|
Post by RA2lover on Oct 6, 2016 3:23:45 GMT
Why not just use an inefficient nuclear reactor whose only purpose is powering its cooling system as a decoy?
|
|
|
Post by RA2lover on Oct 6, 2016 1:04:08 GMT
What about offset bore designs? This seems like a much better way to achieve 6+ steradian coverage. Want to get to the other side without losing track of the target? just roll the turret 180 degrees during traverse!
|
|
|
Post by RA2lover on Oct 5, 2016 23:50:23 GMT
I wouldn't count ammunition remaining(it's pretty exploitable by creating massive magazines), but count tonnage of ammunition spent instead.
|
|
|
Post by RA2lover on Oct 5, 2016 22:54:37 GMT
Another missing check is whether the pump's turbines can fit into their housing.
|
|
|
Post by RA2lover on Oct 5, 2016 19:32:05 GMT
Side question: Does decoy temperature matter regarding detection distances?
|
|
|
Post by RA2lover on Oct 5, 2016 15:42:17 GMT
How does this compare to simply overengineering the radiators so as to radiate incoming laser fire away?
|
|
|
Post by RA2lover on Oct 5, 2016 6:14:47 GMT
Another issue i've noticed is weapons need to have extremely thin projectiles to achieve any significant ballistic efficiency figures. You want a lot of volume to burn your propellant into(and increase effective barrel length a bit by keeping the propellant from taking too much space on the barrel), but at the same time keep the projectile as light as possible so as to reduce grain size and maximize the area of the barrel under adiabatic cooling.
Let's take a look at some of the default cannons:
22mm cannon: 1.11cm bore radius, 10g aluminum projectile(3.7cm³ volume) = 1.04cm long projectile 33mm cannon: 1.68cm bore radius, 5g DU projectile(0.263cm³ volume) = 0.029cm long projectile(!) 60mm cannon: 3.03cm bore radius, 10g tungsten projectile = 0.018cm long projectile(!!) 120mm cannon: 6cm bore radius, 10kg DU projectile = 4.65cm long projectile (this gun is two orders of magnitude heavier than the others, and a 27cm thick barrel doesn't help it) 1200mm cannon: 60cm bore radius, 1t tungsten projectile = 4.65cm long projectile (This is basically a 10x upscaled variant of the cannon above, though the barrel is only 20cm thick here)
Perhaps gas leakage due to projectile deformation should also be taken into account?
Here's some data for other solid shot mass drivers: 3mm railgun: 1.74mm bore radius, 2.5g tungsten projectile = 1.38cm 11mm railgun: 5.6mm bore radius, 1g copper projectile = 0.112cm 8mm railgun: 4.3mm bore radius, 15g tungsten projectile = 1.36cm 16mm coilgun: 8mm bore radius, 47.4g iron projectile = 2.98cm 286mm coilgun: 14.3cm bore radius, 10kg NiFeMo projectile = 1.79cm
|
|
|
Post by RA2lover on Oct 5, 2016 2:45:13 GMT
You still need to figure out where you're going to extract resources from. Asteroids are far enough apart to make transportation of resources between them unfeasible in military timescales, and not every asteroid is going to have everything necessary.
|
|
|
Post by RA2lover on Oct 5, 2016 2:42:05 GMT
The irony here is the laptop has a much newer CPU that outperforms the desktop's CPU even in single-threaded performance, despite having a lower clock speed.
OP already solved his issue, so that post was irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by RA2lover on Oct 5, 2016 1:06:12 GMT
Ranges should be shorter in space combat than in naval combat simply because of the accelerations involved. 9 seconds is a lot of time to dodge shells even with just 0.5~1G worth of acceleration. EDIT: Let's try a Otobreda 76mm/62 "Super Rapid". 2.35kg of propellant, 6.3kg of shell. Even with a vanadium chromium steel barrel (to take into account advances in weapon design since WW2), achieving a 915m/s muzzle velocity with nitrocellulose requires a 11cm thick barrel. Even using octogen you still need a 7.9cm barrel thickness. The autoloader only consumes 2.2kW to achieve the 120 RPM fire rate, but it's dealing with caseless ammunition that only weighs about 2/3rds as much. With a 83cm radius turret with 1cm thick aluminum armor, using zirconium copper reaction wheels(chosen because it nails the design's empty mass down to 7.5t) makes the design require 181 MW of power to attain a 35 degrees per second travel speed(which is the vertical travel speed figure). attaining 60 degrees per second(the horizontal travel speed) requires 550 MW. gg no re
|
|
|
Post by RA2lover on Oct 4, 2016 15:58:15 GMT
This thread isn't about suggesting additional features, but about changing constants that hinder game functionality, are missing, or are just incorrect.
Rocket Engines:
- Minimum throat radius should be reduced to 1mm. This is mostly a change to allow some smaller-sized combustion thrusters by reducing the chamber radius without increasing its length too much(the default chamber contraction ratio results in a thruster whose chamber is 1.5m long), though some resistojets can probably also take advantage of this change.
- Minimum chamber length should be reduced to 1 cm. This balances out minimum thruster size for resistojets, which unlike combustion thrusters use a direct input for chamber length. In addition, it balances their minimum size compared to MPDs(which can have a thruster length of 1cm).
- Add an additional order of magnitude to the stoichiometric mixture ratio's precision. As of now you can change stoichiometric ratios slightly below 1 by 0.01, but stoichiometric ratios above 1 are stuck to increments of 0.1, which definitely isn't accurate enough. (unconfirmed)
Propellant Tanks: - Reduce minimum mass to 100g. Some combustion rocket reactions, such as fluorine-hydrogen, use really unfriendly stoichiometric ratios. Using a 1:1 ratio for a fluorine-hydrogen thruster currently requires a minimum of 200kg in fuel tankage, which some small missiles(in particular, gun-launched ones) just can't afford.
- Add an additional order of magnitude to the reaction mass slider's precision. Bipropellant mass ratios are displayed as 3 digit values in the thruster design phase, but you're limited to 2 digits worth of precision in the propellant tank designer, which can cause up to 0.5% of one of the tanks' mass to be unused. Example: 1:1 stoichiometric ratio for LH2/LOX reaction has a mass ratio of 0.794:1. If you want exactly 1kT of hydrogen tankage, your oxygen tank would have 790T as the closest value for that. The 4 tons wasted here could be used to give a ship using those tanks an extra centimeter of armor instead. (unconfirmed)
Lasers: - Add an additional digit of precision to the optical node count slider (Suggested by Blothorn)
Guns: - Add an additional digit of precision to the bore radius slider(it's currently not possible to build a 33mm diameter barrel despite one of the built-in cannons having that caliber)
Payloads: - Add an additional digit of precision to the shrapnel mass slider(so it matches up with the explosive mass slider's precision)
Nuclear Reactors/NTRs:
- Change minimum reflector thickness on NTRs to 1mm. This change isn't really required, but should be a valid workaround to the "crash on creating vessel without a neutron reflector" issue. Fixed in 1.0.5
Materials:
- Potassium currently has a thermoelectric sensivity of -14.0-6, and lacks a Yield Strength parameter which makes it impossible to use on a thermocoupler despite it being on the list of thermocouple materials. Fixed in 1.0.5
- Alpha-2 Titanium Aluminide currently has a thermal expansion of 15-6 and a resistivity of 1.356-6. Fixed in 1.0.6
- Gamma Titanium Aluminide currently has a thermal expansion of 12.2-6 and a resistivity of 1.109-6 Fixed in 1.0.6 - Nickel Chromium Cobalt currently has a thermal expansion of 17.8-6 Fixed in 1.0.6
- Titanium Dioxide has a thermal expansion of 11.8-6.Fixed in 1.0.6 - Hafnium Carbide currently has a thermal expansion coeffiicient of 6e8e-6 Fixed in 1.0.6
- Ceramic Oxide Fiber has a thermal expansion coefficient of 5.3-6 Fixed in 1.0.6
- PBO Fiber has a thermal expansion of -6.00-6 Fixed in 1.0.6
- Same with Para-Aramid fiber Fixed in 1.0.6
- Barium Nitrate has an adiabatic flame temperature of -2648 K (unconfirmed)
- RP-1 isn't in the list of possible propellant tank materials, making it unusable ingame. Fixed in 1.0.5
- In addition, its ingame performance is lacking compared to real-life figures. I suspect this is happening due to a low combustion temperature (insert jet beams meme here), though i can't find papers with accurate numbers. - Tritium is in the list of possible RTG fuel materials, despite it being unusable as the minimum exit temperature is an order of magnitude above its melting point. (unconfirmed)
|
|
|
Post by RA2lover on Oct 3, 2016 18:13:37 GMT
Regarding NTR design, the heaviest component is probably the pump - you want your reactor to produce as much heat as possible as this is what defines how much thrust you can make out of the reactor. The easiest way of doing this without increasing reactor mass is increasing neutron flux to as high as you can before htiting the 6 month runtime barrier. After that, the pump needs to be made as light as possible. Liithium is probably the best pump material if only because of its low density, though it limits you to a maximum pump size due to structural stress. The next tier up is probably boron and that's about 3x as dense.
After optimizing the pump to be as light as possible for a mass flow rate that is just enough to prevent the reactor from melting down, you can optiimize the chamber to improve your thrust and specific impulse figures while not cracking itself. Boron is a pretty good starting material for that, though it's limited due to its low melting point and usually requires regenerative cooling to work.
Chemical engines are actually harder to create as you can't just rely on increasing mass flow rate to cool the engine down.
|
|
|
Post by RA2lover on Oct 2, 2016 11:02:47 GMT
Definitely. There's no mention of the generation of the core processors being used, but even Nehalem or Westmere(which seems to be the case as newer i5s use 4 physical cores but have hyperthreading disabled) should be able to run the game. I can't exactly tell but it seems like you're running an i5-650 here?
Also, desktops tend to be more powerful than a laptop can, simply because they have so much power available to them. The 960M, for example, only has about half the performance the 280 can achieve assuming the game you're trying to run isn't gimped by gameworks(i'm pretty sure this game isn't).
I assume the laptop has a 6700HQ as Intel loves locking down non-S series processors.
In any case, assuming you're asking about the subleties of comparing the performance of these two computers, they excel at different tasks. Earlier intel CPUs are limited by IPC(though this isn't a massive problem for SISD-based programs from Sandy Bridge and later) and memory throughput(the 6700HQ is usually paired with DDR4@2133MHz whereas the 650 is limited to 1333MHz DDR3). The desktop still has a superior GPU though - Nvidia only stepped up their mobile GPU game with Pascal and the cheapest laptops with it at this point are at the $1350+ range. The lowest tier Pascal mobile GPU Nvidia has released so far, the GTX 1060, utterly destroys the 960M and manages to trade blows with a desktop-based 980.
Overall, this is mostly a CPU-intensive game, and the 6700HQ should be winning here due to better IPC - even in single-threaded performance. The only reason i can see for a possible slowdown is having the game run on integrated graphics.
|
|
|
Post by RA2lover on Oct 2, 2016 9:06:33 GMT
You forgot to type your message after quoting that post. Just sayin'.
|
|
|
Post by RA2lover on Oct 2, 2016 2:12:21 GMT
That's a broken cannon. Firing a 6.62kg slug at 8.54km/s leads to a total projectile kinetic energy of 241.4 MJ (or a continuous energy throughput of 581.7 MW), meaning this gun is has an energy efficiency of about 19400%.
|
|