is something like 5 cm by 10 cm high cylinders, with several perforations.
Also, could we get tapered barrels? Because those would I think significantly help to reduce the mass of such weapons. Also nice would be mechanically actuated turrets, like on actual tanks and battleships, so that we don't have to spend multiple GW on reaction wheels, though that would likely be a lot more difficult to implement.
|
|
|
Post by zuthal on Nov 8, 2016 19:18:37 GMT
That is a possible cause - I do not know what the D839 powder they use is actually made of, but I think it is roughly nitrocellulose. And you can sort of simulate different compositions by making the round a "payload" made up of different armour and "radiation shields" - but then you of course don't get the pretty tracers.
And I don't think barrel friction would have such a great effect here, since afaik the gun we use are smoothbore - there is no need to spin the projectile in a vacuum! The one big problem is the turret. A turret that can get it to turn at an acceptable rate consumes 10 GW and increases the mass by something like six times.
|
|
|
Post by zuthal on Nov 8, 2016 18:49:48 GMT
Well, the bursting charge of the Mark 8 shell is 18.55 kg. I actually cannot fit the full mass of the shell into an explosive payload, so I am using a 1000 kg payload, and an additional 205.5 kg shell in the cannon "under" it. And that will work with any "shell" material that has a tensile strength of at least 256 MPa.
|
|
|
Post by zuthal on Nov 8, 2016 15:00:32 GMT
Quite possible - visual inspection of one of the photos on the Navweaps site suggests that the combined thickness of liner, A tube, jacket and hoop is roughly equal to the bore diameter. That is then only one more reason to have tapered barrels!
That still doesn't explain the missing 54 m/s of muzzle velocity, though - a gun in a vacuum should have a higher muzzle velocity, as the pressure differential across the projectile is greater by 1 atm and there is no air resistance.
|
|
|
Post by zuthal on Nov 8, 2016 12:09:42 GMT
Since subunit did a reality check on 5.56 mm NATO small-arms ammunition - and this check was thoroughly failed - I thought I would do one on what is likely one of the best and most famous naval guns of all time: The 16" (406 mm) fifty caliber guns of the Iowa-class battleship. All data on the gun taken from Navweaps. The 16"/50 has a caliber of 406 mm (exactly reproduced in-game), and a barrel length of 20.32 m (approximated as 20.3 m in game). The Mark 8 APC shell has a total mass of 1225 kg (approximated as 1230 kg), and a propellant charge of 297.1 kg D839 (approximated as 297 kg and assumed to be nitrocellulose). The material assumed for the projectile and barrel is vanadium-chromium steel. At the specified working pressure of ~255 MPa, a grain radius of 8.2 mm was needed, yielding a muzzle velocity of 728 m/s - compared to a historical muzzle velocity of 762 m/s. In order to make it work, the barrel needed to be of a thickness of 42 cm, giving the whole gun a weight of 256 t, compared with 121.5 t for the real gun. Conclusion: Conventional cannons underperform compared to their real-life counterparts, and are significantly heavier than them as well.
|
|
|
Post by zuthal on Nov 7, 2016 14:03:23 GMT
Also, one weapon that would be amazing as a spinal mount, I feel, would be a free electron laser. You could have the undulator right along the long axis, surrounded by accelerator tracks to accelerate the electrons as they are fed back into the undulator. (Yes, I know FELs are not in the game yet, but I feel they could be... after all, they are real technology, that works, even for making x-ray lasers).
|
|
|
Post by zuthal on Nov 6, 2016 17:17:42 GMT
Also, fluorine isn't really viable, I feel, for large (>5 kt or so) capships, I found, because making very high-thrust fluorine/hydrogen engines simply doesn't appear to be feasible - the blasted stuff just puts out too much heat.
|
|
|
Post by zuthal on Nov 5, 2016 21:00:52 GMT
I believe the flame temperature for LOX/RP-1 is wrong. The game records it as 1393 K, but it should be in the same 3600-4100 K range as LOX with the other hydrocarbon fuels.
|
|
|
Post by zuthal on Nov 4, 2016 16:31:14 GMT
So, it seems that Fluorine-Hydrogen combustion rockets are competitive with, or even possibly superior too, methane and decane NTRs even for capship usage. This of course poses a possible logistical problem: How do you get that much Fluorine? Hydrogen, methane and decane are little problem, since hydrogen and carbon are quite abundant in the solar system, but Fluorine isn't - Carbon is ~4800 times more abundant in the Solar System than Fluorine is.
|
|
|
Post by zuthal on Nov 3, 2016 19:24:10 GMT
(reposted because I accidentally posted it in the wrong place) It seems that the mass of the remote control is not counted (or reduced) for in-combat/orbital view delta-V calculations, while its full mass of 1 kg is counted for delta-V display in designer, briefings etc. This leads to severe discrepancies between both numbers for very small missiles. Edit: Further testing has revealed that the bug occurs only for missiles in which there are no warhead modules (be they nuclear or explosive). This has the effect of, until it is fixed, effectively buffing pure KKVs. The missile in question, when viewed in the designer. The very same missile, in combat view and with full tanks, after having miraculously gained 1.3 km/s of delta-V.
|
|
|
Post by zuthal on Nov 3, 2016 14:43:55 GMT
The writing of the campaign, actually. I can see why not everyone will like it, but the mix gleeful, increasingly over-the-top evil presented in such a transparent way, the flimsy "But we actually do that for the People! We are champions of Democracy!" and the uncomfortably easy to recognize inspirations made me simultaneously laugh (sometimes out loud) and feel like I should feel horrible. I guess that's how cartoon villains feel... Also that time I discovered that you could use radon as MPD propellant. Also, how it makes so very clear, especially if you read all the fluff, that you are not the good guys. But neither are you the bad guys. There are no good guys or bad guys in war, there's just people doing what they need to do to survive. Or, to take another quote: War isn't about who's right, war is about who's left. Further on topic, cutting an enemy ship into two incandescent halves with a barrage of flak missiles.
|
|
|
Post by zuthal on Nov 3, 2016 7:46:33 GMT
At the input power you are running, you SHOULD be able to get about 2.5 shots per second or something like that (i.e. a reload time of ~400 ms). Can you make the fire rate that low by dropping loader power?
|
|
|
Post by zuthal on Nov 1, 2016 8:03:07 GMT
...you get a metal-fluorine fire, the recommended equipment for dealing with which is a good pair of running shoes.
|
|