|
Post by jonen on Jul 22, 2018 7:57:19 GMT
For a proof of concept the Q-Class Trawler: - Armament is a pair of long-range KKR launchers mounted amidships near where the standard Belt Trawler's xenon refuelers are located.
- The five front 2kt xenon tanks have been replaced with five ammunition canisters containing 80 KKRs a piece for a total of 400 shots.
- Crew modules have been increased to 24 crewmembers each to accommodate the needed weapons support staff.
- The launchers are cooled by a duplicate set of the radiator design used to cool the crew modules, thus appearing as a redundant cooling system when the launchers are powered down.
- Power and propulsion systems are identical to the standard Belt Trawler design.
- KKRs are used to not draw the attention of any radiological or explosives scanners.
The primary weakness is that the ship is unarmored, extended range missiles are used in this case so the ship can either launch defensive salvos or unleash on undefended targets from long distances. Secondary issues stem from reduced propellant capacity due to the ammo canisters displacing half the fuel tanks and a lack of maneuverability from the continued use of the standard MPD thrusters.
The problem here is that while the dimensions are similar, the thing you'd be looking for is mass and acceleration. The Belt trawler has 21kt wet mass (1kt dry), you have 12 kt wet mass (and closer to 2kt dry). Your ship can pull 15 microGs, the trawler 8.6 - the trawler also has higher dry acceleration and far longer legs - but I suppose if you're going to be pretending to be a trawler with your design you'd have to play at being fully laden and puttering around fairly close to a support base (or rather - far from prying eyes). Because anyone bothering to check is going to see you're not hauling Xenon. I'd suggest using the Cargo freighter, research craft or passenger liner as the base for a Q-ship instead. The cargo modules are by their very nature probably going to be loaded up with different stuff so you can replace them missile magazines fairly straightforward.
|
|
|
Post by jonen on Jul 21, 2018 12:53:50 GMT
Checking my own, I rushed through to beat the game, then went back to get Gold on everything. image upload
Was partially aided by the fact that I was between jobs at the time.
|
|
|
Post by jonen on Jul 9, 2018 21:12:43 GMT
0.5% of players have the golden stars achievement. That means that right about 45 players have all of the achievements. Me being one of them. I actually just got gold on everything yesterday. I've mostly not bothered before, but for some reason I wanted to go back and finally finish those gas giant missions. Got gold in the first month. Am actually not sure I would have been able to do so with the more recent patches.
|
|
|
Post by jonen on Jul 2, 2018 20:12:58 GMT
-snip- By the way, multi-gun turrets don't use extra crew (more dakka ensues), but engine clusters sharing a gimbal still do — is this intentional? If it's for an NTR, you're effectively duplicating the reactors, so that makes sense. If you're duplicating chemical rockets, I suppose you could get away with one engineer for all of them. Still duplicating the plumbing for the rocket engine. Chemical rockets are slightly more likely to contain user serviceable parts after all.
|
|
|
Post by jonen on Jul 2, 2018 17:59:34 GMT
Hey uh, where's the option for multibarrel guns? I opened up module editor for one of my cannon designs and I can't find any toggle or option for more than one barrel. Any help with this would be appreciated. For guns - you need to check the turret box to make it a turret. Then there's "attachement points", which sets how many of the things go into the turret.
|
|
|
Post by jonen on Jun 24, 2017 22:49:08 GMT
63 ships into Vesta overkill. 9 flottillas of 7. If they didn't die (or more like if their guns didn't die) like Screaming Chinamen in Red Dawn to the Lasers on the Cutter they might even have managed to do some damage! (59 ships in Main Belt Extraction neutralized the gunships to only 12 ships total loss. And a bit more than half unscathed! Quantity does indeed have a quality all to itself!) My current baseline lasership: steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=952745528
|
|
|
Post by jonen on Jun 24, 2017 18:51:32 GMT
How do you go about docking with a ship that was put into a spin without any engines left, by the way? The serious answer is hope their reaction wheels are still intact and give them a while to kill the spin. Or maybe fire specialized missiles/harpoons into their hull/structure with vernier thrusters to kill the rotation. The less than serious answer, when there's not time for caution... [ link]
|
|
|
Post by jonen on Jun 22, 2017 16:09:53 GMT
You know, blast launchers kind of maybe sort of might work as Explosive Reactive Armor.
|
|
|
Post by jonen on Jun 22, 2017 12:59:40 GMT
... Macross missile massacre... Staged missile in a traditional launcher, covered in blast launchers. Edit: also, is it just me or is the AI self destructing their siloship with distressing frequency in Vesta Overkill?
|
|
|
Post by jonen on Jun 22, 2017 8:28:30 GMT
Why did I have to use boron for everything Like all of us, were a moron for more boron.
|
|
|
Post by jonen on Jun 20, 2017 19:03:37 GMT
Deactivate the radiators (may need to deactivate the systems they're shunting heat from, and install a lesser reactor to provide power to command and control), radiators fold down. Exact same mass, more compact (but not radiating heat).
...
The ship itself reminds me of something out of Knights of Sidonia.
|
|
|
Post by jonen on Jun 10, 2017 20:29:09 GMT
Let me just stick with a couple of things everybody should be able to agree on whatever your stance is: - Whether you believe the climate is changing or not, we need to measure and record it, and develop better modeling of the global climate to increase our understanding of it. - Science should have only one agenda, and that is to find out the objective truth of things, to as great an extent as possible - does our civilization really not have the intellectual integrity to accept the truth as it is, if it turns out to not be what we had hoped? Without measuring and recording, there is nothing to do science on, for either side.
Going on a less objective stance for a moment to hint on my personal opinion, if you look at which side is in favor of conducting less (or no) climate science, you are probably looking at the side which is not supported by the science - if you think the science is wrong, the answer is to do more measuring and recording and science to find if that opinion is supported by fact, testing to see if your hypothesis are supported by your findings, and letting others try and replicate your experiments to see if they can reproduce the results - not clapping your hands over your ears and shouting in disbelief until the problem goes away (or kills you, whichever comes first). We can choose to go into the future with our eyes and ears open. So why go blindly, hoping for the best.
- Whether you believe climate change is caused by humans or not, better modeling and predictions gives us better chance of preparing for the change.
And if you don't believe in climate change... well if the modeling and predictions are completely inaccurate, that just means we're going to have to make better models and predictions as per 1, and until we do, better safe than sorry and make preparations assuming the models aren't wholly incorrect, right? Even if hoping for the best, we should prepare for the worst.
Whether you believe that we as species can do anything about it, we should be switching over to sustainable solutions to as great an extent as possible, because resources are finite, and frankly, most of the old way of doing things (aside from possible climate effects) have measurable secondary effects on health and welfare, or poor safety track records. And again, better safe than sorry. Because either we can do something, and every bit of time wasted deliberating about it is going to be our legacy for future generations, or we can not do anything about it but who does it does it hurt to try? Sure, change is scary, but if we embrace the need and do it before it's absolutely necessary, we can get the best of it.
I mean, come on, people. This is a forum dedicated to a space combat warfare game, we're all futurists to some degree here, aren't we? We all trust in science? We want the world to change for the better (or at the very least, we want to embrace mankinds future in space.
|
|
|
Post by jonen on Jun 10, 2017 12:56:34 GMT
Seveneves deserves a mention, given this is the official forum for a game with another Dead Earth. Starting off in a not too distant future, the book starts off with the moon exploding. Other than that the science is harder than most anything else, and the epic story of the book is how to deal with the fallout of the moon exploding. The book is divided in three parts: Part one Part one is the span of time between the moon exploding and the Earth being rendered uninhabitable. Lots of details about the issues and bottlenecks of spacelift and the infeasibility of evacuating the Earth. Part two Part two is set between the Earth being rendered uninhabitable and the survivors reaching a place of relative safety. Plenty of orbital mechanics. Part three Part three is five thousand years later when the Earth has recovered enough to be worth resettling (and thus fighting over). More orbital mechanics and some fairly neat takes on SF applications of various stuff. For instance, this part starts with a person donning a flight suit with wings, running off and gliding on thermals up to a skyhook, basically getting into orbit with nothing but musclepower, thermals and orbital infrastructure. It's on the list: www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/sealofapproval.php
|
|
|
Post by jonen on Jun 1, 2017 21:14:05 GMT
So.
Did you know you can refuel missiles?
Allows for a different take of the missile bus concept - the missile bus being a drone that flies closer to the enemy to launch missiles. Well, a launcher, etc is extra mass. With a tanker drone and some missiles, you can turn that into extra deltaV. And thus you can spend nearly all the deltaV in the missiles at launch accelerating towards the enemy prior to entering engagement range (always a good idea when opposing lasers), and top them off to let them enter engagement range with full tanks.
Or if you're microing enough, you can send off your tankers to rendezvous with missiles that missed the target (assuming they're not beelining out of the system too fast for you to catch them), fuel them up and send them back in. Of course, the micro required to prevent missiles from expending their last deltaV and rendering themselves inert might be a bit impractical.
Still.
... Probably works best at extreme (interplanetary?) ranges, or in, say, the Jovian system?
|
|
|
Post by jonen on May 7, 2017 23:26:54 GMT
You open your bathroom door and see this on the ceiling. Meh. Don't live in 'straya. If it's stuck on my ceiling and is bigger than my hand, it's the landlords problem.
|
|