|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Jan 28, 2020 3:43:35 GMT
Just something to note. Reactors in game have a requirement that they must be able to function for 6 whole months of nonstop use at max power. Reactors as mentioned also aren't just giant lumps of supercritical materials. Control rods specifically are there to prevent the whole thing from exploding. As for the new questions posed. 1. Reasonable temperatures for radiators will vary depending on who you ask, but in my opinion, it will be based on what the outer armor is, and how that refracts off this armor. Lower temperatures for something like Aluminum (the radiators on the ISS don't glow partially for this reason). 2. Reactors should have shielding, basically anything that is next to our unshielded reactors should be microwaved to death nearly immediately, especially high power ones. 3. The rail gun question depends on how big the projectile is, really. A well done whipple shield can effectively negate most of those pretty effectively. All you need is a reasonably dense metal and you're good to go. The six month limit annoys me when I want to build NTRs for missiles that have an operational duration of like 30 seconds to ten minutes. I mean I get why the limit is there, some missiles will last longer than 6 months depending on the mission.
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Jan 15, 2020 4:18:35 GMT
Just something to note. Reactors in game have a requirement that they must be able to function for 6 whole months of nonstop use at max power.
Reactors as mentioned also aren't just giant lumps of supercritical materials. Control rods specifically are there to prevent the whole thing from exploding.
As for the new questions posed.
1. Reasonable temperatures for radiators will vary depending on who you ask, but in my opinion, it will be based on what the outer armor is, and how that refracts off this armor. Lower temperatures for something like Aluminum (the radiators on the ISS don't glow partially for this reason). 2. Reactors should have shielding, basically anything that is next to our unshielded reactors should be microwaved to death nearly immediately, especially high power ones. 3. The rail gun question depends on how big the projectile is, really. A well done whipple shield can effectively negate most of those pretty effectively. All you need is a reasonably dense metal and you're good to go.
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Nov 8, 2019 6:20:28 GMT
The reccomend specs seem quite insane. An 11 GB graphics card is out of reach for most systems.
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Mar 21, 2019 22:29:12 GMT
[...] backing for whipple shield due to its high speed of sound [...] Can You please elaborate on this one? What does it mean armor-wise? Any reading regarding this particular quality of material? The Wikipedia article is pretty good. Speed of sound in an object can be used to determine how quickly a pressure wave travels through an object after the initial impact. It can also be used to determine the flex of the object as a result of the primary impact. Where this applies in CDE is the Shear effect, and that's what can contribute to the generation of spall. P.S. I'm still learning about the concept myself. What I said above might be complete nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Mar 12, 2019 8:57:46 GMT
I think it depends more on the persons involved and the tech you need.
In the case of CDE, you need a tech and an engineer for pretty much anything. It's fairly safe to assume you can roll those roles into one. With luck they might also know how to cook, so you'd shave off a bit more there.
I don't imagine you'll be able to get less than 8 people, safely at least, assuming you want two 12 hour shifts.
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Feb 17, 2019 1:10:17 GMT
I have typically found that smaller drones in large groups work better than large drones in many situations. So I created this railgun for use on my drones:
It is similar in power requirements to your original post, outperforms just about any conventional cannon on velocity alone, and is very light. Have you tried a similar size rail without the capacitor? I think it might actually work out a bit better in terms of fire rate and cost of the thing itself.
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Feb 16, 2019 7:40:22 GMT
Your turret can basically only ever go 180 degrees, assuming everything is perfect and the turret is extruded.
I don't have access to my PC to see the design, but you rarely ever need more than 360 degrees per second, so go light if you can and still keep a somewhat high speed. if you have less firing arc, go slower and lighter, or maybe even an actuator if it's cheap and light enough.
As for the loader, you only need to shoot enough to hit the thing. Making a singularity out of the loader usually isn't necessary.
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Jan 25, 2019 16:36:11 GMT
Wait a second. AFAIK 1 gram DU round can be set in stock game without limit editing. Why separate entity (rad.shield) is needed if 1g DU is 1g DU no matter how you look at it? Do you imply that the game thinks otherwise e.g. there's a bug? I'm 90% sure there is a bug. Payloads seem to ignore some of the physics when it comes down to actually impacting a spaceship. Like, as far as I'm aware, payloads don't shatter, they just penetrate as far as they can in one piece, then they get deleted. I'm also mostly sure that a payload won't bounce off armor.
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Jan 4, 2019 17:22:27 GMT
I still remember failing repeatedly to beat surface of giants. To this day I still remember my first time beating it... by throwing the tanker at the station instead of the missiles. Got a gold rating for it too! This sounds great. How did you manage to get it to hit? In my experience AI guidance does not work very well for ramming. I just went to the orbital map, once I ran out of missiles, then used the generous amount of Dv to put the tanker into the same orbit as the station... retrograde orbit.
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Jan 4, 2019 5:06:43 GMT
I still remember failing repeatedly to beat surface of giants.
To this day I still remember my first time beating it... by throwing the tanker at the station instead of the missiles.
Got a gold rating for it too!
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Dec 11, 2018 3:21:36 GMT
Possibly one to add on #3 should be. No fusion based engine can be intentionally pointed at any ship, else be subject to the laws of the treaty as though it was an attack by a warship? I like your idea, but how do you actually prove that the engine was intentionally pointed? "Lorecrafts a way out" Basically every ship has a computer doing most of the work, and ideally all ships would have a transponder. The engine can't gimbal to cover another ship with a running transponder, unless overridden for "emergencies". Term "emergency" is open to interpretation. Granted, most fusion ships should have at least one backup maneuvering system.
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Dec 10, 2018 20:20:15 GMT
Possibly one to add on #3 should be.
No fusion based engine can be intentionally pointed at any ship, else be subject to the laws of the treaty as though it was an attack by a warship?
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Nov 29, 2018 23:20:25 GMT
I gave it another try, this time with DU as the projectile. The result is marginally different. DU has the lowest tensile yield the current cannon will accept, anything lighter will shatter with the current configuration. Same entry size, of course. This one actually made a large visual "glow/burn" mark, where the last shot of diamond went through "cool", though for a clearer shot of the armor I let the ship sit after the fight, and went back in for the inspection. There are also significantly fewer holes on the backside of the craft, though some fragments bounced around to where the fuel storage is on the front. I think the spider silk actually saved the ship here. P.S. I just noticed that the chunk of diamond actually shattered out the ship on the last set of images and took the radiators with them too, so big difference.
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Nov 29, 2018 2:34:51 GMT
BTW: Has anyone ran any sorts of systematic tests with same gun and same mass projectiles, but built of different materials? Also, has anyone tested how projectile material effects change at different impact velocities (high velocity testing being difficult, because CGs and RGs are more fussy in regards to their bullet material than "can be made to fit in the barrel")? What about non-payload projectile aspect ratio (easiest to test with RG vs CG at high velocities and CG vs cannon at low ones) So I took the stock 60mm Turreted Cannon, reduced the projectile mass to 1g and added a test projectile as a payload (see attached) View AttachmentI tested the following materials, altering the propellant load so that the projectiles were traveling at the same velocity despite variations within the test projectile mass against 10cm of aluminum armor. - Osmium (as the non-modded material with the greatest yield strength)
- Aluminum
- Copper
- Lead
- Polyethylene
- Nitrile Rubber
All without failure of the projectile upon impact with the surface of the armor. Osmium showed damage to the other side of the armor after piercing, while lead and nitrile projectiles failed to make a visible impact after punching through the other armor layer. This leads me to think that the game really only checks to see what the size of the 'projectile' made in the weapon editor is for purposes of gas expansion stress, barrel deflection stress, and shattering of the projectile due to acceleration forces. IE 22.0kJ is 22.0kJ regardless of what the mechanical properties of the projectile are. I think that might be more of an issue with how the game handles payloads. I tend to get some different results with my cannon when it fires standard projectiles of different types. The hard part is dealing with the mechanical stresses, as mentioned to get the same type of result out of the gun, and the issue of the ships themselves adding (or reducing) projectile velocities. Granted, this "snub nosed" gun I made can basically fire anything, as long as I lengthen the barrel, since the projectile gets longer for less dense projectiles.
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Nov 27, 2018 22:29:21 GMT
I've gone in and "Sawed Off" my barrels on the guns I showed here earlier. Ended up using the extra mass instead for a lightweight actuator turret. The muzzle velocity is halved, and the gun is set to just burn the propellant completely, and no more. I've sent 10 drones armed with it against the Hiveship, since it seems to have good armor, if it wasn't for the nuke cannon killing the ship (which actually didn't happen). These are the entry holes (though I think some of the shot broke apart and actually bounced out near the crew compartments). This is the back of it. Basically only one shot connected, and it still devastated the target, though I think it's because the target actually had TOO MUCH armor. 3 cm of RCC and 3 cm of silk. I also tried it against the solar lance and had good results. The gunship snipes all the drones pretty much immediately though, and I can't get 600 m/s to connect, even if the drones burn their 6 km/s Dv at it.
|
|