|
Post by svm420 on Mar 4, 2017 17:12:36 GMT
I think when we have a robust enough modding system in place we won't need "official" content as much. Look at what modding does for games like KSP and all the Elder Scroll games. The best parts of those games come from modders. I think opening the game up for the community is the best outcome for this game. We are many and Qswitched is only 1.
|
|
|
Post by svm420 on Mar 1, 2017 22:33:01 GMT
someusername6 Would you consider uploading your mod folder so we don't have to manually name or place files? Seems way easier to drop a folder with all the files already properly placed and named.
|
|
|
Post by svm420 on Jan 25, 2017 22:30:21 GMT
deltav The power that is used for propulsion is provided by the core built into the NTR. We have separate reactors just for ship power. Damn space ninjas....
|
|
|
Post by svm420 on Jan 16, 2017 15:38:19 GMT
I had thought of this when Ai battles were announced. After testing a bit I concluded the test must be a best of 5 or more since AI performs very differently based on the selected disposition. You have to have 1 AI set to aggressive or they will not try to intercept. So to get a fair test you have to have both be aggressive at least once if not 3 a piece to get a decent sample because AI does not perform very consistently.
|
|
|
Post by svm420 on Jan 15, 2017 15:55:54 GMT
|
|
|
Post by svm420 on Jan 15, 2017 1:02:46 GMT
...You do know there's a post your design thread for everything, right? Well this could be a complete ship only thread, and may not want or need to look at modules, nor share the design itself. Nothing wrong with that. Anyway what are those; pictures for ants!?
|
|
|
Post by svm420 on Jan 14, 2017 17:03:24 GMT
At 3Km you are hitting a 20um radius circle. The spot you are putting that much energy into is so tiny the effect is minuscule. Maximizing intensity doesn't a good laser make.
|
|
|
Post by svm420 on Jan 14, 2017 15:15:27 GMT
Meh, imo people are way overblowing the actual impact of the railgun/coilgun bug. It leads to much faster rate of fires than what should be possible, true, but in most cases that doesn't really help that much in time to kill. The big limiting factor on projectile weapons is still the projectile travel time to targets. Unless you are micro managing your guns manually 95% of your shots are wasted overkill shots. Assuming it takes 20 seconds to get your first shot to the target and 1 second of sustained fire to kill with a physics legit weapon. Having a 2x faster rate of fire (or really any higher multiplier) doesn't really impact your total TtK that much (21 sec vs 20.5 sec). And it causes you to consume 2x more ammo which are wasted in overkill. Yes, it will be nice when it gets fixed, and I would like it to be fixed but I don't think it is a big enough problem to require people to redesign with 3rd party calculators. You are underestimating the effect the bug can have by at least 3 orders of magnitude. Both guns use 100KW, but the 1.3MW gun uses more power to boost fire rate it still only uses 100KW through the solenoid. I can slap that on more drones than you can count and kill anything by hitting ignore range before they can even fire at me let alone the microdrones. The saturation fire from those drones is almost impossible to dodge. I literally can not make a ship capable of killing them all before they unleash death. So it makes the game boring when that is literally a win button.
|
|
|
Post by svm420 on Jan 13, 2017 17:46:00 GMT
That's nice, since I never allow my railguns to surpass the said limit. It think svm420 meant the gun posted by midnightdreary . His railgun is 1581% efficient. To bring it under 100%, reload time has to be 80 ms of higher. It would still have 750 RPM (as opposed to the current 12 000) which is not too bad. I think that The Astronomer knows that and they were agreeing that it would be a nice rule since they already follow it
|
|
|
Post by svm420 on Jan 13, 2017 15:18:07 GMT
How about a requirement to at least get coilguns and railguns to max 100% efficiency? Right now that gun up there is 15000% efficient. This challenge won't be much of one if you allow broken mechanics to be exploited. Just my 2c
|
|
|
Post by svm420 on Jan 11, 2017 20:42:12 GMT
Cadmium has a typo in it's entry. It has Ca for the element when it should be Cd. Correct entry below.
Material Cadmium Elements Cd ElementCount 1 Density_kg__m3 8650 YieldStrength_MPa 64 UltimateTensileStrength_MPa 78 YoungsModulus_GPa 50 ShearModulus_GPa 19 SpecificHeat_J__kg_K 231.465 MeltingPoint_K 594.22 BoilingPoint_K 1040 ThermalConductivity_W__m_K 96.6 ThermalExpansion__K 30.8e-6 Resistivity_Ohm_m 72.7-9 ThermoelectricSensitivity_V__K 2.5e-6 RoughnessCoefficient .5
|
|
|
Post by svm420 on Dec 21, 2016 15:36:35 GMT
Uhh how about less philosophy and more giant ships. :/
|
|
|
Post by svm420 on Dec 17, 2016 22:51:43 GMT
Awesome! Thanks for the update Qswitched! Ai vs AI is a awesome addition that should let us set up a halfway decent testing protocol for pitting each other designs against our own. qswitched Would a much closer zoom be possible, or an entirely free cam maybe? I want to be able to examine armor layers while in combat to gauge the effectiveness of each layer but it is hard to get the camera close enough.
|
|
|
Post by svm420 on Nov 30, 2016 16:26:45 GMT
So if that is correct there is no way to see the flak radius for projectiles traveling greater than 2.5km/s? If so that really stinks as I have a rail gun firing flak rounds at ~18km/s. So that why I ask. (Even kept it from having over 100% efficiency)
|
|
|
Post by svm420 on Nov 30, 2016 14:14:09 GMT
Would someone explain to me how I am supposed to interpret the graph for flak explosives. I just don't understand what the desired placement/start of the green line along the X axis is. What is the is the X-axis measuring the velocity of? What is the radius the Y-axis is measuring? I feel like I really missed something to be the only one not to understand it . Thanks
|
|