|
Post by gedzilla on Aug 17, 2018 14:48:04 GMT
I want to post my entry for the low cost vesta overkill challenge at: 292kc, total mass is 70.3t It can clear the mission at gold and complete the mission within 10 minutes gameplay with drones to spare. it uses a thermoeletric generator to keep crew requirements down to 22 crew. I've uploaded it to the steam workshop here: steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1222650077video of the run is available below and on the workshop page. What happened to the enemy fleet? Why do they split? that was pretty cool. would you mind shareing the drone code ?
|
|
|
Post by gedzilla on Aug 17, 2018 14:35:43 GMT
By counter lasers, you mean more lasers? no, counter-laser are weaker, more numerous (for redundency), lasers, that fire up the stream of the enemy laser, to knock out its optics
|
|
|
Post by gedzilla on Aug 17, 2018 14:13:59 GMT
It's viable in the sense that fewer of higher power lasers are worse in basically every way than more of lower power lasers with the same turret, due to redundancy for defense and due to the ablation cap for offense. No, counter-lasers are not a thing; there was a bug for a short while where laser optics were disgustingly fragile, but that bug was fixed a long time ago. even if the optics were overly fragile, they should still, on the whole, be one of the most vulnerable components of the laser. Even if before it was to much, why are counter-lasers not a thing at all ?
|
|
|
Post by gedzilla on Aug 17, 2018 6:31:31 GMT
Dunno what I'm doing but snicked from everywhere: innermost 7.5mm para-aramid fiber 50mm boron filament 1000mm G. Aerogel 3mm aramid fiber 3mm tin 1mm diamond outermost It was aramid fiber innermost but I have a sever spall problem so changed it: Not a single damaged panel but lost armored methan tank inside. Otherwise it worked kinda well against stock ships. Not optimized obviously. Any idea? why tin and aramid fiber in the wipple shield ?
|
|
|
Post by gedzilla on Aug 17, 2018 6:28:25 GMT
Is defeating enemy lasers by knocking out their optics with your own lasers, still a viable tactic ?
If not, why not ?
|
|
|
Post by gedzilla on Aug 17, 2018 6:24:41 GMT
This is an issue I noticed quickly as well. Problem: I want a thick but short section on my spacecraft filled with fuel. First solution: Basically a spherical fuel tank. Turns out the mass of the fuel tank + fuel canceled out any delta-v gains entirely. Maybe even lost me some delta-v. Second solution: Look up the maximum circles I can pack into another circle - it turns out this is a big thing math nerds like to play with for some reason! Thanks math nerds. Success. Now I have 19 long but small radius fuel tanks where I once had 1. HUGE mass savings. I now do this for all fuel tanks. 19 is optimal (can't go higher in-game) but 7 is also good.
You will also notice that this circle packing works for anything you're trying to pack into a circle, including guns in the nose or engines, however you don't necessarily get mass savings it just lets you pack them into a smaller space.
To calculate how big the radius of your fuel tank should be, first find the radius of the larger circle you are going to pack your fuel tanks into. Next, multiply that large radius by the optimized circle packing ratio algorithm value thing (if you don't know, wolfram alpha has a circle packing algorithm which will tell you - how useful!) For example, if you intend to pack 7 fuel tanks into the bigger circle, you want each tank to be 0.333333x the radius of the radius of the larger circle. So if the big circle is 18m diameter (9r), you want 6m diameter (3r) fuel tanks. Maximize their height vs radius vs fuel ratio for the size constraints you are working with and then pack 7 fuel tanks in and voila. I honestly can't see any reason NOT to do this. Not only are the fuel tanks more mass efficient, but you have massive redundancies on account of 7 or 19 fuel tanks, making your craft much more resilient. It is, as far as I can tell, all upsides and no downsides - except perhaps in the case where you max out the ratio with fewer tanks, e.g. given a choice between 19 fuel tanks at a maximum fuel:mass ratio and 7 tanks ALSO at max fuel:mass ratio, you should save mass with the 7 tanks vs the 19. does more fuel tanks require more crew ?
|
|
|
Post by gedzilla on Aug 15, 2018 10:10:56 GMT
hmmm, good point. Still I don't think you can 100% rely on the remote recon anytime. Military itself is a huge bureaucracy, so you can expect every single nonsense of government stupidity. Let's say, an infantry on the line call for an emergency CAS, it has to go through the endless ladder of commands. The observing sats, the comms node, C4I systems are gonna be limited assets, can't oversee every single direction of the theater, so you have to ensure your admiral to get data link from it, unless you're the only ship in the battlefield. However, let's set the bureaucracy aside and say the recon system work as you said... As you don't put your strikers and bombers before you wipe out enemy AAs, they wouldn't put their fleet into a theater before they wipe out the observing sats. If observing sats are too many or too small to wipe out, then it would be a trench warfare like WW1: Nobody goes into other's territory not to be shredded. Inventing a space-tank would be hard, considering Dv offenders can't overwhelm defenders in mass. Missiles can be the solution. In the final stage, they can ditch their radiator and take advantage of insulated heatsink to avoid detection. Once you hide your heat trace, the old school stealth would work. If you can break the comms node of enemy fleet to disconnect the observing sats, the one sided radiator raiders are coming... Conclusion is that tactics and warfare are evolving, so you can't say just "there's no directional stealth in space". It depends, indeed. The stealth in space arguement has been ragimg for a LONG time, not just here, but in many places. If you really want the comprehemsive arguements on it tho, look up projectrho (atomic rockets website), stealth in space post. Its a long read, but good, and you will get the main arguements for both sides. (I personally believe that strategic stealth will be viable, but not tactical stealth)
|
|
|
Post by gedzilla on Aug 15, 2018 5:54:56 GMT
Made one that can kill a Gunship without suffering any significant damage. Losing nuke cannons is a benefit really, so the ship improves as a result of the fight! Good luck making one that uses the nuke cannon though, since the lasers instantly zap all nukes before they get anywhere close. You'd need to shoot the lasers off first, but at that point you've basically destroyed half the Gunship already so using nukes is basically worthless. The nuke cannons are housed in a separate nose cone that only holds drone ammo bin and refuelers, which should be empty by the time you enter combat anyway so nothing of value is in there. There's a second sharp nose behind that protecting the important bits, which means that no armor is lost over any vitals when the nuke cannons go off. The armor is thick enough to handle a Gunship firing on it basically indefinitely. I suffered no penetrations during the minute or so of my test run. The drones act as a nice distraction too, drawing fire from the autofire railguns and 60mm cannons that deal the actual damage. Using it is simple enough - pop out drones, burn about half the fuel, refuel drones, burn some more and enter combat with the drone fleet still attached to your Hiveship. Put drones on broadside, Hiveship on nose forward so it will stop spinning once the nuke cannons blow up. You should come in fast enough to get the 60mm cannons within firing range fairly soon. Once that happens the Gunship will be riddled with holes and you'll win. Design and combat test screenies: Design. The dv is a bit shit but you could add more droptanks if you really wanted to. This is enough to keep up with the drones anyway, so more won't be too helpful. Post-combat damage list: Post-combat Gunship view: Edit: design export: View AttachmentHow does that nose NOT snap off the second you do any manuevring ?
|
|
|
Post by gedzilla on Aug 14, 2018 6:28:05 GMT
Probably
|
|
|
Post by gedzilla on Aug 13, 2018 14:21:50 GMT
...stock components only.
and not really looking disturbingly like well-grounded accusations of sabotage and high treason. [/spoiler] [/div][/div][/quote] 😂😂😂😂
|
|
|
Post by gedzilla on Aug 13, 2018 8:33:55 GMT
A long time back, someone tested the stock ships against one another. The victor was the Gunship, with the second place going to Fleet Carrier if I remember correctly. Since then, updates have changed the ships, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Gunship is still in the top three, if not the best of the bunch. Well, obviously the gunship is the most powerful, but is it the most effective for its cost ? 1v1, a gunship will always beat a gunskiff, or say, corsair. But would a gunship beat 150MCs (cost of gunship) worth of gunskiffs, or corsairs ?
|
|
|
Post by gedzilla on Aug 13, 2018 6:10:32 GMT
Obviously the stock ships are quite shit, but RELATIVE to each other, which would you say is the most effective for its cost and mass ?
Which would you say has the best armor sceme ?
Which is the worst for its cost and mass ?
|
|
|
Post by gedzilla on Aug 13, 2018 4:30:53 GMT
Its a pretty weird choice, but while in combat try listening to 'Extreme Ways' by Moby
|
|
|
Post by gedzilla on Aug 12, 2018 14:21:46 GMT
Do you have any designes that actually benifit from non-clindrical armor ? If so, please share, and show why that shape is better than a cylinder. (P.s. hello again everyone) If you use MPDT's and a fairly dense propellant, you can place your propellant tanks next to your crew module in flattened hulls. I dont understand, u can do that anyway with external propellent tanks. What unique advantage does that shape offer ?
|
|
|
Post by gedzilla on Aug 12, 2018 12:38:32 GMT
Do you have any designes that actually benifit from non-clindrical armor ? If so, please share, and show why that shape is better than a cylinder.
(P.s. hello again everyone)
|
|