|
Post by dwwolf on Nov 25, 2016 8:59:53 GMT
OP: 834 kilowatt radiation hazard LMAO.
|
|
|
Post by dwwolf on Nov 21, 2016 23:51:17 GMT
40mm conv cannon with a 100 gram 20mm payload (~66 1.3g frags ). Muzzle v about 1.8 km/s.
200 ms reload.
Poor missiles dont know what hit em.
|
|
|
Post by dwwolf on Nov 18, 2016 14:14:12 GMT
It really depends on how big the fragments are. In theory the massive frags should gain almost no dV from the miniscule explosive charges. And thats what you are seeing.
|
|
|
Post by dwwolf on Nov 16, 2016 7:21:02 GMT
Yep... thats the only way to protect em.
|
|
|
Post by dwwolf on Nov 15, 2016 20:37:30 GMT
NuclearPayloadModule 2.75 Mt Boosted Fission Nuke UsesCustomName false CoreComposition U-233 ReflectorComposition Lithium SlowExplosive CombustionReaction TNT DelayComposition Sodium Bicarbonate DelayCompositionMassFraction 0 FastExplosive Octogen CoreMass_kg 290 Enrichment_Percent 0.97 HollowCoreRadius_m 0.14 InnerExplosiveWidth_m 0.001 FusionBoost Deuterium Tritium FusionFuelDensity_kg__m3 0 Detonator HardRange_km 0.10 ActivationRange_km 0.50 MinimumRange_km 1.5 TargetsShips true TargetsShots true Total mass 347 kg
NuclearPayloadModule 9.50 Mt Boosted Fission Nuke UsesCustomName false CoreComposition U-233 ReflectorComposition Diamond SlowExplosive CombustionReaction Nitrocellulose DelayComposition Sodium Bicarbonate DelayCompositionMassFraction 0 FastExplosive Octogen CoreMass_kg 1000 Enrichment_Percent 0.97 HollowCoreRadius_m 0.31 InnerExplosiveWidth_m 0.001 FusionBoost Deuterium Tritium FusionFuelDensity_kg__m3 0 Detonator HardRange_km 0.05 ActivationRange_km 0.62 MinimumRange_km 1 TargetsShips true TargetsShots true totall mass ...1.5 ton :/
And my 1.6Mt nuke is only 197 kg. Very diminishing returns.
|
|
|
Post by dwwolf on Nov 15, 2016 17:06:01 GMT
Well according to OP 50Mt fries a fleet..... IIRC most of my nukes upto 2Mt fall under 200kg weight. With 100kt being about 143 kg......I dont really use em and use the 200kg 2Mt one instead
|
|
|
Post by dwwolf on Nov 15, 2016 15:25:37 GMT
Id love to test but I dont have a really viable nuke in the 10 Mt range.
|
|
|
Post by dwwolf on Nov 12, 2016 10:27:15 GMT
Specs on the nuke and Engine svp? 5 seperate warheads or 1 stack of 5 ? Also....isnt that alot of tank weight and volume wasted on all those small tanks ? engine : i.imgur.com/qL0b2sJ.png?1nuke : i.imgur.com/qL0b2sJ.png?15 separate warheads I use sets of tanks and don't usually bother to make more/better ones cause I am lazy Errr I hate to be a bother but you posted the engine twice.
|
|
|
Post by dwwolf on Nov 11, 2016 18:04:09 GMT
I prefer boron as turret armour, diamond is good at stopping lasers but high kinetic rounds will strip it easily, I have not found what is the "best" but I have found boron is a very good average my tests are simple I launch 60 missiles and see how many make it past 2 of my rainbow brigade frigates (1MW worth of lasers in all the colours I can make em) survival ##/60 - inside/outside - (unless stated otherwise layers are adjusted to equal mass and total to 10% missile mass) 51 - aramind 28 - diamond 52 - amorphous 31 - boron 56 - graphite gel 59 - silica gel 35 - boron/diamond 42 - amorphous carbon/diamond 57 - graphite gel/diamond 47 - boron/aramind/diamond 35 - boron/graphite gel/boron/amorphous/diamond 60 - boron/graphite gel/boron/(7cm gap)/amorphous/diamond yes 6cm gap turns that into voodoo armour, impervious to all damage... rad proof, spall resistant, laser immune, nuke proof and it may even be able to make you breakfast in bed! the actual missile itself (sans 50MT warheads) usually used to create a second sun and kill everything in 10km radius with a baptism of nuclear fire I did a bit more exhaustive test to work out exactly how much this is better then silica the bodon composite is... vs 4 of the rainbow brigade cruisers, admittedly not that accurate since not all ships focused on one missile all the time so I launched only 3 missiles silica lost 3 missiles, the boron composite only lost 2 and one of them was a last-second death at >1km Specs on the nuke and Engine svp? 5 seperate warheads or 1 stack of 5 ? Also....isnt that alot of tank weight and volume wasted on all those small tanks ?
|
|
|
Post by dwwolf on Nov 11, 2016 14:42:17 GMT
I was mainly alluding to malfunctioning detonator code.
Im getting much less penetration with my micro EFPs with a 600 gram 10cm diameter copper disc.
So im really thinking it was the whole missile impacting and or exploding at 0 meters.
|
|
|
Post by dwwolf on Nov 11, 2016 11:28:27 GMT
1 cm of iron as the drone/missile body ?
|
|
|
Post by dwwolf on Nov 11, 2016 8:53:50 GMT
my designs have a pointy nose because I want to send that pointy nose into the enemies hull as fast as 123 tones of TNT can get said pointy nose going which is really really fast if you didn't already know... simply put pointy nose : more armour mass in front of nuke going in the direction your target is, I have seen these nukes get through 50cm of armour on occasions. I have tested with flat nose and no nuke, both cases showed no effect on said 50cm armour Well the problem is that I think the shape of a pointy nose cone isn't as effective at concentrating the energy into the penetrator. If I had to guess, more of the mass would be blasted outwards at the angle of the nose cone rather than forwards towards the target. However, the differences between how EFPs work in real life and how the game simulates it may lead to different designs working better. Laser defense. Flat noses are easier for the laser to drill through. Using a radiation shield as your projectile will save weight while still getting good penetration, though a slightly smaller damage cross-section. The anti-laser armor on the outside still needs the pointed nose though. Technically EFP/HEAT should use an inverted cone with the explosive formed around it (the different behaviors seem to be driven by the angle and depth of the cone, though I'm sure there are other factors) but we can't do that with the current system, so we're limited to either flat plates or armored nose cones. Well if we're being honest, after the aerogel nerfs if a laser is trying to take down a missile, it will do so quickly regardless of whether or not the nosecone is angled. In any case, it's possible to make a flat plate for the penetrator from a radiation shield, and put a pointy nose cone on top to protect it. Also, has anyone figured out any remote control module settings that work well for NEFPs? Standard boostphase, limited to 25% fuel. Midcourse no changes. Final not the augmented guidance but the normal version. With 2.0 dampening. Ive cut down thrust to get efp missiles with ~10g accel. I have also limited gimbal engines to 4.5 - 5 degrees. And tried to bring CoG back to about midway in the missile with an iron ring armor bit over the engine. Detonator = 10m hard with 50m activation. Starting to get some hits again. Also starting to think our previous "EFPs" were KKV
|
|
|
Post by dwwolf on Nov 10, 2016 19:52:03 GMT
What exactly is the penetrator that is supposed to be propelled by your explosives ?
|
|
|
Post by dwwolf on Nov 10, 2016 11:19:33 GMT
I wonder what kind of gimble angle people use on their missile engines. I'm starting to think its more important than people realise.
|
|
|
Post by dwwolf on Nov 9, 2016 17:48:55 GMT
One key thing I discovered was that the homing success depends heavily on the missile cg and engine gimbal. I had many missiles tumble around at mid or terminal phases until fine tuning the missile itself. It seems like the remote control constantly overcompensates, regardless of settings. That's where I had to physically limit the missiles ability to respond. I had a tough time figuring out the dampening... Wildly different ratios didn't seem to make obvious differences. I did some reading on the homing techniques, which helped me figure out the different strategies. An in-game tooltip blurb would be good. So what are your guidelines to ensure good missile guidance ?
|
|