|
Post by zorbeltuss on Feb 18, 2018 0:42:19 GMT
There are a lot of potentially cool materials that are neglected because "muh hoboships!" This is the part I have problems with, the term hoboship it's not the most smooth but well, the part 'because "muh hoboships!"' is just mocking other players however benign one can assume the term hoboship to be.
|
|
|
Post by zorbeltuss on Feb 17, 2018 15:41:49 GMT
Seriously, though, other than exploiting insane corner cases most folks on these boards probably play the game more as intended than myself. I'm just in for plausible space battles and cool ships. Still, I do hope to coax at least few into exploring both lower tech engineering (not relying on cheap and light multi-GW power) and what can be done with right, rather than cheap materials - I'm interested in the results. Well if you're trying to get other players to explore things that you are interested in how about avoiding things like: There are a lot of potentially cool materials that are neglected because "muh hoboships!", hell even RCCs main vice is that it's hideously expensive Insulting people is not a good way of convincing them to join you.
|
|
|
Post by zorbeltuss on Feb 16, 2018 16:02:57 GMT
The economy is by far the sketchiest part of COADE: - material pricing is often dubious - for example deuterium and hydrogen deuteride being cheaper than hydrogen is plain wrong and even with unlimited and precise additive manufacturing I doubt we will be able to layer bulk quantities of diamond we just can't now cheaper than RCC we can already produce in bulk quantities.
- Relative lack of engineering expenses is off as well - armour, which is just dumb layers of material is currently by far more expensive than precision made weapons and engines.
- Then there is the fact that economy is fluid - once there is sufficient demand for something that can be manufactured, someone will find a way to mass produce it cheaply, OTOH if the demand is for natural resource, it will get more expensive
Meanwhile, physics stays constant and I don't expect, say, osmium to suddenly get lighter if everyone starts using it to armour their ships. Physics reigns supreme, COADE is built with full reverence to this fact and we really should all be building featherweight ships rather than hoboships.
Just saying.
Your opinion of: "People who are not playing the game like me are wrong." has been noted.
|
|
|
Post by zorbeltuss on Jan 25, 2018 18:55:05 GMT
So I was fiddling with making a new reaction using hydrogen peroxide and I stumbled across that the activation energy in game of hydrogen peroxide was the same as the enthalpy of the reaction (disregarding the sign of course) at 196 kj/mol. This didn't seem right so after a bit of searching I found this link: chemed.chem.purdue.edu/demos/demosheets/19.6.html it indicates that the value should be more in line with 75 kj/mol without a catalyst or 49 kj/mol with a platinum catalyst (which would be likely in an engine but could be reserved for bipropellant mixtures to avoid tanks being a bit too explosive). I've tried to find more sources on the data but come up empty handed, however it's very unlikely that the enthalpy of the reaction would be the same as the activation energy as it would make a chain reaction in this basically unsustainable, which many accidents have prooven that it isn't.
|
|
|
Post by zorbeltuss on Jan 3, 2018 19:38:29 GMT
If that's not enough, you can put them in a liquid tank, and make them breathe an oxygenated liquid. Such liquids already exist, though they may not have been tried for that yet (not that current warplanes would need it). Perfluorodecalin, and other perfluorocarbons have a a big downside (and a few smaller that I will not bring up), it has roughly double the density of normal human tissue, more or less only reversing the strain of a high acceleration maneuver.
|
|
|
Post by zorbeltuss on Aug 10, 2017 13:11:18 GMT
Well, I couldn't actually fit ammo into my design, but I still made a Fat Man that otherwise abides by the rules. Individual nuke yield is 151t. It's actually a tweaked warhead from one of omnipotentvoid's missiles, mostly just because I really suck at designing good nukes. Both submissions are nice to have, though as you say the first one does not fully abide by the rules. I am however currently in a fight with bureaucracy which means that while I still intend to score submissions and such it will have to wait until the situation I'm in is atleast more resolved than it is now.
|
|
|
Post by zorbeltuss on Aug 10, 2017 8:04:17 GMT
I just noticed that you can't export items with : in it's name, the file name will be truncated at : and the file will be empty, this is at windows 10 on an NTFS drive. Could be nice to have a workaround or warning for that.
|
|
|
Post by zorbeltuss on Aug 5, 2017 20:25:07 GMT
So I've thought about it for a week now, what do you think of weapon categories and remove some of the score categories?
|
|
|
Post by zorbeltuss on Jul 27, 2017 7:31:24 GMT
I'd doubt it would get the most likes but I'm up to be proven wrong like always, I would have a range metric, but it is kind of hard to apply to missiles and blast launchers though I could cap that to the highest other weapon. The likes is the closest currently to actual combat metric. Edit: Also I'm not liking posts in this thread because I don't want to contaminate my numbers. The thing is that missiles and blast launchers are already not competitive given the scoring metrics. Missiles can't compete with a conventional gun that launches 1000 1 milicredit rounds per second. The way to somewhat balance this would be to weigh the metrics differently, but that seems like a tall order. Perhaps we could also add a kinetic energy per projectile (or per second) metric to rule out the potassium flakes I mentioned earlier. And yeah the post likes would be the only measure of effectiveness currently but it's not a very good one as people can like for many different reasons. Per second seems more reasonable since that means that lasers will not automatically lose, because that gives a result in watts, however, it instead seems to give an unfair advantage to nukes, that may be offset by the cost per shot and cost per unit of nuke launchers however, and how would I calculate fragmentation on this? I'm not saying I'm against it though, I'm just saying that I need more input from more people. So how would I judge fragmentation against this and is it okay that nukes would almost guaranteed be victorious in this category?
|
|
|
Post by zorbeltuss on Jul 26, 2017 21:07:18 GMT
The likes is the closest currently to actual combat metric. Edit: Also I'm not liking posts in this thread because I don't want to contaminate my numbers. Would it be counted if we like our own posts? Because we can do that... Well if you can do that then I'm assuming the minimum will be 1 like instead of 0 which will make no difference in scoring, unless someone makes a submission they do not like themselves and no one else likes it either. Edit: I will however make that clear in the main post, so that no one misses it.
|
|
|
Post by zorbeltuss on Jul 26, 2017 20:46:04 GMT
Is the weapon's effectiveness not measured? Because I imagine that a conventional cannon that shoots thousands of potassium flakes per second would win in all of the current objective metrics. I'd doubt it would get the most likes but I'm up to be proven wrong like always, I would have a range metric, but it is kind of hard to apply to missiles and blast launchers though I could cap that to the highest other weapon. The likes is the closest currently to actual combat metric. Edit: Also I'm not liking posts in this thread because I don't want to contaminate my numbers.
|
|
|
Post by zorbeltuss on Jul 26, 2017 20:31:01 GMT
No turret is desired/required and we have 3MW and 2m length to work with? Luxury! (Microdrones are my current area of research...) Are multiple-instance single submissions OK? I have a 16mm cannon that might fit multiple in that space alongside each other, and it'll definitely fit more than one of the 10.5mm gun. Hm, and the small railgun would fit... What's your scoring metric exactly? Multiples are allowed. Scores will be remapped to -10 to 10 and run through a sigmoid function, then the resulting -1 to 1 scale will be divided by two and have 0.5 added to it. Of course sustained fire will have to be capped since both lasers and some guns have a much longer sustained fire than a reasonable combat length for a drone and since it's rather hard to map a scale of 0 to infinity to -10 to 10 and have any reasonable results, I wont say the exact number it will be capped to since then all guns will probably have exactly that time of sustained fire but I can say it will be measured in seconds.
|
|
|
Post by zorbeltuss on Jul 26, 2017 18:02:08 GMT
wait what, sustained fire is a thing? well **** It's only a fifth of the score and multiple entries are allowed. I hope the other categories to be as hard on other weapon types though if it seems to weigh in too heavily I might revise or add more categories to the scoring.
|
|
|
Post by zorbeltuss on Jul 26, 2017 17:22:16 GMT
Actual in-game performance either in fps or kills of certain craft are not points you will be judged by, sustained fire will be but it's only a fifth of the final score, as is power usage, likes, cost per system and cost per shot. Needless to say, you can certainly submit insane weapons as long as they are not red flagged.
Limits.txt and modded will be their own categories (and I'm thinking of having two modded categories, one for semi-current tech and one for sci-fi so as to not judge carbon nanotubes and graphene against as fusion driven missiles and the like).
|
|
|
Post by zorbeltuss on Jul 26, 2017 15:55:27 GMT
most likely not what you had in mind, but it fits, so it ships, has four flak rockets but (extremly) low yield nukes and single KKV warheads are possible Rockets weren't my guess on the first submission, but as you say it fits and it's an internal weapons system so it was certainly one of the things I had in mind. ^^
|
|