|
Post by bdcarrillo on Nov 15, 2016 1:47:12 GMT
The reactor life complaint may tie into my request for batteries.
I'd also like to point out that blowback style conventional weapons may be in the future, so the one-shot request may be on the horizon.
|
|
|
Post by bdcarrillo on Nov 15, 2016 1:42:32 GMT
Survival in space demands pragmatism. Not chivalry. Pragmatism means if it's not practical to take prisoners, you do not. It means that the enemy will know that they are unlikely to be taken prisoner. Thoroughly agreed, however allowing an enemy to leave the battle after jettisoning munitions may be the most pragmatic solution as one does not risk facing an animal backed into the corner. I'd like to emphasize MAY.
|
|
|
Post by bdcarrillo on Nov 15, 2016 1:39:43 GMT
I think we'd outpace the capabilities of the game engine. I get the sense that we'd bump into hard limits related to crew survival. We can only pull so many G's, receive so much radiation, or endure so much heat. I consider that a unique field that hasn't been exploited yet.
|
|
|
Post by bdcarrillo on Nov 15, 2016 1:27:57 GMT
I like how we're negotiating and assuming the space geneva convention.
Currently we see board and seize or total annihilation. I don't think we've explored capitulation or surrender.
Surely a crew facing immnent destruction would signal that they yield, in a space-chivalrous manner. Or perhaps they'd take the more devious scorched space dogma... Who knows?
|
|
|
Post by bdcarrillo on Nov 15, 2016 1:18:07 GMT
Well, the laws of physics must be obeyed.
I prefer to watch the technological evolution that we're pushing through. Look at each of the common strategies and counters that are developed here... We're essentially beta testing space combat through trial, error, and sharing our ideas. We're clamoring for the developer to include new features so we can exploit eachother weaknesses and develop new techniques.
But, as I said, the laws must be obeyed.
|
|
|
Post by bdcarrillo on Nov 14, 2016 21:32:03 GMT
We sort of make some of those decisions already with the design factors that the game gives us...
Butttt....
Since material fatigue/degradation isn't modelled, we can't really build cheap disposable items.
A barrel either fractures from stress on the first shot, or never fractures. I can't imagine what it would take to incorporate a functional lifespan for objects.
|
|
|
Post by bdcarrillo on Nov 14, 2016 18:27:47 GMT
Vessels in general including missiles might benefit from staging to increase delta-v and acceleration from smaller, lighter final stages. Compare RIM67 or RIM156A and RIM66, which are similar terminal packages with and without a boost phase. Most other high performance SAMs are also two stage, often with 2 or three levels of boost/coast or sustain/boost in their solid propellant motor for the upper stage. A small manned capital vessel could also be given superior delta-v while retaining high performance main engines and no added weight and bulk for back up systems of higher efficiency by staging on, rather than being deployed with 'tanker' or support vessels. I made a similar observation here: childrenofadeadearth.boards.net/thread/440/request-batteries-stagingDidn't seem to draw much traction/attention
|
|
|
Post by bdcarrillo on Nov 14, 2016 14:45:08 GMT
Issues noted so far:
- guidance strategies seem to fail to compensate for the lateral velocity imparted by the launcher (verified with side vs nose mounted launchers)
- the underlying hard-coded assumption is that the terminal stage will make any required corrections, and will expend all remaining delta-v on acceleration. I feel that this approach is fundamentally flawed
- there's an unknown hard-coded precision for guidance, or allowable error (launch a missile with unguided mid/terminal)
- mid course corrections do not occur unless you accelerate during that phase
- a low impulse engine that allows an acceleration burn all the way to target is very accurate, but not viable for combat
Stuff that might fix these issues: - ability to set allowable error at each phase with hysteresis to reduce wiggles - max throttle and percent delta-v per phase - set a distance to enter terminal guidance, rather than computing one
|
|
|
Post by bdcarrillo on Nov 12, 2016 22:00:04 GMT
I'm still tinkering with the design and know that a CG shift is likely causing the weird tumble on terminal. I've had decent luck with half degree gimballing at minimum speed.
I did find a potential bug... Commanded missile launches with a 100% fuel burn on boost/mid flew just fine even past emptying their tanks, but automated launches constantly disabled themselved when they ran out of delta-v. This ocurred in the same combat.
Just for reference: Pursuit- straight at target Deviated pursuit- angle slightly ahead of target (hard coded angle unk) Proportional Navigation- adjusts based on difference in vectors to lead target Augmented Proportional Nav-PN with additional factors relating to correcting for target maneuvering
|
|
|
Post by bdcarrillo on Nov 12, 2016 3:13:49 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bdcarrillo on Nov 10, 2016 14:38:01 GMT
Try lowering trust. too much G or too quick turn time seem to be a problem. Unless you have a very anemic engine or very massive missile, your thrust to weight ratio (G) will always skyrocket on terminal. Either situation would likely result in a drastically slower missile that would get swatted like a fly on approach. Fast, durable, cheap... Pick two kinda situation.
|
|
|
Post by bdcarrillo on Nov 9, 2016 20:04:36 GMT
I still haven't achieved satisfactory/combat effective results.
Without a 10% mass fraction warhead I can achieve through-the-same-hole accuracy. Stick a payload on and it goes to rubbish on terminal. Tumbles, overcompensation, straight up misses on static targets.
Still having issues with mid-course corrections not occurring. I expect to see a nudge or two but nothing happens.
I'll put up a pic or two tonight of my test missile, if I can dial it in a bit better.
I also noticed that automatically fired missiles come out of the ship nose first (perpendicular) whereas commanded launches kick out parallel to the ship. Kinda seemed odd to me.
My other observation, so far, is that these guidance strategies aren't going to be a one size fits all; they'll likely need to be customized per missile.
|
|
|
Post by bdcarrillo on Nov 9, 2016 15:34:56 GMT
One key thing I discovered was that the homing success depends heavily on the missile cg and engine gimbal. I had many missiles tumble around at mid or terminal phases until fine tuning the missile itself. It seems like the remote control constantly overcompensates, regardless of settings. That's where I had to physically limit the missiles ability to respond.
I had a tough time figuring out the dampening... Wildly different ratios didn't seem to make obvious differences.
I did some reading on the homing techniques, which helped me figure out the different strategies. An in-game tooltip blurb would be good.
|
|
|
Post by bdcarrillo on Nov 8, 2016 17:08:33 GMT
Batteries would be a nice future addition.
It seems odd that our remote controls don't require one...
And I'd like to make reasonable drones with small conventional guns that don't require a massive rtg or radiators.
A basic gun and turret requires about 200 watts, easily achievable in a relatively light/compact form factor with modern technology.
Staging (primarily for missiles) would follow current technologies/practice for large SAMs. Whether we use it for terminal delta-v or cruising, I think it would have a very high utility factor in-game.
|
|
|
Post by bdcarrillo on Nov 8, 2016 16:14:52 GMT
Good point on rifling... Not technically necessary in space.
However, barrel friction still needs to be significant enough to promote increased pressures to get decent velocity.
Ie, a smoothbore mortar uses a very low projectile friction, but a high-speed (brisance?) explosive impulse to generate a relatively low muzzle velocity.
A typical gun requires the "backpressure" of the tight projectile fit (or high mass) to support complete combustion. This mass aspect appears to be partially modelled in game, but I rarely bump into incomplete combustion with sensible weapon builds.
|
|