|
Post by zorbeltuss on Jun 5, 2017 9:17:15 GMT
Physically feasible? Technologically feasible you mean I'd guess? Not now, probably not within a hundred years, in the long run probably though. I'd give a similar timeline for fusion power in general, though I feel like it's slightly less probable that we get fusion power in the long run than that tech could exist making the fourton feasible. Question, what good qualities does fourton fusion even have? It's lawson criterion is probably in the tens of thousands and would be very difficult with even far future tech. Better answer from Kerr, only thing I can add is that from side reactions and the main reaction a lot of useful products are created too. Edited because my language was awful in the post, I need to be better at writing >.<
|
|
|
Post by zorbeltuss on Jun 4, 2017 22:19:32 GMT
Not most promising as easiest or first, it's just that I think that when and if humanity feels that we collectively need fusion, fourtons will ultimately be what we settle for. Actually is hydrogen fusion really physically feasible to generate power? It 's just to hard to ignite hydrogen... Physically feasible? Technologically feasible you mean I'd guess? Not now, probably not within a hundred years, in the long run probably though. I'd give a similar timeline for fusion power in general, though I feel like it's slightly less probable that we get fusion power in the long run than that tech could exist making the fourton feasible.
|
|
|
Post by zorbeltuss on Jun 3, 2017 13:43:39 GMT
Not most promising as easiest or first, it's just that I think that when and if humanity feels that we collectively need fusion, fourtons will ultimately be what we settle for.
|
|
|
Post by zorbeltuss on Jun 3, 2017 0:51:44 GMT
Is there a common denominator between the armoring attempts? it does seem that both cost and weight varies quite a bit, are they chosen as common thickness people use or something like that?
|
|
|
Post by zorbeltuss on May 28, 2017 15:27:08 GMT
Just because why not.
|
|
|
Post by zorbeltuss on May 26, 2017 12:58:30 GMT
Apparently non explosive components are deleted immediately in the nuke goes off. That only happens if the non explosives are too close to the nuke.
|
|
|
Post by zorbeltuss on May 20, 2017 13:20:04 GMT
Ah, yep, they were gimballed, and you could see how it oscillates pretty badly as a result. I was over-estimating its ability to correct for its own thrust. I swapped in a non-gimballed NTR and some weaker chemical rockets. Then added some radiators for more of a cross-section. It's surprisingly effective now, if it hits just right. Nice, I'm glad I could help out.
|
|
|
Post by zorbeltuss on May 20, 2017 11:27:40 GMT
Why? Because they obliterate reality itself. ... They crash the game. Behold. My stupidest design ever. Given that it got worse when I tried to make them more accurate by adding more engines, it's safe to say that those decane NTRs (which guzzle fuel quickly to produce hideous thrust) are the problem. That acceleration. How effective are they as weapons? I have no idea, they've never actually hit anything I fired them at! Before the extra NTRs turned these into a guaranteed crash, it never hit even a stationary Gunship. I just then managed to score a kill on a Cargo Station by firing a swarm of twenty and got one single impact on the exposed crew compartment. Is it me or is there a serious problem with the targeting for faster missiles? Does anyone use pure KKVs and see good results from them? Can you honestly say there's any reason to not add a little explosive flak? By the way, these were originally supposed to be giant explosive-formed penetrator missiles, but I decided to see if I could make giant KKVs instead. It's not an optimized design, its "warhead" is just a chunk of osmium armor, I was messing around and find it amusing that I made a missile that can kill the game instantly but can't hit anything. Are the engines gimbaled? because that is usually the problem with missing high thrust missiles I find, every instant that the gimbals do not point in the right direction with a gimbal they are still accelerating and thereby reducing your accuracy rather than increasing it, other than that I'd assume that there is enough mass to kill anything without the osmium rods being there but that's just an inefficiency and not something that would cause it to miss.
|
|
|
Post by zorbeltuss on May 19, 2017 18:47:27 GMT
Children of a Dead Kerbin, instead of warnings and preventions of using components, things will fail catastrophically, also you will have portraits of the crew showing during combat. Children of a Vane Vectored Earth, I don't know much about you and the vane vectoring thread is the latest thread by you I found so this will have to do. You're on the right track, at least from the perspective of my posts on the forum, I've only suggested things (and requested mods) that have been in use by the aerospace industries for 50 years or more if I recall correctly.
|
|
|
Post by zorbeltuss on May 19, 2017 15:20:41 GMT
xenophon13 All art assets will be created using blender (I don't have too much to go off of). Children of a Dead Kerbin, instead of warnings and preventions of using components, things will fail catastrophically, also you will have portraits of the crew showing during combat.
|
|
|
Post by zorbeltuss on May 19, 2017 13:47:25 GMT
I still dont think so. Because you still get the slowdown if you focus on an empty sky. Except that the slowdown does go down if I do. Hence my graphics card is probably the bottleneck.
|
|
|
Post by zorbeltuss on May 19, 2017 11:26:18 GMT
Not likely unless this game engine is extremely inefficient at drawing stuff. I think its more likely that the simulation is slowing things down. Space sims are pretty much ideal fro gfx cards....no terrain rendering. Only models. And post processing for the engine exhausts of over 1000 engines in my test. And post processing takes quite a lot of horsepower.
|
|
|
Post by zorbeltuss on May 19, 2017 6:23:31 GMT
I assume you mean threads because the highest cored Ryzens out ATM are 8c/16t. Logical cores are how many threads are available, but yeah. Though just one being at 100% can be either the core amount, that my graphics is being a bottleneck or that the per thread performance is sufficiently strong. I'm leaning to that my graphics card is not capable to show 400 KKV at the same time, but I may be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by zorbeltuss on May 19, 2017 6:08:15 GMT
Does anyone have experience with CoADE on more than 4 cores ? I know its capable of pulling 100% on my 4 core CPU. On my Ryzen 7 it only goes 100% on a single core, but it seems to be using 7 cores during combat and sometimes up to 12 cores during loading. Edit: The Ryzen 7 line has 8 physical cores and 16 logical cores, might be good to say that too.
|
|
|
Post by zorbeltuss on May 11, 2017 17:25:47 GMT
KKVs kind of suck though, in my experience. The first one makes a small hole through the center of the radiators, and every subsequent missile goes through the same hole. They probably are a good answer to pointy ships that fight nose-on, though, since a KKV has a good chance of coring the ship if it hits from that aspect. Currently I feel that KKVs are the only ones that do not suck, but that is due to the game crashing if payloads go off.
|
|