|
Post by RiftandRend on Nov 12, 2017 7:54:54 GMT
This is the best I've been able to come up with: It's a 1.15 GW 10 ton reactor with a rather low outlet temp of 1800k ,but an exceptional efficiency of 33.9% due to its Graphene/ Pyrolytic Carbon thermocouple. Its based off of the stock 542 MW reactor as I'm terrible at reactors for now. It only costs 178 Kc which is exceptionally cheap for a reactor of its power output as far as I can tell. Also only puts off 3.44 GW of heat which is also pretty low. What. Stock reactors only go up to 60.4 MW. Edit: Holy shit are graphene thermocouples good.
|
|
|
Post by RiftandRend on Nov 9, 2017 23:11:51 GMT
The mass and power requirements of the pumps may not be worth the performance. Our current lasers have negligible mass and fairly good efficiency with the questionable metal arc lamps and can operate @ ~2000K. I don't know if triple the efficiency and higher intensity is worth 80 times the mass.
|
|
|
Post by RiftandRend on Nov 6, 2017 19:25:40 GMT
What about using only the stock ships? What is the cheapest win there? Spamming patrol ships would probably be the most effective stock option. Adding in a carrier would also help distract enemy drone waves.
|
|
|
Post by RiftandRend on Nov 6, 2017 7:25:15 GMT
While nukes are good for splashing clouds of micro missiles they extremely ineffective for killing capital ships. Additionally, due to the large size of megaton nukes they are relatively easy targets for flak railguns. Heh! You should explain that to Admiral Voitenko! Her onslaughts of nuke waves have destroyed my whole fleet more times than I can recall What missiles. Strikers or devastators? If you have enough of the stock 13 MW 11mm railguns they should be no problem.
|
|
|
Post by RiftandRend on Nov 6, 2017 4:13:50 GMT
I'd like to see the most powerful nuke missile on the smallest missile. From eyeballing that curve thing in the nuke creation screen it seems like a large nuke should be able to wipe out everything in a fairly large radius. Slap one of those on a small enough missile (with enough dV) and "win button?" While nukes are good for splashing clouds of micro missiles they extremely ineffective for killing capital ships. Additionally, due to the large size of megaton nukes they are relatively easy targets for flak railguns.
|
|
|
Post by RiftandRend on Nov 1, 2017 19:26:58 GMT
Modern devices use lithium to create tritium in the bomb, circumventing the decay issue.
I wonder if modding in Lithium-6 Deuteride fusion boosting is possible.
|
|
|
Post by RiftandRend on Oct 31, 2017 5:04:40 GMT
What are blast launched missiles really good for? High speed launches without power. They are handy for launching sub-munitions on powerless drones or for flares, like on the stock ships.
|
|
|
Post by RiftandRend on Oct 30, 2017 23:53:04 GMT
110 km/s delta-V with 410 milligee acceleration!? How did you accomplish THAT!? That is the game being unhelpful. That ship likely has both NTRs and MPDTs. It is showing the highest Delta-V, coming from the MPDTs and the highest acceleration, from the NTRs.
|
|
|
Post by RiftandRend on Oct 30, 2017 18:36:04 GMT
Thanks treptoplax! Haven't played for a day or so, fiddling with work-like stuff . . . However, one thing you said that piqued my curiousity. You mentioned a space craft with a "a cone or pencil-shape with something resembling this but a hard cap on the exposed nose of a few cm of vanadium-chromium steel or reinforced carbon-carbon or diamond/AC would be my suggestion." What about a "Shield shape" on the nose which overlaps the diameter of the rest of the ship sufficiently that it "blocks" shots within a reasonable cone of straight on prograde? There are a few space ships in EVE Online, that have something about like this, been so long since I played I cannot even recall the "faction" name of the space ship designers/users . . . ah yes the Amarr! The space ship which most exemplifies this is the Avatar (shown at the end of this video, and which is preposterously enormous) but a couple of the smaller ones show the basic design to some extent. www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0O3Xl6a4wcI wonder if that is at all possible with this engine? As Witch said, the game doesn't calculate LOS for friendly shots, but does for enemy shots? So maybe this would work? Put a big "umbrella" of heavy armor on your nose and always use nose forward command in combat?? That armor scheme does work and is quite good. You could make the nose of your ship a very angled and armored cone, and then have no armor on the sides. Saves on mass and offers increased protection. Something like this should work well.
|
|
|
Post by RiftandRend on Oct 30, 2017 18:22:56 GMT
|
|
|
Post by RiftandRend on Oct 29, 2017 8:55:58 GMT
Prepare for a school of jellyfish
|
|
|
Post by RiftandRend on Oct 29, 2017 4:25:50 GMT
I would say the "Strider" experiment was a failure. Very high dV but very low acceleration is not an option for making a transit from Themis to Mars on a short time frame. I watched a couple Youtubes where guys were using the Methane and/or Hydrogen tankers and I was able to very closely match their trajectories using those craft. I was NOT able to match those trajectories using the Strider design I posted up above. Arrived much later and some manuevers just were not possible "Overwhelmed by gravity." I would guess that something in the 50 to 100 micro g is a minimum for a ships acceleration. What sort of acceleration did your ship have with only MPTDs?
|
|
|
Post by RiftandRend on Oct 29, 2017 1:20:09 GMT
Looks like LOX Methane might be a good choice for the "overdrive" system. Pushes the acceleration up into the 130 micro g ballpark which is on par with the stock "Passenger Liner." Knocks the "total burn time" down from like . . . 4 years to 25 minutes! but yeah . . . might work. Just gotta be on the ball with turning that LOX Methane thruster on ONLY when the additional acceleration is needed. What btw is the appropriate ratio of oxygen to methane? Gut intuition (and deep memory from Kerbal days) tells me 3 or 4 to 1 Lox : Methane so I guess that is what I'll cruise with for now: 10 t of Methane and 40 t of Lox You should see the appropriate chemical ratios while designing the combustion rocket. They should be somewhere on the left. The ideal ratio is 3.99 LOX to 1 methane.
|
|
|
Post by RiftandRend on Oct 28, 2017 21:04:41 GMT
I imagine most of the materials are going to be pointless to you if you still don't care about cost. Titanium is good for reaction wheels and pumps. Iron has applications for reaction wheels and chemical gun projectiles. Most of the steels are very cost ineffective, along with Beta Titanium. U-235 and Plutonium are admittedly novelties, along with RCC and Boron (rip). Gadolinium can be used for lightweight forcers in launchers. UHMWPE is the most cost and mass effective option for high power blast launchers. Most materials have some situation where they outperform everything else. These situations may be incredibly niche, but they do exist. UHMWPE is like 3x more expensive then boron fiber or Vanadium steel in blast launchers. cost is not something I thought about, thank you. Ahh, I meant to say UHMWPE Fiber. It seems like it is only the most mass effective, not cost effective.
|
|
|
Post by RiftandRend on Oct 28, 2017 18:58:08 GMT
wtf are you gonna use Iron or Titanium for when Steel (any type) and Beta Titanium are superior? U-235? Plutonium in general? RCC? Boron? Gadolinium? UHMWPE? etc. I imagine most of the materials are going to be pointless to you if you still don't care about cost. Titanium is good for reaction wheels and pumps. Iron has applications for reaction wheels and chemical gun projectiles. Most of the steels are very cost ineffective, along with Beta Titanium. U-235 and Plutonium are admittedly novelties, along with RCC and Boron (rip). Gadolinium can be used for lightweight forcers in launchers. Most materials have some situation where they outperform everything else. These situations may be incredibly niche, but they do exist.
|
|