|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Mar 28, 2017 23:11:02 GMT
I'm pretty sure Hafnia is defying the laws of physics somehow. Considering the vast difference between results given using it versus other materials makes me believe that some values on it's material properties are wrong somehow, similar to how magnetic glass was. Magnetic glass has properties as described in the game, and there are even better alloys (MMG-Fe, for example) in real life. The railgun/coil nerf was limiting acceleration based on the structural properties of a bullet, nothing at all to do with magnetic glass. Either way, I'm pretty sure other people in other threads have proven that something it mathematically wrong with Hafnia based capacitors. I'm not trying to say the material properties were incorrect (I was rushed in typing that out since I noticed I was going to be late for work), as much as I miss my Mm/s 90mm coilgun.
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Mar 28, 2017 18:29:53 GMT
I'm pretty sure Hafnia is defying the laws of physics somehow. Considering the vast difference between results given using it versus other materials makes me believe that some values on it's material properties are wrong somehow, similar to how magnetic glass was.
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Mar 27, 2017 6:28:06 GMT
I've just hit my 100th logged hour on steam today for this game, and damping is still a difficult one to figure out. Setting it too low leads to missiles doing corkscrews on the spot, too high and they don't track at all. Granted a lot of it can be mitigated by using a very small gimbal.
Pure pursuit means burn directly where the target is right now. It's not a bad one to go with, but most of the time it hits the tail end of the craft.
Indirect pursuit means burn to hit a distance ahead of the target. I'd say it's better to go with pure than this, but it still works, and leads to more centered impacts.
Proportional navigation makes the missile burn to match the acceleration of the target, and mixes it in with pure pursuit a bit, arguably better than Pure, especially for flak, not as important for pure nukes.
Augmented Proportional navigation tends to be a more consistent and even burn which also keeps track of where the target it likely going to be at the time of impact. Technically the most accurate method. I've used it for mostly everything at this point, though it could be a bit Delta V inefficient compared to a Pure navigation rocket coming close.
As far as I know, damping reduces the amount of guidance corrections used by the actual engine and missile, higher ratios leaning towards pure pursuit.
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Mar 23, 2017 18:56:54 GMT
Had to be done. 3600RPM of 1T slugs Needs droptanks. How are you supposed to zoom up and broadside a sum bitch (for King and country) with that little amount of dV? It's not about DeltaV, but acceleration (at least that's what I consider important). Also, I discovered the game forbids the shooting of crewed anything from cannons, railgun, or coils. I was supremely dissapointed...
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Mar 23, 2017 2:10:31 GMT
Apparently you are only allowed to shoot 5 ton projectiles. I was hoping for more. Either way, it makes an effective "boarding torpedo" gun, since it can fit most crew compartments into the barrel. The hard part is not killing anyone with the acceleration. Even with payloads? Also I like where your head's at with that boarding torpedo concept. Sorry, I have a tendency to miss label armeratures/sabot/projectiles with payloads. I was originally hoping to fire a Kiloton solid shot. I'm not sure about payloads yet, since I'm working late.
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Mar 23, 2017 1:58:12 GMT
That's no ship, its an orbital bombardment platform. Looks more to me like an enormous pancake delivery platform. Apparently you are only allowed to shoot 5 ton projectiles. I was hoping for more. Either way, it makes an effective "boarding torpedo" gun, since it can fit most crew compartments into the barrel. The hard part is not killing anyone with the acceleration.
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Mar 22, 2017 20:10:29 GMT
I got a bit bored of the conventional, conventional cannons, so I decided to make this. Switch to TNT with higher grain size to gain muzzle speed and lower cost I actually changed it over to Nitrocellulose and managed to shave off 4 meters from the barrel, and significantly reduced the grain size and still got the same speed. I forgot to get a screenshot of the new design though, and can't since I'm going to work...
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Mar 22, 2017 19:38:45 GMT
It's supprisingly useless AWESOME. That's no ship, its an orbital bombardment platform. I suppose so. Considering it can go through 20M of solid Vanadium Steel... assuming that the target doesn't move first.
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Mar 22, 2017 19:28:43 GMT
I got a bit bored of the conventional, conventional cannons, so I decided to make this. Which I then turned into this. It's supprisingly useless.
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Mar 22, 2017 3:38:51 GMT
I'm pretty sure that just means the loader is capable of loading the shot at the speed given, not necessarily the true fire rate.
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Mar 21, 2017 20:42:26 GMT
The document was written in September, and if I remember right, Magnetic Metal Coils were still defying the laws of physics at the time. So, partially, if he messed about with those, I can easily see where his conclusion of "kinetics beat everything" idea came from, if he bothered to tamper with the designers.
I also think that, while the stock designs may be "bloated" one thing that makes them sensible to draw real world conclusions from is the fact that every component isn't min-maxed down to the last single Kelvin of total meltdown, contrary to what I assume most of us on this forum typically do.
His comments on maneuverability isn't totally wrong, but that can easily be resolved by tweaking the gumballs on the rockets, or adding radial thrusters, which a select few of the stock ships have, but in most cases, they're fairly low thrust Resistojets.
I didn't really read through the whole article, but I skimmed through it, and can see why the guy made his "first impressions" as they are.
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Mar 14, 2017 7:01:27 GMT
With the advent of extruded turrets, is it a waste to out guns right at the front of a ship now? I continued testing of my super light manned patrol ship and found the frontal guns get stripped off too damn fast. And the sloped armor that was otherwise extremely good was penetrated through the hole in the front and fail. Nose gun on capital ship just sucks now. I very occasionally still use nose mounted guns, but typically only in the case that it's either a super accurate gun, such as a railgun in excess of 100 km range weapons, or the very occasional "derp" cannon which I've taken a liking to, which either fire a really big payload, such as a giant flak bomb, or sometimes a 2000mm shell. Extruded turrets do compliment very well though.
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Mar 13, 2017 0:25:22 GMT
I MAY have found a bug, possibly, in regards to combustion rockets powered with Nitrous Oxide. Regardless of how much I increase or decrease the pump speeds, the temperature doesn't change, nor does the exhaust velocity, but the thrust to mass ratio still goes up regardless. Is this a bug, or is it somehow accurate? As a result currently, the only limitations for a rocket of this type is the actual structural integrity of the components (and assuming you use a material with a melting point +913K). Edit: Apparently Hydrazine does this too. Edit 2: Also, it seems that anything that doesn't need a mixture ratio does not have a temperature increase or decrease, nor exhaust velocity change.
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Mar 12, 2017 18:59:53 GMT
Just a thought about the Raider. Wouldn't it be sensible to add something like a reasonably powered Resistojet to counteract the spin caused by a high torque projectile? I mean, I like your current redesign, but still, it'd use that excess power. Thing is that it no longer has the excess power really , I stripped the large reactor and placed a few small ones on its place. Also I already thought about it and it rotates amazingly fast for a ship - 3.88 seconds. I overpowered the engines. For some kind of reason however the AI doesn't do it immediately and first rolls to a specific angle and then turns. I have no idea why. I got that you knocked down the power a lot, which is why I like the idea. And your tweaks did make the ship sensibly better. For some reason I just felt it'd be a sort of good idea to keep the power source as it was (maybe it was a balancing factor for the campaigns?). I also think the specific rolling can be fixed with a manual override reorient command, but that is pretty inconvenient, and still sometimes rolls, then turns, probably a bug, maybe.
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Mar 12, 2017 18:50:25 GMT
Just a thought about the Raider. Wouldn't it be sensible to add something like a reasonably powered Resistojet to counteract the spin caused by a high torque projectile? I mean, I like your current redesign, but still, it'd use that excess power.
|
|