|
Post by cuddlefish on Oct 8, 2016 16:35:37 GMT
I hope we'll be able to do 1-in-N mixes of tracers at some point. Or to be really excessive, multiple 'flavors' of tracer in the same mix, so you can kill your enemy with rainbow sprinkles.
|
|
|
Post by cuddlefish on Oct 8, 2016 14:42:02 GMT
Things I learned today: I made a cannon approximating an AKM (the rate of fire is about three times too high, but I was at the lowest loader setting, and the full bullet mass is carbon steel) and stuck it on a half dozen drones. They killed the stock Corvette in the one pass.
|
|
|
Post by cuddlefish on Oct 8, 2016 14:37:56 GMT
As far as I'm aware, it's a special pyrotechnic element attached to the projectile, traditionally. That's why you get the glow that can be seen at night and at a distance.
|
|
|
Post by cuddlefish on Oct 7, 2016 16:38:31 GMT
I've been experimenting with different fuel options and I have to say - there are few things more awesomely ominous than a vast red sea of Oxy/H2 rocket plume in the distance as a swarm of missiles or light attack craft approaches. It's the little things you never expect that really get you.
|
|
|
Post by cuddlefish on Oct 7, 2016 9:44:39 GMT
The way I'd handle this (as a layman) with an eye to reducing the number of pathfinds follows - may be stuff you've tried before, may be useless, but felt like typing it out
It seems like the goal with a Flak missile barrage is to get a certain density of shot across the entire uncertainty in your target's position post detonation. How many missiles are used to attain this would purely be a factor of how many are needed, and how redundant you want to be against point defense. The most efficient way to allocate those missiles is going to be in a formation - allowing each missile to "cover" a specific section of the enemy possibility space with a payload, without inefficient doubling causing gaps, as they might easily do if they're all path-finding independently. Nukes can be used in a similar way - spacing the missiles to ensure something gets within lethal distance no matter how they maneuver. Nukes also have another 'hidden' plus of formation coordination - if they sync their detonation time, they will have the best odds of achieving multiple simultaneous bursts rather than the first burst killing the bunch. So, where does this lead my brain?
It seems like the pathfinding should be structured around 'Walls' of missiles. Each Wall pathfinds as a group (I think we can assume sensor fusion of the various missiles, given we don't actually have sensor modules in game), trying to place the wall center such that the entire uncertainty space (based on the known G potential of the target's drive - I assume that good recon would be able to amass a database the gunners can use when arming the warheads, given lack of space stealth and ability to measure the exhaust plumes of ships) is covered by killzone of the warheads (either within Proxy distance of a nuke, or covered by a certain density of fragmentation at the desired closing speed), with the spacing of the 'Wall' being malleable to cover the entire projected space + some safety margin as thickly as possible with the number of missiles allotted. This means that the individual behavior of missiles should be able to be pared entirely down to station-keeping within the shifting formation vector, and any formation adjustments that need to be done as missiles are lost to PD.
As a novice rather than someone who knows their shit - it seems like that stationkeeping would be less burdensome than target tracking? If that's the case, letting you replace the N target finds for a salvo with 1 target find and N stationkeeps would be a serious profit, if it can be done. Thoughts from the people who actually know what they are talking about?
|
|