|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Nov 24, 2018 20:12:18 GMT
Consider changing your turret placements. They provide unsloped ideal 90 degree impact surfaces for incoming fire. IIRC there was a way to create an armor bulge and hide the turret behind the bulge. There's also a glitch where you can emplace the turrets inside the armor nosecone and have the turrets stick out through the armor, lol. Mind if I see an example picture? My current solution is having 30cm vanadium chromium steel turret armor, and it appears to work but it's not the most mass efficient thing so if I could make it lighter that'd be great.
I'm having trouble picturing the described armor bulge, because the vcs layer which would protect the turrets from the intended projectile is under 1 meter of aerogel. The turrets are barely over 2 meters across, thanks to osmium momentum wheels, if the armor protruded enough for the vcs layer to protect the base of the turret I think it would obstruct the forward firing arch. I kind of like having the guns being able to angle down 4 degrees passed 0 over the frontal arch, so I guess I'd have to build some sort of additional sloped vcs ring over top of the existing armor? It's quite a lot harder to cheese the armor to do what it did before. Have you tried using Boron Fiber instead of VCS? It's much lighter than VCS, and is comparably as strong.
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Nov 24, 2018 3:45:55 GMT
My general armor scheme is similar to the above. I tend to use Aluminum or Tin instead of Magnesium, since I don't like the idea of it reacting to what it's being shot at by (though I don't think anyone shoots lithium or ice our of cannons these days).
I also add a very small layer of something "loose" behind the VCS layer in the off chance the armor does spall a bit, which can happen with hypervelocity guns, or conventional guns. I find a little bit of Para Aramid or spider silk can help a lot if you can afford the cost. You can usually get away with just armoring the nosecone too if price really is an issue.
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Nov 21, 2018 21:43:53 GMT
Why not just add the missiles themselves directly to the fleet? You're trying to test the volley versus a specific ship type right? I want to test a volley followed up by closing into guns range. The reason for using Instant Action here is that the AI can't do this from the orbital map.
Is there a way to make the ship start with no missiles in the magazines (to simulate them having been deployed)?
Not while actually emptying the magazines. You can set a launch cap. Depending on how heavy the missiles are it can make a difference though.
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Nov 21, 2018 21:00:46 GMT
Considering the engine bells of the rockets are usually the most durable part of the rocket, and the injector is usually flimsy in comparison, it wouldn't surprise me if the issue is due to the injector getting messed up.
However, isn't the injector almost always shielded by the bell itself?
Also. Have you tried this with multiple engine mounts on the same gimbal, and multiple independent engines?
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Nov 21, 2018 20:57:49 GMT
Why not just add the missiles themselves directly to the fleet? You're trying to test the volley versus a specific ship type right?
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Nov 8, 2018 6:32:39 GMT
Going back to the "mount the engines ventrally" thing. I did give that a try, and it did work overall. It turned quickly, and it dodged most shots relatively well for hypervelocity kinetic duels too. However, it had a few major issues.
First, I was forced to use chemical rockets, since he craft was heavily exposed to the radiation of any NTR I tried to use, and adding extra shielding to said NTR brought down the deltaV to an unacceptable level (for what I was doing). You can't add ventral radiation shields in this game, and they're cheaper, by a long shot than trying to actually use a decent neutron reflector.
Second, it required quite a lot of tinkering to actually get both engines in line, and balanced with center of mass. Fortunately both engines had a relatively high gimbal angle (I pretty much didn't armor the side with the engines) so it offset the imbalance, however minor it was.
Third, this format can cause problems with weapon targeting while dodging incoming shots, though I think that's more of a game issue than a real life issue. This really messed with any "nose mounted" guns I had, even if they had a turret.
I ended up using the ship in the conventional "broadside" manner, and it did overall very well, once you factor in that I had no armor on the back (double on the front), and the thing died to any remotely close nuke flash as a result.
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Nov 8, 2018 0:59:58 GMT
You can do a bit better than that with perfectly legal coilguns: My favorite part is that firing the thing sets it's temperature to absolute 0.
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Nov 7, 2018 19:04:44 GMT
Aand... my hard drive died... I turned off cloud sync because it tended to mess up the game, so that's gone... Edit: Turns out sync was on! I removed the turret, since it seemed largely pointless and counter productive for keeping the DeltaV to keep the drone on target. It also sucked up a TON of power. I'm aware the muzzle velocity is poor, but look at that projectile energy! The only issue I've got with it is that the cost of the cannon rivals the cost of most high power nuclear weapons.
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Nov 7, 2018 17:24:21 GMT
Cool, but how many meters of osmium are you trying to penetrate? I dig the efficient, low ammo capacity though. So far I've just tested it against stock ships. One shot, right now splits a gunship in half, assuming the round connects. Things with cheaper armor don't stand a chance.
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Nov 7, 2018 17:11:12 GMT
How big are those drones to pack such a big cannons in them? About the size of the vanilla 50 man crew module. Though half of that size is the cannon.
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Nov 7, 2018 6:01:18 GMT
1.12 MJ is a piddly amount of projectile energy to the cannon I made not too long ago.
It's a 500mm cannon, firing 5 total half ton carbon steel slugs.
I've put a small turret on it, stuck it onto the nose of a drone, and had those drones fired from a blast launcher.
Needless to say, when you get a high enough intercept speed, and avoid the counter battery, this thing anhilates anything it touches with its 300+ MJ of projectile energy.
I'm just gonna need time to remember to upload it tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Nov 4, 2018 18:46:38 GMT
Question: what's the small block behind the bullet and propellant in the blueprint of the gun? Also, what's barrel armour for? I don't have any on my guns, I just use one material for the entire barrel. Also, regarding hardness, I've found that's not always necessary. At least, I've been able to use Tungsten instead of Osmium and could probably use something softer still. I'm pretty sure the small block is the reinforcement of the barrel. It gets bigger if you use larger grains of propellant, or if you use extremely small grains. You should notice that the barrel base gets bigger and smaller based on the grain size. Tungsten is a perfectly fine projectile. Iron borders on not being useful enough, unless you actually want the round to shatter. Granted a few months ago I asked for a "riot gun" which shot rubber. It was surprisingly effective.
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Nov 4, 2018 3:09:36 GMT
I've been tinkering with my 1kg Autocannon design and applying some of the lessons learned from my ultralight ~500g total mass drone gun design. - Replaced the original chromium vanadium steel barrel with one made of high-grade carbon fiber epoxy composite to save weight.
- Switched barrel armor from diamond to boron nitride for improved heat transfer
- Changed the propellant from nitrocelluose to octogen to increase weapon efficiency.
End result reduced a 13 ton gun down to 3.64 tons.
I'm pretty sure carbon fiber epoxy is a "future tech" mod, but nonetheless, a good improvement. One question though, why not use a harder projectile. Iron is nice and all, but it shatters pretty easy against any actually tough bulkhead armor.
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Nov 3, 2018 3:09:58 GMT
Well, most systems run the game the same, save for those with lower spec processors, and systems with low end integrated cards.
I've got a fairly above average system, especially for it's age. Particularly for this game.
I've got an i7-4770 and a GTX 960. It runs great. The hard drive is quite old though, but that's not an issue for this game.
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Nov 2, 2018 2:25:04 GMT
I'm pretty sure it just uses max temperature for the whole radiator.
It would be neat if it used the formula, but it doesn't look like that's a thing currently.
|
|