|
Post by deltav on Mar 6, 2017 2:58:39 GMT
No shit they are not kids telescopes but i don't think you know what you are talking about, real life lasers need multiple focusing and charging sections because of the efficiency problem. What i was editing was the emitter/turret specifically, yours uses far to many mirrors for the purpose, remember that every mirror is a heat gain and efficiency loss area, as no surface is 100% reflective each of those mirrors loses power and gains heat. Once you manage to focus the beam into the turret ball the less surfaces you need to get it out of the better, obviously you need the big aperture to adjust and focus it but outside of that its best not to mess with the light stream any more than needed. Your model still had the beam pumped in in a straight line so the focusing mirror moving it into the turret remains the same in both the only difference is that yours needed 7+ and mine needed 2-3. Once again this is a laser and efficiency counts. The profanity and aggressive language is disappointing. I think it would more helpful if we would research and share current laser turrets that are similar to ours and share diagrams of them. Check out this page on high energy laser directed energy weapons, and you'll see why the simple design with red won't work. scaruffi.blogspot.ca/2014/03/high-energy-laser-directed-energy.htmlAlso here is some pictures of the testing of the beam control systems used in real high energy laser directed energy systems and you can see the number of mirrors needed to direct the laser beam to the target is quite intricate.
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Mar 6, 2017 2:17:52 GMT
But if you cook the crew, you will cook the computers and data drives too. Maybe neutron grenades carried by the bots that I am sorry to say, eliminate people, but leave equipment intact. But heat is your enemy if you want data. Really I think less than lethal backed up with some arms makes the most sense. Flashbangs, dazzlers, bean bag rounds, rubber bullets, sand shot, ultrasonic disablers, etc all are very effective. Neutron Bombs are small scale nuclear weapons, 10Kt of TNT is what your looking at for a big Neutron Bomb Not exactly. It's not just a small nuke, but in a way a separate category of weapon. Kill the crew without breaking their stuff. That's what a neutron bomb is made for. It is designed to use the neutron flash as a lethal killer instead of using that to create an explosion. "A neutron bomb, officially termed as a type of Enhanced Radiation Weapon (ERW), is a low yield thermonuclear weapon designed to maximize lethal neutron radiation in the immediate vicinity of the blast while minimizing the physical power of the blast itself. The neutron release generated by a nuclear fusion reaction is intentionally allowed to escape the weapon, rather than being absorbed by its other components.[3] The neutron burst, which is used as the primary destructive action of the warhead, is able to penetrate enemy armor more effectively than a conventional warhead thus making it more lethal as a tactical weapon." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Mar 6, 2017 2:04:03 GMT
i think this is a little more reasonable and simplified im going off of reflector type telescopes i made as a kid More simplified? Yes. More reasonable? No. I started with this idea of just two mirrors very early on, but it won't work. 1. What you have here is a fixed mount, not a turret. Turrets cover up to 140 degrees. To have a turret instead of a fixed mount, multiple mirrors that are controlled by computer are needed, that can keep the beam at the correct angle as the turret rotates relative to the feed from the laser deep inside the ship. This has none. 2. Real laser systems are actually very complex and they have to be. These are not kid's telescopes. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Mar 6, 2017 0:43:43 GMT
Both gain medium and nonlinear crystals are well... crystals. Their efficiency is based on the quality of their construction which is now all artificial. Since COADE presupposes manufacturing of materials like diamond with perfect molecular structure, is 100% efficiency really a stretch?
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Mar 6, 2017 0:37:54 GMT
Easy Data is what the boarders are after, increasing the time it takes for them to reach the data means I can wreak more hard drives (not just wiping them but destroying them) and kill more intel officers and Admirals. If easy data is the goal then why board the crew module at all? Just shoot off the radiators and cook 'em. But if you cook the crew, you will cook the computers and data drives too. Maybe neutron grenades carried by the bots that I am sorry to say, eliminate people, but leave equipment intact. But heat is your enemy if you want data. Really I think less than lethal backed up with some arms makes the most sense. Flashbangs, dazzlers, bean bag rounds, rubber bullets, sand shot, ultrasonic disablers, etc all are very effective.
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Mar 6, 2017 0:33:06 GMT
The whole point of the breaching drone is to save one guy from death... But not just that, machines just do some jobs better than humans can. Regarding boarding a spaceship in hard vacuum, I can't see any job that a human can do better than well designed drone robots. Perhaps after all the action is over human officers might come over, but that's not boarding, that's exploitation and investigation of captured enemy equipment.
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Mar 6, 2017 0:23:15 GMT
Enderminion There is some weird intercept exploit on how COADE handles switching to combat mode. Someone here tried to tell me how to take advantage of it, but I wasn't interested, now I wished I would have paid attention just to know how it works. Apparently two of your fleets can be in the same orbit often very close to one another, but each one will be intercepted separately, and often times in illogical ways. I don't know if calling it a bug is appropriate, but there is a problem there.
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Mar 6, 2017 0:18:32 GMT
I'm also seeing poor trajectory anticipation and correction of aim. Wondering does "dodging prediction" have any effect on or off? Does that make any difference at all?
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Mar 6, 2017 0:15:14 GMT
Then you've got railgun techs who likely can be multiple system trained to service all railguns and probably would be somewhat competent on other weapon systems. Not to mention black box technologies that are not crew serviced. Drone is broken? Well it is dead weight until next port call. Some modules will have spare parts that are either kept on hand or on-demand manufactured at the machine shop from bulk stock. Replacing parts on a module is a trained skill but it might not be a specialty. Looking at crew a different way we can abstract a crewmember to not only be the fleshbag, but also the mass and volume of spare parts and equipment support that each module requires. So the game's two technicians might only be one technician who has two big and heavy toolboxes. It's true that someone who can service a coilgun should also be able to service a railgun and maybe even a cannon. But when it comes to drones and missiles, a nuclear missile is vastly different than a flak missile. Where we are so far (please anyone speak up if they disagree), is to eliminate missile techs, gunners and fly by wire pilots, and have the other techs do those jobs if needed. I guess we could eliminate drone techs too, but I don't know about that. Drones in general are alot more expensive, complex and are also reusable unlike missiles. It's clear that drones are expected to be reused or even retrived, after all, Stock Drone carriers have drone refueling ports standard. I think Qswitched intended to allow drones to be stowed after a mission, but hasn't gotten around to programming it yet. If so drones techs would be all the more important. I agree we need to cut, just I think we have to really be serious, and not whimsical about who we cut...About the idea that the game is counting not just people but their equipment, if so all bets are off. And we can't make any suggestions to the system at all . I'd like to think that isn't the case because it makes crew analysis almost impossible, since we have no data on what sorts of tools the crew use or their equipment.
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Mar 6, 2017 0:00:51 GMT
It cannot be based purely on dV. If you saw the Homecoming thread, the ship I used had 422 km/s dV and performed its mission in 2.5 months. That ship would be a pretty crazy outlier if it was just based on dV. Propellant tankers would also get shafted. My suggestion would be to have a slider in the ship editor to directly say how long a mission the ship is expected to run, and base the crew requirement on that slider. Yeah I think the slider is a logical idea. I was thinking something almost exactly like that. But there would have to be real consequences to that decision, with advantages and disadvantages. Maybe if you use the ship in sandbox or on a mission, and it runs longer than the time, you get a message, "Sorry your crew has starved to death." "Our condolences". Or perhaps if you get a certain amount of damage, even if you survive a battle, you get a message that your crew has died due to not having enough technical staff to fix onboard problems. Eventually I envision COADE as a more persistent world where bases can be built and last, and solar system wide theater war is a real thing. All of these considerations will mean much more then.
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Mar 5, 2017 23:47:58 GMT
There's the fact that a 200 gram chemical rocket uses the same amount of crew time as a 5-ton NTR. It'd be nice to scale those somewhat. The same with weapons; a 200kw laser system used solely for automated antimissile use needs little oversight, while a 10-stage missile-launching coilgun with a huge capacitor bank could need a lot more babysitting. Edit: Apparently there is scaling? If so, I've never noticed it. Please read my post at the beginning of the thread, there is scaling, in fact almost every crew position is scaled. If you have data I don't please send it, it could always be you know something I've missed. About the crew required for a chemical rocket being the same as a NTR, it's not true at all. Chemical Rockets only require .2 people per module, I'm assuming because they need less maintenance. NTRs require .7 per module, more than 3x the crew needed, and that makes sense. All the crew are scaled but they scaled based on different factors, and many of them are based on some kind of shift system. I think 3, 9 hour shifts like NASA Mission Control. There is 1 doctor per about 108 crew, but only 1 waste/water tech per command module. No matter how many flak missiles you have, you only need 1 fly by wire pilot for them, and 1 missile tech. Take the time to really delve into this if you are interested, but please take the time to focus on the data.
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Mar 5, 2017 23:34:13 GMT
I'm on par with that. I was countering a prior point about planning to have personnel for emergencies, at which time everyone pitches in. It seemed like someone was advocating for a dedicated, fully staffed damage control crew... Which seemed very wasteful to me. Figuring out the relationship between number of skilled folks and mission duration will be tricky, but that would be a step in the right direction. I don't think anyone here advocated for a dedicated fully staffed damage control crew. Only that we should have enough techs on our ship to handle emergencies with heavy damage, not just enough to deal with light and infrequent maintenance. I don't think anyone so far has asked for more crew, except Enderminion, he want space marines on board. But some have pointed out that we should be careful not to get rid of too many techs, but to cut elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Mar 5, 2017 23:28:44 GMT
Yeah that is what bothers me the most about the backstory to COADE. No matter how bad earth is, how can it be worse than the surface of Mercury or Venus? Why not just build domes and space stations right on/near Earth and Luna? Doesn't make any sense at all. Earth doesn't have to be quite as bad. Note that there are no lights on the night sides of Mercury and Venus. I'm not sure who thought a large shipbuilding industry deep inside Venus' gravity well was a good idea, but indeed the habitation of those planets looks to be purely orbital, as with Earth. I haven't noticed any lights on the night sides of any of the planets now that you mention it... You are right of course. Logical.
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Mar 5, 2017 16:51:56 GMT
Mission duration for a ship can be figured as a function of deltav and acceleration. Those 50 kms dv mpd ships with milligravity thrust are obviously going to be out "on patrol" much longer. This assumption is still rough, since a low dv ship can sit in a stable orbit indefinitely, but it still gives us an as-designed value as a basis for mission longevity. Also, for damage control, look at the doctrine that every submariner is a firefighter first. By training all crew members in rudimentary damage control, an incident or post-battle damage can be managed with only a few dedicated repairmen leading a whole-crew effort. I'm with you in spirit, I like the way you are thinking and what you have to say, just the last part loses me. You need all hands on deck, but you need guys who can field strip every part on the ships too, at least for ships that are designed to go on for 6 months plus. On earth, if you have to, in an emergency, a sub or carrier in trouble can get men and supplies to them within a day or even less by air. In COADE, depending on the situation, a damaged ship could be stuck out there with no help for quite a while. So I don't see trying to get rid too many of the techs. To me they may be more essential than some of the command staff. I guess my real question is... 1. We get rid of missile techs, gunners, fly by wire pilots, and train techs to do all those jobs when needed. 2. On short duration mission ships, you get less crew, maybe cut out almost everyone except a skeleton crew.What more do you want to cut?
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Mar 5, 2017 16:30:56 GMT
Lack of uranium is not a problem. Plenty of sunlight to collect, and a little Uranium will go a long way. Talking about intersystem exchange, a good model would be early America or Australia. At first much has to be shipped from "back home", but with time... Use your imagination. The point is to get started, and get money flowing in. With that money, comes people who want to sell stuff to you, and with that comes more and more complex levels of economics and integration. All the gold ever mined wouldn't fill two olympic sized swimming pools. If you can find an asteroid mining vein with even 1/8 of that, you'd be having so many people trying to find another one, it would be like a second 49er gold rush. The main problem really isn't anything to do with the outer solar system, but the cost of the initial investment to get profits flowing and basic infrastructure set up. At that point, the solar system is your oyster. But you need some sort of initial industry to kick start the economy and attract people to colonize the saturnian system , and the video think the exchange of the uranium and nitrogen within the moon of the system is that initial industry , which i think it is not economically viable. BTW i am going to sleep now , see you tomorrow~ It's the asteroid mining that is the initial industry since the asteroids are the gateway to the outer solar system anyway. Then this is used to leapfrog out from there in stages. The moon settlement is phase 2. Okay ttyl ;D Nice conversation.
|
|