|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Aug 30, 2018 6:45:41 GMT
Aren't our loading mechanisms presumed to be linear induction motors anyways? When you're using grains of sand, it would be pretty easy to get the projectile moving, and then us the barrel.
The thing about light micro projectiles is that they can usually, fairly easily be stopped by a particularly well designed armor scheme, which coincidentally happens to be an extremely poor armor scheme for any other type of larger projectile.
Take our standard 1-4mm railgun defeating armor, then try shooting at it with the stock 60mm or 33mm autocannon. The autocannon will shred the armor and destroy the ship.
The key issue is at which ranges you can actually take advantage of these. Railguns and coilguns significantly outclass standard guns in terms of practical ranges. Conventional guns, however can deliver literal tons of kinetic energy, but at the cost of much less reliability in hitting the mark.
If you're using a slug thrower, you want the thing to actually HIT where you point it at. That's primarily velocity doing that. Fire rate needs more mass, and therefore more ammo cost. The actual mass of the projectile seems to be an afterthought, but that's due to the way armor, especially for turrets works in this game.
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Aug 28, 2018 17:21:02 GMT
Composite armor is a science, you random mix of materials is rather sub-par, stuffed whipple shields with inner bulkheads and spall liners are better, I can get 5g @5km/2 in ten megawatts of power and 1-2 tons of mass, at max RoF My coilguns can throw 5kg rounds at nearly 10km/s and will shread 19cm of Beta Titanium, much stronger then A-Carbon, they also fire 5 rounds per a second You conspicuously omitted your coilgun's power reqs. Who needs to state power requirements? With the right capacitor, you can fire your gun on watts of power once every few weeks!
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Aug 28, 2018 3:15:39 GMT
Don't worry, staggering life support for each crew module for 10 seconds each is totally fine!
That's why all the doctors and engineers sit in one capsule, and the rest of the crew sit in the other.
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Aug 19, 2018 7:15:39 GMT
Last I looked it up, I'm fairly certain that regenerative cooling feeds some of the fuel through the engine bell, before finally feeding it through the injector. This helps to keep the engine bell cool, and prevent melting of the bell. You don't need to feed very much fuel through the bell to have a noticeable effect. If you overdo the regeneration, you might actually crack the bell due to the difference of temperature of the cryogenic fuel being passed basically adjacent to a flame on the other side of the pipe.
It's just generally a good idea to use it, since it won't up your mass cost, nor price, like it should be doing.
As for the bell itself, you do want the temperature flow chart to look like the way you currently have it if possible. Basically, if the temperature is in the red zone, you're effectively using the fuel expansion. Once it starts getting into the blue range, your fuel has essentially burnt out of it's effectiveness as at that point it's just kind of accumulating at the end of the bell before going into space. Making the bell too much longer will usually result in less efficiency for the mass, but you still might barely edge out a bit of velocity.
Increasing the thrust/mass ratio should deliver greater acceleration. It won't necessarily increase the DeltaV however, since you're pushing more mass.
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Aug 18, 2018 6:43:45 GMT
I'm moving towards dropping the gimbal entirely, but playing around with some Hydrogen Deuteride engine designs it looks like it's actually impossible to make an engine that's 10-20m in diameter like I want. I guess I'm stuck with packing a bunch of small engines together
Edit: Whew this engine design stuff is finnicky as heck.
Can I get some advice on maximal materials? It looks like the control rod HAS to be Titanium Diboride - absolutely nothing else will work(?), and the chamber wall HAS to be diamond likewise (unless I go with a cooler engine, which as I understand means guaranteed lower exhaust velocity).
And the absolute maximum exhaust velocity I can possibly get out of this engine is 9.55km/s because it's a function of the temperature and any higher is impossible with default materials?
My go-to control rod is Boron Carbide. You don't need much to actually create a sub/super critical range. I'm guessing the thing you're trying to do is get the hottest possible engine? It's not necessarily efficient depending on how fast you have the injector going. What I generally look for is high Acceleration, and high DeltaV. Exhaust velocity is just a useful byproduct stat for me. Especially since I like to use unconventional fuels, like Mercury, or with mods, heavy metals like lead.
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Aug 17, 2018 20:15:15 GMT
Nope, not unless it pushes your ship over one of the magic cross section thresholds I forgot the specifics for. Are the thresholds based on cross section or mass? I always assumed the latter. I could've sworn it was based on cross section. I've made some incredibly "dense" rockets, using modded liquid lead as a fuel for a NTR before. The crew requirement was notably small. A ship with 500 um spaced aluminium at 25 meters outside the ship does seem to need more command crew.
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Aug 17, 2018 7:05:02 GMT
does more fuel tanks require more crew ? Nope, not unless it pushes your ship over one of the magic cross section thresholds I forgot the specifics for.
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Aug 17, 2018 7:02:54 GMT
It still kind of is viable. Though I think it's been changed so you can't murder a gigawatt laser with a flashlight.
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Aug 17, 2018 0:23:52 GMT
I've learned to avoid anything that could represent a file structure in basically any workshop item I've over made. So you aren't allowed to use most symbols most of the time.
As I mentioned before, if it were possible for files to tie in steam ID to the modded item, it'd probably help alleviate some of the issues with duplicate items. I don't see why items aren't allowed to share the same name, assuming the mod author is differentiated.
We got a split for core/mod/self items, now I think one more fix would be able to split the mod folder by author.
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Aug 14, 2018 23:28:22 GMT
Cost optimization is arbitrary, yes.
Mass optimization is almost not optional. Granted mass optimization is dictated by the intended role of the ship in question.
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Aug 13, 2018 21:32:30 GMT
Not to be pedantic but wouldn't they be solar credits or maybe just.. credits? The entire game takes places within the solar system barring user made maps so they aren't really interstellar. As for your question they are calculated using solar-abundance, ease of transport/storage (that's why hydrogen is cheaper then deuterium), melting point (easier to forge), density, and other things which escape me. Carbon is fairly abundant in the solar system which is probably why diamond is so cheap (the game does not simulate manufacturing costs). Ooops... the icon in-game looks kinda like "IC" if I remember correctly.
How much is 1 credit?
You're talking about monetary value wise? Or, something else?
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Aug 13, 2018 0:46:34 GMT
Am I the only one who prefers the FTL soundtrack?
I find that the boss level theme works pretty great.
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Aug 11, 2018 6:05:10 GMT
You don't necessarily need an anti-spall layer, but if you're getting hit by a nuke or a large enough conventional HE payload, you're going to regret not having one. Reinforced Carbon is used commercially in actual space stations, including the ISS. Default ships use this because they're stock ships, not hyper-optimized like most of our ships. To be honest, ACC is a bit of a nebulous material. I presume it's just linked together carbon atoms, but I don't really get it. Coal, soot, and carbon freed from carbide compounds are all considered 'amorphous carbon' since the carbon atoms aren't all packed in close to each other (Graphite is mainly carbon atoms packed close together, Diamonds are squeezed together under extreme pressure to form dense crystals). Right now the only way to manufacture vast quantities of ACC is through chemical vapor deposition or sputtering of carbon onto a substrate, followed up by exposure to hydrogen gas to cap off the reactive ends to prevent oxidation from breaking the structure down. I understood that. I meant that the game's version of Amorphous Carbon is a bit random. The material properties are probably correct, except the tensile and general yields.
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Aug 10, 2018 19:13:29 GMT
Do I really need an anti-spalling layer if the armor is itself boron filament? Why even thinking about reinforced carbon-carbon if amorphous carbon has higher specific heat and is stronger? Why do default ships use it? CFRC is weaker than AC but is also less dense. What has the highest strength/density ratio between the two? You don't necessarily need an anti spall layer, but if youre getting hit by a nuke, or a large enough conventional HE payload, you're going to regret not having one. Reinforced Carbon is used commercially in actual space stations, including the ISS. Default ships use this because they're stock ships, not hyper optimized like most of our ships. To be honest, ACC is a bit of a nebulous material. I presume it's just linked together carbon atoms, but I don't really get it.
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Aug 9, 2018 19:53:49 GMT
Thanks everyone for replying. Please, if you think i could change something, tell me and EXPLAIN why i should. P.S. Why is diamond black in game? Diamond is black because it's transparent. The game doesn't model what things look like through other layers of stuff, so as a result, diamond (and to a lesser extent, water, or ice, also) comes out black.
|
|