|
Post by RiftandRend on May 21, 2020 1:48:23 GMT
The issue is likely too much perpendicular velocity during the intercept. Stock missiles lack the acceleration and delta-v to make corrections and fixed guns on drones are unable to track effectively. Try and get the perpendicular velocity as close to zero as you can.
|
|
|
Post by RiftandRend on Jan 31, 2019 3:16:29 GMT
BTW, our thing as a species is creativity. A computer, no matter how cleverly programmed, is still only a computer, that is a deterministic calculating machine. However complex, they will never have imagination. Starcraft II is a pretty well defined game, with fully known, static rules. Humans, on the other hand, can handle scenarios where rules change and/or are unknown. Not everybody can do it well, but that's what "the real world" ultimately is. Playing a game like Starcraft II is an important milestone, but it's still not anywhere near what a human can do, not to mention it seems to be imitating human behavior instead of going its own way (low APM counts are a dead giveaway, if it came up with "its own" strategies, it'd be milking its superiority in that area for everything it's worth). So I'll start wondering when it can play by using a camera pointed at the screen and a robotic manipulator for the mouse and keyboard. Because those are much harder problems than the game itself. The AI was 'imitating' human behavior because it was trained by viewing human replays. It's APM and other abilities were artificially limited, as making a micro-bot was not the goal of deep mind. If APM was unlimited, then it could easily beat anything with blink-stalker micro.
|
|
|
Post by RiftandRend on Nov 2, 2018 9:06:06 GMT
Build the flywheels to be freely rotating inside the ship. How would you maneuver without hitting the free floating flywheels inside the ship?
|
|
|
Post by RiftandRend on Oct 15, 2018 3:24:20 GMT
Energy storage systems generally have extremely low energy density compared to reactors. If more power is needed, the best solution is to increase power output rather than attempt to store excess energy.
|
|
|
Post by RiftandRend on Sept 9, 2018 8:53:06 GMT
I think so, but only if the cost of deuterium can be reduced by a factor of 10 or more. Hydrogen goes for 15 USD per kilo while 99.96% deuterium goes for about 130-700 USD per kilo.
|
|
|
Post by RiftandRend on Jul 2, 2018 2:53:41 GMT
MPDTs don't seem to be counted as engines. Ships using them exclusively can't move despite having delta V.
|
|
|
Post by RiftandRend on Jul 2, 2018 1:07:21 GMT
Magnificent!
|
|
|
Post by RiftandRend on Jun 2, 2018 10:37:16 GMT
I have no idea if this will work, but try changing bloom to '0' in the settings.
|
|
|
Post by RiftandRend on May 22, 2018 22:02:46 GMT
I find graphogel-boron filament layers to be very effective inner layers.
|
|
|
Post by RiftandRend on May 20, 2018 0:32:50 GMT
I added a Simple illustration.
|
|
|
Post by RiftandRend on May 19, 2018 23:35:37 GMT
Its irrelevant whether the polymer conducts when melted, as it should be left behind by the projectile as it moves down the barrel. Lubrication is not the main focus of this idea, only a possible side benefit. If it's going to lubricate, it'll also have to conduct. If it's not going to lubricate you'll be dumping a lot of energy into dragging around and heating a layer of liquid bogging your projectile down. OTOH dealing with core getting left behind shouldn't be that hard - make the core highly conductive. I wonder if it would be possible to quickly (and blindly) re-coat the rails with ablative metallic lubricant. A revolving, multibarrel assembly could then be a workable solution for heavy hitting railguns. I never said the core would not be conductive. If you read the post, I mentioned tungsten would make an acceptable candidate. The barrel of the proposed weapon tapers, which is intended to force sublimated jacket material off of the sides of the projectile.
|
|
|
Post by RiftandRend on May 18, 2018 0:18:36 GMT
Your conducting polymer is unlikely to keep conducting while melted. Alloy or ionic fluid should work better, but I'm not sure if meaningful lubrication at typical railgun velocities is even a thing and any energy losses will be turned into massive amounts of heat. Coilguns or plasma armatures anyone? Its irrelevant whether the polymer conducts when melted, as it should be left behind by the projectile as it moves down the barrel. Lubrication is not the main focus of this idea, only a possible side benefit.
|
|
|
Post by RiftandRend on May 18, 2018 0:15:49 GMT
You might also run into issues with the conductor leaving the barrel and leaving the heavier core behind. It doesn't sound like there's any mechanic to prevent this from happening. The core doesn't necessarily have to be denser, it's just what I had in mind when I came up with this.
|
|
|
Post by RiftandRend on May 16, 2018 8:11:13 GMT
Won't that super-heated plasma damage the barrel? Ideally the temperatures wouldn't far exceed the boiling point of the ablator jacket, but yes.
|
|
|
Post by RiftandRend on May 16, 2018 0:56:53 GMT
An issue with very high velocity railguns is barrel and projectile overheating due to friction. I may have a solution in the form of a new type of projectile. A core of high melting point material (eg. tungsten) encased in low melting point, conductive material (eg. lead or conductive polymer). As the projectile contacts the barrel, the outer layer will melt, preventing them temperature from far exceeding its melting point. As this layer melts and boils away, the projectiles diameter will shrink, necessitating a tapering barrel to maintain contact. The layer of material sublimating off of the outer layer should protect the system from overheating, and may reduce friction by acting as a lubricant. This should allow railguns to achieve a higher velocity before overheating destroys the projectile, but suffers inherent inefficiencies. This naturally has some issues, notably the energy inefficiency of accelerating material that will not be aimed at the target. Another potential issue is residue buildup on the inside of the barrel. Any thoughts?
|
|