wooaa
New Member
Posts: 10
|
Post by wooaa on Oct 20, 2016 21:17:22 GMT
I made something that might be useful. Using the spreadsheet, I created an excel table that makes it possible to automatically rank materials from 1 to 100 based on a weighted combination of its attributes. The weights and attributes can be defined by the user. I think it will be a big help in comparing materials. Dead earth.xlsx (214.38 KB)
|
|
wooaa
New Member
Posts: 10
|
Post by wooaa on Oct 18, 2016 20:35:19 GMT
Thanks a megaton for making this. Is it okay if I use this as the basis of a material ranking project I am working on? If I can get it to work, my intent it so post it on the forums, and include a link in this and in a steam guide. Obviously, I will include a very heartfelt citation to your work.
|
|
wooaa
New Member
Posts: 10
|
Post by wooaa on Oct 18, 2016 20:32:15 GMT
YAY!!! INCOMING STATISTICAL ANALYSIS!
|
|
wooaa
New Member
Posts: 10
|
Post by wooaa on Oct 18, 2016 18:57:28 GMT
Given the wide array of possible materials available in the simulation, making comparisons between them can be a challenge. I was wondering if there was a spreadsheet that listed the simulation's materials and characteristics. As a geographer, I know a fair amount about statistics. I was thinking that, if I could get this type of information in a spreadsheet, I could build something in excel that could give relative comparisons between materials, and then rank them based on a user defined weighted comparison between desired characteristics ( you stats nerds might recognize this as a mix of analytic hierarchy process and simple multi-attribute rating technique). If I put this on a google doc or something like that, It could be a big help in making good choices for ship components and help ease the difficulty curve for new players.
But, as of this moment the only way I could think of to create this sheet would be to go into the game, look at a material, alt tab to excell, then back to the game, back to excell, and so on. This process is understandably less than ideal, as it would be rather tedious and have a high risk of a transcription error.
So, any ideas?
|
|
wooaa
New Member
Posts: 10
|
Post by wooaa on Oct 17, 2016 15:54:20 GMT
I likewise like needle ships. Having a devastating broadside does not mean jack when you are a huge target. By going at them nose first, you present a smaller target.
|
|
wooaa
New Member
Posts: 10
|
Post by wooaa on Oct 17, 2016 0:44:32 GMT
If your conventional cannon's barrel is rupturing, increase the grain of your propellant. This will make it burn slower, thus reducing the peek pressure on your barrel. Also, if you look at the graph on the conventional cannon design menu you can get a good idea if your barrel needs to be longer, or if you could get away with it being shorter. If the line is still an okay distance above zero, it means that there is still a good amount of pressure in the barrel after the projectile is lost, so you could squeeze out a bit more velocity by lengthening the barrel. Conversely, when the pressure is asymptote it meens that the extra length is not adding that much, so you could save a buck and some DV by shortening it.
Also. Boron is love, Boron is life.
|
|
wooaa
New Member
Posts: 10
|
Post by wooaa on Oct 17, 2016 0:09:50 GMT
What characteristics do you think make for a good projectile?
With coil guns I tend to look for something with high magnetic susceptibility ( so they accelerate more) and good strength ( so it can survive said acceleration). nickel iron molybdenum seems to work well.
With rail guns I look for high conductivity. More conductivity=stronger electric field= stronger magnetic field= more acceleration. Tungsten seems to work okay.
With a conventonal gun I am not so sure. It needs strength, but other than that I don't know what to look for.
|
|
wooaa
New Member
Posts: 10
|
Post by wooaa on Oct 13, 2016 16:17:06 GMT
Nukes could work, but they are somewhat contrary to the idea. Nukes are heavy, expensive, and as of now beyond my ability to design. The goal of the long range flare is not necessarily to destroy inbound missiles, but to draw them off course.
|
|
wooaa
New Member
Posts: 10
|
Post by wooaa on Oct 13, 2016 0:50:53 GMT
Good to see I am not crazy. After much experimentation, and realizing I have no idea how to make an engine, I came up with a good decoy missile. I stuck the 18kn nitro methane rocket and gave it 10kg of fuel. Feather light at only 20kg and costs 106c. Over one km of delta V and a whopping 91g of acceleration. jebediah would be proud. It can intercept inbound ordnance before it hits your fleet, and its faint heat is more than enough to cause missiles to home towards it. With nukes it usually sets off a chain reaction. With flack, it is not as powerful. I have found that one is not always enough, but a salvo of 10 is usually sufficient. It does behave a bit oddly though. For some reason, it is very reluctant to burn at full power when set to active homeing. It also does not maneuver that much, although that might be a result of limited gimbaling on the thruster. Just to see what would happen, sent a swarm of them to attack a capital ship. Almost all of them missed, and those that hit did not even scratch the paint. I think that the simulation might not like insane amounts of acceleration. I tried equipping them with a flare, but to my annoyance could not find a way to prevent the flare from going off the second the missile was launched. Attachments:
|
|
wooaa
New Member
Posts: 10
|
Post by wooaa on Oct 12, 2016 22:18:47 GMT
Given that a salvo of nukes is a surefire way to ruin your day, defense against missiles is very important. I have found that launching a handful stock flack missiles against incoming nukes sorta works. But this is nothing I am sure that you have not all tried in the past. During these missile vs missile fights I noticed that the nukes, programmed to home in on the hottest thing around, would turn toward my missiles, wasting vital delta V. Even if there was no detonation, the spent fuel was a big help. Still, this is nothing new.
An idea i have kicking around my head is to make a small, cheep, missile whose sole goal is to make the incoming nukes waste their fuel trying to intercept. However, intercepting missiles is not always easy, as the target will take evasive maneuvers in many instances. The further the two missiles are from one another, the cheaper in terms of delta V it is to make a large evasive maneuver. My intersections with the stock flack missiles were most effective when they were launched as the inbound ordnance was close, but sometimes they lacked the acceleration to intercept.
So, my fuel waster missile will need to be cheep, light enough to carry a few of them, and have the acceleration necessary to make a close in intercept. Heck, it does not even need a warhead or all that much delta V. So far my tests have been inconclusive, but then again I am rather inexperienced at this game.
What do you all think? Is there anything to this idea?
|
|