|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Mar 4, 2017 2:45:47 GMT
You could add a second or so stage. It should at least increase velocity by a quarter, assuming you don't break the barrel. Though that can be mitigated with barrel armor.
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Mar 3, 2017 22:41:20 GMT
Are you using capacitors? If so, you've got to watch the voltage and be mindful of how big said capacitor actually is, else the electronic shock often will detonate the barrels in the real world.
If you aren't, they work largely the same as before. Except that adding armor to the barrels help with thermals and accuracy.
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Mar 3, 2017 18:58:49 GMT
deltav little, low focus lasers kill enemy lasers REALLY FAST. What do you think about this new change. Is it more realistic than the old system? Better system or worse? I feel like it's better. Especially considering the AI knows how to counter the giant 10 meter radius lasers now. Most mirror materials are super easy to heat up and melt, especially compared to the armor most people use on the turrets. It is a lot more realistic (nobody here has yet mentioned that a near miss nuke now pretty much eliminates lasers entirely if they are firing). I feel like it's a much better system, now there's actual counters to lasers firing at you from megameters away.
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Mar 3, 2017 3:23:17 GMT
Isn't that the entire arc of fire possible? I tested it, and it fires fine facing forward along with the spinal mounted laser. We all know that 95 degrees is the new meta. What were you thinking? /s Looks good but you might want to look into that saturation. I've found oversaturating the coils actually helps achieve a greater shot velocity. I'm still learning the new maths behind how these things work, but from what i've seen so far, saturation is mostly irrelevant when it comes down to using capacitors. I get that it's probably incredibly inefficient, but it does keep the fire rate up. Edit, I found out I was using the Ferritic Steel, which satuates much faster, but seemingly hit harder. Iron significantly boosted the velocity, and hasn't yet saturated the coils, now the shot is just bordering breaking apart.
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Mar 3, 2017 1:35:40 GMT
you only have a 91 degree arc of fire, thats your problem Isn't that the entire arc of fire possible? I tested it, and it fires fine facing forward along with the spinal mounted laser.
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Mar 3, 2017 1:23:58 GMT
My first crack at making a coilgun that doesn't take a full second to reload, or overheat. I think I managed to do it, without massively going too high on the weight or cost of it too. It only weighs 26 tons compared to the hundreds of tons the stock guns are. It's just under a megacredit too.
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Mar 2, 2017 4:28:22 GMT
As much as it saddened me, I find the new changes to be significantly more balanced and physically correct. Especially now that my magnetic metal glass coilguns can't violate the laws of physics anymore. I has a coilgun capable of firing a 5M shell at speeds of 17 km/s. Now it can only fire at 120 m/s. Problem is that it also broke a few of my rail drones too, and I've now got to fix all the dependencies.
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Dec 29, 2016 4:37:08 GMT
Anyone have luck with VanChromeSteel? Medium weight and stong, probably could be good. It's pricy, but it does get the job done reasonably well. I tend to prefer Lithium or Calcium myself. I've had far better results using VanChrome as turret armor than anything else really.
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Dec 28, 2016 23:44:35 GMT
Something you may want to adjust is the gimbal range on the rocket engine until the turnabout time on the missile is something reasonable. I have found putting turnabout time as high as 1.0 second usually makes it stable. Dunno what the minimum is, ymmv. I've got a few missiles with 5 G acceleration values and turnabout times usually under a second and a half. Sometimes they still just don't want to fly relatively straight. I guess it depends on how much power the engine provides. (Sorry for double posting.)
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Dec 28, 2016 23:43:04 GMT
That makes some sense. So, the multiplier sets how quickly the missile swaps from pure to the navigation method? What I don't get is the difference between accelerated damping, and no burn damping. Does the missile still use deltaV when set to no burn? Either way, i'll try out your ratios and see how they work for me. I don't believe it swaps between the two guidance laws, but rather averages the two results. Admittedly, it can be hard to infer what is going on simply from observing a missile's maneuvers. The answer your second question depends on the guidance law chosen and the damping factor. The example I provided above will continue making short burns to correct for target movement, otherwise it will coast. That makes quite a lot more sense to me now. Technically if I set a damping factor to 0, it would be purely the navigation law. As for the second question, that also makes a lot more sense. Thanks for the help.
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Dec 28, 2016 4:53:21 GMT
That makes some sense. So, the multiplier sets how quickly the missile swaps from pure to the navigation method? What I don't get is the difference between accelerated damping, and no burn damping. Does the missile still use deltaV when set to no burn?
Either way, i'll try out your ratios and see how they work for me.
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Dec 28, 2016 2:34:02 GMT
I know exactly what Pure Pursuit (chase it directly till you either hit or miss, and turn around to point right at the target if you miss), and APN (adjust your course relative to the intended target's velocity) are, however, i've tried looking up Deviated Pursuit, and have yet to be able to find any reliable info on what it actually means, and due to my incompetence in setting the damping multiplier, i've just got rockets that spin out of control instead of point in the general direction of the target. Any advice on how to handle Damping? As well does anyone know what exactly Deviated Pursuit does? Deviated pursuit is supposed to be a variation on pure pursuit. Instead of aiming directly at the target, it aims in front of the target by a small, fixed angle. In practice it just causes my missiles to swing back and forth, apparently wishing they had been madeĀ into pendulums instead. As for damping, I don't know what to suggest, since that's going to depend on what you're trying to do. That makes sense. Would be nice to be able to set that angle. As for Damping, can you give me an idea on what exactly it is supposed to do? I set ratios similar to the defaults, but using different types of navigation. First one being a high speed pure. Second stage being nothing, and final stage using APN. All I got were missiles wishing they were tops on the first stage. Second stage went as expected (nothing happened) and the final stage made sense, usually hitting center of mass, but not before a whole bunch of missiles collided with each other first.
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Dec 27, 2016 20:31:09 GMT
I know exactly what Pure Pursuit (chase it directly till you either hit or miss, and turn around to point right at the target if you miss), and APN (adjust your course relative to the intended target's velocity) are, however, i've tried looking up Deviated Pursuit, and have yet to be able to find any reliable info on what it actually means, and due to my incompetence in setting the damping multiplier, i've just got rockets that spin out of control instead of point in the general direction of the target.
Any advice on how to handle Damping? As well does anyone know what exactly Deviated Pursuit does?
|
|