|
Post by omnipotentvoid on Oct 3, 2017 8:53:17 GMT
Just a small note: I've found that payloads are pretty useless for anything but anti missile/drone use. When a payload detonates, the rest of the missile simply vanishes. Since the missile itself generally weighs many times as much as the payload, the missile hitting a ship will generally do far more damage than the shrapnel from a flak warhead. As for nukes, small nukes aren't really capable of causing critical damage against anything other than non armored ships. Over all (as far as my testing shows), any flak missile has been more effective as a KKV and effective nukes tend to be fairly large an expensive. For small anti ship missiles KKVs are the way to go.
|
|
|
Post by omnipotentvoid on Oct 2, 2017 18:40:42 GMT
Nice coilgun cyborgleopard. I think you just revived long range nuke guns. (i.e. replace your flack with mini-nukes and flash the world!) Nukes don't detonate unless they have a controle module (from my testing).
|
|
|
Post by omnipotentvoid on Sept 28, 2017 17:00:42 GMT
In some circumstances (specifically: flybys planned using the flyby button in game that will usually start the engagement beyond 200km and ship to ship combat engagements over extreme ranges in which missiles are fired), missiles will burn all their fuel in a single burn. Once they start burning in these circumstances, they will not stop burning, regardless of forcing a phase or setting comand to hold. Only disabling the engines or disarming the guidance systems will stop the burn. This only appears to be an issue with high acceleration missiles.
|
|
|
Post by omnipotentvoid on Sept 27, 2017 17:34:53 GMT
You know, looking back my KKV wasn't realy up to scratch. For 414c, the 5.8cm of silica aerogel and 13.5Km/s of dV that the M5 Striker got, it didn't perform as well as it should have. And as there seems to be some new posts, I thought I'd post my latest design. So heres my newest moddel of micro-KKV, a true micro missile (as micro as they can get with a 1kg guidance package) derived form my current latest gen KKVs: RemoteControlModule Swarm test Copy Copy UsesCustomName true AspectRatio 8 HomingBehavior PropellantForBoostPhase_Percent 0.5 BoostPhase GuidanceLaw Augmented Proportional Navigation Accelerate true DampingEngineMultiplier 9.06 MidcoursePhase GuidanceLaw Augmented Proportional Navigation Accelerate false DampingEngineMultiplier 4.11 TerminalPhase GuidanceLaw Augmented Proportional Navigation Accelerate true DampingEngineMultiplier 2.03 IrradianceCutoff_Percent 0.092
CombustionRocketModule CLRM-F18.8/H1 M8 "Longneck" Mk1 2.5KM 5Km/s 1.3Kg0 UsesCustomName true Reaction Fluorine Hydrogen StoichiometricMixtureRatio 1 ThermalRocket ChamberComposition Diamond ThroatRadius_m 0.0049 ChamberWallThickness_m 0.0001 ChamberContractionRatio 4.5 NozzleExpansionRatio 120 NozzleExpansionAngle_degrees 9.8 RegenerativeCooling_Percent 1 Injector Composition Lithium PumpRadius_m 0.038 RotationalSpeed_RPM 66 Gimbal InnerRadius_m 0.055 ArmorComposition Graphite Aerogel ArmorThickness_m 0.0001 MomentumWheels Composition Lithium RotationalSpeed_RPM 9600 GimbalAngle_degrees 10
PropellantTankModule 500 g Hydrogen Tank UsesCustomName false Propellant Hydrogen StructureComposition Diamond ReactionMass_kg 0.5 HeightToRadiusRatio 3.1 AdditionalArmorThickness_m 0
PropellantTankModule 9.40 kg Fluorine Tank UsesCustomName false Propellant Fluorine StructureComposition Diamond ReactionMass_kg 9.4 HeightToRadiusRatio 9.7 AdditionalArmorThickness_m 0
SpacerModule 5.00 cm x 0 m Spacer UsesCustomName false Dimensions_m 0 0.05
CraftBlueprint KKV M11 Viper Micro Modules Swarm test Copy Copy 1 0 null 0 CLRM-F18.8/H1 M8 "Longneck" Mk1 2.5KM 5Km/s 1.3Kg0 1 0 null 0 500 g Hydrogen Tank 1 -0.5 null 0 9.40 kg Fluorine Tank 1 -0.25 null 0 5.00 cm x 0 m Spacer 1 1.7891 null 0 Armor ArmorLayers Spider Silk 0.0005 0 0.755 1 1 Graphite Aerogel 0.01 0 0 1 1 Silica Aerogel 0.001 0 0.33 1 1 Silica Aerogel 0.033 0 0.755 1 1
The first obvius improvement is price. At just under 30c this thing is dirt cheap and its 11.4kg mass isn't that high either. This allows for a more versetile deployment (which will probably have been obvious to everyone but me). The main advancements in the M11 over the M5 are the engine and the armor scheme. The engine is part of a newer generation of F/H chemical rockets, which have been optimized to 5Km/s exhaust velocity and around 1.3Kg 0. While no major developments have been made in the engine, the further optimization of these super light engines allow for this tiny missile to have 22.3g 0 wet and 165g 0 dry acceleration and a burn time of just under 20 seconds. Howerver, the major inovation in this latest generation of missiles is the armor scheme. The M5 was usually disabled when it turned (or jittered, as the homing algorithms would have it), exposing its unarmored (relatively speaking, all my missiles have a 1cm graphite aerogel layer to help against nukes) side and destroying the fueltanks or engine. The new genetation of missiles has a multi layer ablative layout, that use layers of silica aerogel that progressively cover less of the vehicle. This means that, even at relatively extreme angles (for an incoming missile, geting hit directly in the side by laser frigate at a right angle will still result in almost instant disabling), at least several layers must be penetrated in order to penetrate the armor. At the same time the frontal armor thickness is retained. The M11 has only 2 layers due to the way armor works in the game (the missile its based off of, the M10 Viper, has 5 1cm layers), but the new layout dramatically improves survivabilty. 10 of these will take out a missile frigate and 5 are enough for a gunship.
|
|
|
Post by omnipotentvoid on Sept 26, 2017 9:32:11 GMT
I'm almost disapointed, the situation was somewhat amusing.
|
|
|
Post by omnipotentvoid on Sept 25, 2017 20:15:01 GMT
What happened to deltaV anyway, I kinda missed the end of that debacle?
|
|
|
Post by omnipotentvoid on Sept 22, 2017 7:18:15 GMT
Does anyone know how much of a problem friction is with molecularly perfect manufacturing? As far as I'm aware, friction between most solids depends mostly on surface structure. With most of that gone, I'd imagine that there would be relatively little friction between rails and armature. Also, most of my 10km long 1%c guns have an acceleration time of less than 10ms. Any plasma hot enough to do significant damage to the projectile in that time will destroy the rails. Not to mention that the dynamics and thus heat transfer properties of plasma with a few dozen GA flowing through it differ significantly from just plain plasma of the temperature (im not really sure how, but I'm pretty sure more heat would be transferred into the rails than the armature).
|
|
|
Post by omnipotentvoid on Sept 22, 2017 7:00:58 GMT
At least the days of the 6 million percent efficient coilguns are over. The biggest violation of energy these days come from large nukes sacrificing most of their explosive energy to Satan, god, the ksp krakken, or whatever else they feel like at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by omnipotentvoid on Sept 21, 2017 9:05:51 GMT
As interesting as neutron bombs and radiation effects on electronics are, the actual damage models for nukes have to be fixed first. The most significant problem with nukes is that they are bugged so that large nukes do less damage per ton of explosive energy than small nukes. As far as I've been able to tell, any nuke beyond a few hundred tons of TNT is basically not worth using and I've gone over to using 100t TNT warheads, often launched as independent submunitions in order to increase survivability. Beyond that, if you really want to do damage to a ship with nukes there is currently a bug where you can phase detonating nukes through armor, allowing the full detonation to occur inside the armor.
|
|
|
Post by omnipotentvoid on Aug 10, 2017 11:50:05 GMT
Well, I've spent an unreasonable (unexpectadly so) amount of time over the last three days trying to accurately model the acceleration forces on railgun armatures. To do so, I assumed infinitely long rails of a square crossection of side length d through which the current I flows through with a constant distribution. I then tried to use the Biot-Savart law to calculate the magnetic field. The resulting solutions produced disproportionatly strong fields with rather odd scaling for d, despite having the expected form. Being unable to find a fault in the logic behind my formulation of the eqaution, I assumed that I was simply unable to solve the integral. To avoid the integral in the Biot-Savart law, I simplified the problem by looking at the square conductor as a collection if infinitely thin wires, for which the magnetic field is well known and then integrating over all these infentesimal wires. This integral again proved difficult for me to solve (apperantly I'm terrible at math and online integral calculators were producing conflicting results), though I was able to produce a solution that at least appeared reasonable even if the field had a somewhat unexpected form. I'll post pictures of my calculations as soon as I write them down in a form that is legible. Here are the results (note. cs-force means cross sectional force): And heres the python code for it, for anyone thats interested (warning: it's a mess): import math import matplotlib.pyplot as plt from mpl_toolkits.mplot3d import Axes3D from matplotlib import cm import numpy as np %matplotlib notebook fig1 = plt.figure() ax1 = fig1.add_subplot(111, projection='3d') plt.ticklabel_format(style='sci', axis='x', scilimits=(0,0)) plt.ticklabel_format(style='sci', axis='y', scilimits=(0,0)) plt.ticklabel_format(style='sci', axis='z', scilimits=(0,0))
fig2 = plt.figure() ax2 = fig2.add_subplot(111, projection='3d') plt.ticklabel_format(style='sci', axis='x', scilimits=(0,0)) plt.ticklabel_format(style='sci', axis='y', scilimits=(0,0)) plt.ticklabel_format(style='sci', axis='z', scilimits=(0,0))
n = 100 d=.002 I=1700 ForceTotal = 0 BTotal = 0 Mass = .003
#def BfieldFunction_WRONG1 (xs,ys,d): # y = ys # x=xs # # A1=((y-.5*d)/(x+1.5*d))+math.sqrt((((y-.5*d)/(x+1.5*d))**2)+1) # A2=((y+.5*d)/(x+1.5*d))+math.sqrt((((y+.5*d)/(x+1.5*d))**2)+1) # A3=((y-.5*d)/(x+.5*d))+math.sqrt((((y-.5*d)/(x+.5*d))**2)+1) # A4=((y+.5*d)/(x+.5*d))+math.sqrt((((y+.5*d)/(x+.5*d))**2)+1) # B1= ((((x+1.5*d)**2)*(.5*np.log(A1)+(((A1**4)-1)/(8*(A1**2))))-(.5*np.log(A2)+(((A2**4)-1)/(8*(A2**2)))))-(((x+.5*d)**2)*(.5*np.log(A3)+(((A3**4)-1)/(8*(A3**2))))-(.5*np.log(A4)+(((A4**4)-1)/(8*(A4**2)))))) # # C1=((y-.5*d)/(x-1.5*d))+math.sqrt((((y-.5*d)/(x-1.5*d))**2)+1) # C2=((y+.5*d)/(x-1.5*d))+math.sqrt((((y+.5*d)/(x-1.5*d))**2)+1) # C3=((y-.5*d)/(x-.5*d))+math.sqrt((((y-.5*d)/(x-.5*d))**2)+1) # C4=((y+.5*d)/(x-.5*d))+math.sqrt((((y+.5*d)/(x-.5*d))**2)+1) # B2= ((((x-1.5*d)**2)*(.5*np.log(C1)+(((C1**4)-1)/(8*(C1**2))))-(.5*np.log(C2)+(((C2**4)-1)/(8*(C2**2)))))-(((x-.5*d)**2)*(.5*np.log(C3)+(((C3**4)-1)/(8*(C3**2))))-(.5*np.log(C4)+(((C4**4)-1)/(8*(C4**2)))))) # # return -(B1+B2) # #def BfieldFunction_WRONG2 (xs,ys,ds): # a = xs # b = ys # d= ds # # B1 = (((3*d+2*a)**2*np.log(abs(math.sqrt(4*(0.5*d-b)**2+(3*d+2*a)**2)+2*0.5*d-2*b))-(d+2*a)**2*np.log(abs(math.sqrt(4*(0.5*d-b)**2+(d+2*a)**2)+2*0.5*d-2*b))+2*(0.5*d-b)*(math.sqrt(4*(0.5*d-b)**2+(3*d+2*a)**2)-math.sqrt(4*(0.5*d-b)**2+(d+2*a)**2)))/8)-(((3*d+2*a)**2*np.log(abs(math.sqrt(4*(-0.5*d-b)**2+(3*d+2*a)**2)+2*-0.5*d-2*b))-(d+2*a)**2*np.log(abs(math.sqrt(4*(-0.5*d-b)**2+(d+2*a)**2)+2*-0.5*d-2*b))+2*(-0.5*d-b)*(math.sqrt(4*(-0.5*d-b)**2+(3*d+2*a)**2)-math.sqrt(4*(-0.5*d-b)**2+(d+2*a)**2)))/8) # B2 = (((3*d-2*a)**2*np.log(abs(math.sqrt(4*(0.5*d-b)**2+(3*d-2*a)**2)+2*0.5*d-2*b))-(d-2*a)**2*np.log(abs(math.sqrt(4*(0.5*d-b)**2+(d-2*a)**2)+2*0.5*d-2*b))+2*(0.5*d-b)*(math.sqrt(4*(0.5*d-b)**2+(3*d-2*a)**2)-math.sqrt(4*(0.5*d-b)**2+(d-2*a)**2)))/8)-(((3*d-2*a)**2*np.log(abs(math.sqrt(4*(-0.5*d-b)**2+(3*d-2*a)**2)+2*-0.5*d-2*b))-(d-2*a)**2*np.log(abs(math.sqrt(4*(-0.5*d-b)**2+(d-2*a)**2)+2*-0.5*d-2*b))+2*(-0.5*d-b)*(math.sqrt(4*(-0.5*d-b)**2+(3*d-2*a)**2)-math.sqrt(4*(-0.5*d-b)**2+(d-2*a)**2)))/8) # return B1+B2
#candidate 2 def BfieldFunction_V1 (xs,ys,ds,I): a = xs b = ys d= ds B1 = (np.log(abs(math.sqrt(4*(0.5*d-b)**2+(d+2*a)**2)+2*0.5*d-2*b))-np.log(abs(math.sqrt(4*(0.5*d-b)**2+(3*d+2*a)**2)+2*0.5*d-2*b)))-(np.log(abs(math.sqrt(4*(-0.5*d-b)**2+(d+2*a)**2)+2*-0.5*d-2*b))-np.log(abs(math.sqrt(4*(-0.5*d-b)**2+(3*d+2*a)**2)+2*-0.5*d-2*b))) B2 = (np.log(abs(math.sqrt(4*(0.5*d-b)**2+(d-2*a)**2)+2*0.5*d-2*b))-np.log(abs(math.sqrt(4*(0.5*d-b)**2+(3*d-2*a)**2)+2*0.5*d-2*b)))-(np.log(abs(math.sqrt(4*(-0.5*d-b)**2+(d-2*a)**2)+2*-0.5*d-2*b))-np.log(abs(math.sqrt(4*(-0.5*d-b)**2+(3*d-2*a)**2)+2*-0.5*d-2*b))) return ((I*1.2566*(10**(-6)))/(4*math.pi*(d**2)))*(B1+B2)
def BfieldFunction_V2 (xs,ys,ds,I): a = xs b = ys d = ds B1 =((a*math.sqrt(((4*(0.5*d-b)**2)/((d+2*a)**2))+1)-a*math.sqrt(((4*(0.5*d-b)**2)/((3*d+2*a)**2))+1))/(0.5*d-b))-((a*math.sqrt(((4*(-0.5*d-b)**2)/((d+2*a)**2))+1)-a*math.sqrt(((4*(-0.5*d-b)**2)/((3*d+2*a)**2))+1))/(-0.5*d-b)) B2 =(-(a*math.sqrt(((4*(0.5*d-b)**2)/((d-2*a)**2))+1)-a*math.sqrt(((4*(0.5*d-b)**2)/((3*d-2*a)**2))+1))/(0.5*d-b))-(-(a*math.sqrt(((4*(-0.5*d-b)**2)/((d-2*a)**2))+1)-a*math.sqrt(((4*(-0.5*d-b)**2)/((3*d-2*a)**2))+1))/(-0.5*d-b)) return (-(I*1.2566*(10**(-6)))/(4*math.pi*(d**2)))*(B1+B2)
def BfieldFunction_V3 (xs,ys,ds,I): a = xs b = ys d = ds B1 =(((d+2*b)*np.log(4*(-1.5*d-a)**2+(d+2*b)**2)+(d-2*b)*np.log(4*(-1.5*d-a)**2+(d-2*b)**2)+4*(-1.5*d-a)*(math.atan((d+2*b)/(2*(-1.5*d-a)))+math.atan((d-2*b)/(2*(-1.5*d-a)))))/4)-(((d+2*b)*np.log(4*(-.5*d-a)**2+(d+2*b)**2)+(d-2*b)*np.log(4*(-.5*d-a)**2+(d-2*b)**2)+4*(-.5*d-a)*(math.atan((d+2*b)/(2*(-.5*d-a)))+math.atan((d-2*b)/(2*(-.5*d-a)))))/4) B2 =(((d+2*b)*np.log(4*(.5*d -a)**2+(d+2*b)**2)+(d-2*b)*np.log(4*( .5*d-a)**2+(d-2*b)**2)+4*( .5*d-a)*(math.atan((d+2*b)/(2*( .5*d-a)))+math.atan((d-2*b)/(2*( .5*d-a)))))/4)-(((d+2*b)*np.log(4*(1.5*d-a)**2+(d+2*b)**2)+(d-2*b)*np.log(4*(1.5*d-a)**2+(d-2*b)**2)+4*(1.5*d-a)*(math.atan((d+2*b)/(2*(1.5*d-a)))+math.atan((d-2*b)/(2*(1.5*d-a)))))/4) return ((I*1.2566*(10**(-6)))/(4*math.pi*(d**2)))*(B1-B2)
#candidate 1 def BfieldFunction_V4 (xs,ys,ds,I): a = xs b = ys d = ds B1 =(((.5*d-b)*(np.log(4*(.5*d-b)**2+(3*d+2*a)**2)-np.log(4*(.5*d-b)**2+(d+2*a)**2))+abs(3*d+2*a)*math.atan((2*(.5*d-b))/abs(3*d+2*a))-abs(d+2*a)*math.atan((2*(.5*d-b))/abs(d+2*a)))/2)-(((-.5*d-b)*(np.log(4*(-.5*d-b)**2+(3*d+2*a)**2)-np.log(4*(-.5*d-b)**2+(d+2*a)**2))+abs(3*d+2*a)*math.atan((2*(-.5*d-b))/abs(3*d+2*a))-abs(d+2*a)*math.atan((2*(-.5*d-b))/abs(d+2*a)))/2) B2 =(-((.5*d-b)*(np.log(4*(.5*d-b)**2+(3*d-2*a)**2)-np.log(4*(.5*d-b)**2+(d-2*a)**2))+abs(3*d-2*a)*math.atan((2*(.5*d-b))/abs(3*d-2*a))-abs(d-2*a)*math.atan((2*(.5*d-b))/abs(d-2*a)))/2)+(((-.5*d-b)*(np.log(4*(-.5*d-b)**2+(3*d-2*a)**2)-np.log(4*(-.5*d-b)**2+(d-2*a)**2))+abs(3*d-2*a)*math.atan((2*(-.5*d-b))/abs(3*d-2*a))-abs(d-2*a)*math.atan((2*(-.5*d-b))/abs(d-2*a)))/2) return ((I*1.2566*(10**(-6)))/(4*math.pi*(d**2)))*(B1-B2)
def ForceFunction_V1 (x,y,d,Is): I = Is return (I/n)*BfieldFunction_V1(x,y,d,I)
def ForceFunction_V2 (x,y,d,Is): I = Is return (I/n)*BfieldFunction_V2(x,y,d,I)
def ForceFunction_V3 (x,y,d,Is): I = Is return (I/n)*BfieldFunction_V3(x,y,d,I)
def ForceFunction_V4 (x,y,d,Is): I = Is return (I/n)*BfieldFunction_V4(x,y,d,I)
X = np.arange(-.49*d,.5*d,(1/n)*d) Y = np.arange(-.49*d,.5*d,(1/n)*d)
for y in Y: for x in X: ForceTotal = ForceTotal + ForceFunction_V4(x,y,d,I) ForceTotal = ForceTotal/((n-2)**2)
for y in Y: for x in X: BTotal = BTotal + BfieldFunction_V4(x,y,d,I) BTotal = BTotal/((n-2)**2) X, Y = np.meshgrid(X,Y)
z = np.array([ForceFunction_V4(x,y,d,I) for x,y in zip(np.ravel(X),np.ravel(Y))]) Z = z.reshape(X.shape)
zB = np.array([BfieldFunction_V4(x,y,d,I) for x,y in zip(np.ravel(X),np.ravel(Y))]) ZB = zB.reshape(X.shape)
ax1.plot_surface(X,Y,Z,cmap=cm.coolwarm) ax2.plot_surface(X,Y,ZB,cmap=cm.coolwarm) ax1.set_xlabel('x in m') ax1.set_ylabel('y in m') ax1.set_zlabel('CS-Force in N') ax2.set_xlabel('x in m') ax2.set_ylabel('y in m') ax2.set_zlabel('B-field in T') plt.show()
print('Side length of {}m, Current of {}A, Projectile Mass of {}kg, Center Field of {}T, average B-field of {}T, Total force of {}N and Acceleration of {}m/s^2'.format(d, I, Mass, BfieldFunction_V4(0,0,d,I), BTotal, ForceTotal, ForceTotal/Mass))
As far as the implications go: If armatures would be made to fit the force distribution in the armature, internal forces in the projectile would be severely reduced (perhaps almost totaly negated), allowing for much greater acceleration and thus higher velocities with shorter barrels, thus reducing weight and cost while increasing firepower.
|
|
|
Post by omnipotentvoid on Aug 6, 2017 8:13:33 GMT
Here's an assault rifle modeled after the m4, but with nuclear ammunition. Each round has the explosive power of just under 10kg of TnT. Comes with a 30 round magazine.
Weight:2.89Kg loaded Cost: 130c loaded
NuclearPayloadModule 9.50 t Boosted Fission Nuke UsesCustomName false CoreComposition U-233 ReflectorComposition Diamond SlowExplosive CombustionReaction Nitroglycerin DelayComposition Calcium DelayCompositionMassFraction 0.902 FastExplosive Octogen CoreMass_kg 0.001 Enrichment_Percent 0.97 HollowCoreRadius_m 0.001 InnerExplosiveWidth_m 0.001 FusionBoost Deuterium Tritium FusionFuelDensity_kg__m3 60 Detonator HardRange_km 1e-005 ActivationRange_km 4 MinimumRange_km 0 OverrideTimer_s 0 DelayedTrigger false TargetsShips true TargetsShots true
CraftBlueprint SM-BFN M06D.5/1 Mk1 Description Submunition Boosted fision nuke model 1 dimensions 9x17cm mark 1 Modules 9.50 t Boosted Fission Nuke 1 0.055584 null 0 Armor
ConventionalGunModule M4 Shooting mini nukes UsesCustomName true Barrel Composition Vanadium Chromium Steel Length_m 0.508 Thickness_m 0.0045 BarrelArmor Composition Vanadium Chromium Steel Thickness_m 0 Propellant Composition Nitrocellulose Mass_kg 0.0025 GrainRadius_m 0.0001 Projectile Composition Vanadium Chromium Steel BoreRadius_m 0.00556 Mass_kg 0.0035 Tracer null Payload SM-BFN M06D.5/1 Mk1 Loader PowerConsumption_W 1 ExternalMount true InternalMount false AttachedAmmoBay Capacity 30 Stacks 1 TargetsShips true TargetsShots true
EDIT: I shouldn't post with so little sleep, heres a real submision: Limits.txt was edited, weight: 4.06kg loaded with 30 rounds cost: 140 credits with 30 rounds As a side note, a black box power module was used to emulate the use of recoil to feed the next round. I will not accept the need for power in a system that could be purely mechanical. NuclearPayloadModule 9.50 mt Boosted Fission Nuke UsesCustomName false CoreComposition U-233 ReflectorComposition Diamond SlowExplosive CombustionReaction Nitroglycerin DelayComposition Calcium DelayCompositionMassFraction 0.902 FastExplosive Octogen CoreMass_kg 0.000001 Enrichment_Percent 0.97 HollowCoreRadius_m 0.001 InnerExplosiveWidth_m 0.001 FusionBoost Deuterium Tritium FusionFuelDensity_kg__m3 60 Detonator HardRange_km 1e-005 ActivationRange_km 4 MinimumRange_km 0 OverrideTimer_s 0 DelayedTrigger false TargetsShips true TargetsShots true
BlackBoxPowerModule recoil module 1w for conv canons PowerplantName ModelFileName Dimensions 0.001 0.001 Mass_kg 0.1 PrimaryComposition Vanadium Chromium Steel PowerProduction_W 1 Efficiency_Percent 1 Coolant Nitrogen OutletMassFlow_kg__s 0.001 OutletTemperature_K 300 RadiationHazard GammaRadiation_W 0 ThermalNeutronRadiation_W 0 FastNeutronRadiation_W 0
RemoteControlModule Swarm test UsesCustomName true AspectRatio 8 HomingBehavior PropellantForBoostPhase_Percent 0.14 BoostPhase GuidanceLaw Augmented Proportional Navigation Accelerate true DampingEngineMultiplier 1.04 MidcoursePhase GuidanceLaw Augmented Proportional Navigation Accelerate false DampingEngineMultiplier 2.55 TerminalPhase GuidanceLaw Augmented Proportional Navigation Accelerate true DampingEngineMultiplier 0.94 IrradianceCutoff_Percent 0.16
RadiatorModule 0.010x0.010 Diamond Radiator UsesCustomName false Composition Diamond PanelWidth_m 0.01 Height_m 0.01 Thickness_m 0.001 ArmorThickness_m 0.001 Panels 1 FrontTaper_radians 0 BackTaper_radians 0 SurfaceFinish null
CraftBlueprint SM-BFN M06D.5/1 Mk1 Description Submunition Boosted fision nuke model 1 dimensions 9x17cm mark 1 Modules 9.50 t Boosted Fission Nuke 1 0.055584 null 0 Armor
ConventionalGunModule M4 Shooting mini nukes 2 UsesCustomName true Barrel Composition Vanadium Chromium Steel Length_m 0.508 Thickness_m 0.0045 BarrelArmor Composition Vanadium Chromium Steel Thickness_m 0 Propellant Composition Nitrocellulose Mass_kg 0.0025 GrainRadius_m 0.0001 Projectile Composition Vanadium Chromium Steel BoreRadius_m 0.00556 Mass_kg 0.0035 Tracer null Payload SM-BFN M06D.5/1 Mk1 Loader PowerConsumption_W 1 ExternalMount true InternalMount false AttachedAmmoBay Capacity 30 Stacks 1 TargetsShips true TargetsShots true
CraftBlueprint M4 Space rifle Modules M4 Shooting mini nukes 2 1 0.19712 null 0 recoil module 1w for conv canons 1 0.57227 null 0 Swarm test 1 0.089646 null 0 0.010x0.010 Diamond Radiator 1 0 recoil module 1w for conv canons 0 Armor ArmorLayers Boron Filament 0.0005 0 0 1 1
|
|
|
Post by omnipotentvoid on Aug 2, 2017 20:48:31 GMT
Overmatching depends on impulse, respective to impact area. Basically, to deflect a round an impulse must be imparted into it. The same impulse is imparted to the armor. If the armor can't withstand it (for example, because there isn't enough armor mass to absorb the impulse without it traveling at hundreds of meters per second) it will simply fail to reflect the round. The impulse is dependant on mass and velocity. Since modern guns are usually limited between a few hundred m/s to about 2km/s, the only way to achieve significantly better overmatching is to increase mass, thus size and thus caliber of weapons. But if you get a coin to be fast enough, it will overmatch the frontal plate of a challenger 2 MBT. But overmatching is a geometric interaction between the diameter of a shell/shot and the thickness of an armored plate it's striking. And basically it says that a shot with diameter (basically length perpendicular to it's direction of travel) sufficiently larger than the raw thickness of the plate it's striking, offsets the benefits of angling that plate for greater effective thickness. Projectile speed doesn't matter with regards to overmatching. Also on the "getting a coin fast enough" You'll have to get a coin a fuck of a lot faster than you would a BB of the same thickness, as the coin interacts with a larger amount of armor, in spite of its greater mass. There's a reason why APCR, APDS, and APFSDS are vastly more effective against flat perpendicular plates, but will bounce against angled plates. Meanwhile, full caliber AP rounds might have precious little trouble getting through, despite them having lower "raw" penetration numbers, against a vertical plate. Looking at it from a physical perspective, overmatching looks to see if the armor can withstand the round bouncing off the armor. This is primarily a question of impulse and its transfer, or more specifically for the case of overmatching a it is a matter of mass, velocity and contact area. Since velocity in modern shells varies by at most ~3km/s and most modern armor piercing shells are within about 1km/s of eachother (meaning any other shell is no more than about twice as fast as any regarded shell), mass and contact area become the deciding factors as these can vary by factors of hundreds depending on shell material, size and geometry. Since the shape and material of any given shell type (say APCBC vs APFSDS) are relatively the same across all shells of that type, caliber becomes decicive. This logic only extends to the velocities of modern projectiles, because the force aplied to the armor is small enough and the speed of impact slow enough, that the armor can withstand initial impact and spread the impulse imparted to the surounding armor. As such, overmatching is achieved when the armor can not spread the impact force fast enough to continue absorbing the impulse of projectile in order to redirect it. To put it simply, overmatch is achieved when the it is easier for the projectile to pass through the armor, than to be redirected by it. The most obvious point where the idea of overmatching not being based on velocity breaks down is the point when the projectile travels faster than the speed of sound in the armor. At this point, the armor is, by definition of the speed of sound in a material, no longer capable of spreading out the force of the impact fast enough to stop the projectile. However I'm fairly sure that the point where overmatching becomes mainly a point of velocity is before that. Not that it realy matters, because most projectiles used in CoaDE far exceed the velocity of sound in any material that has ever been theorized about, let alone observed, by humanity. At an impact velocity in the hundreds of km/s, even tungsten carbide will act more like a liquid than anything else.
|
|
|
Post by omnipotentvoid on Aug 2, 2017 16:20:26 GMT
So wait, does the game actually respect projectile length vs penetration depth? Is firing needles instead of coins actually better at penetrating? Even more than that, does it respect overmatching of armor? (Though I doubt the coins a lot of people's guns are firing can really overmatch any angled armor IRL) Overmatching depends on impulse, respective to impact area. Basically, to deflect a round an impulse must be imparted into it. The same impulse is imparted to the armor. If the armor can't withstand it (for example, because there isn't enough armor mass to absorb the impulse without it traveling at hundreds of meters per second) it will simply fail to reflect the round. The impulse is dependant on mass and velocity. Since modern guns are usually limited between a few hundred m/s to about 2km/s, the only way to achieve significantly better overmatching is to increase mass, thus size and thus caliber of weapons. But if you get a coin to be fast enough, it will overmatch the frontal plate of a challenger 2 MBT.
|
|
|
Post by omnipotentvoid on Aug 1, 2017 20:16:24 GMT
Yeah, I did a dumb on reading the armor model (I'm working in the outdoor section of the store today, and it's 105 F here). What was the projectile made of, and did the bounce impart a significant spin to the target? Graphene, tensile strength modified to 2.6TPa to account for railgun armature shape. But thats still more than an order of magnitude below the impact pressure. As for spin, non that I can tell. But the target does weigh 3.81MT vs the 1g projectile, so I wouldn't expect it to.
|
|
|
Post by omnipotentvoid on Aug 1, 2017 20:05:01 GMT
Excuse me for asking, but which version of the game was this tested in, because you've still got 10 m of boron in there. Is that the old "lord boron" or is it the new boring boron? Regards I think cavitation is indeed modeled, I tested it on a 50 m space station with a few hundred kg steel shots, and the armor at least appeared to cavicate, and as well, spall the crew compartment, even though the shot had no possible way to penetrate the target. I also think that the outer layer of UHMPWE, due to the way that it fractures when bent may also concealing the result you are looking for with the way the armor is modeled in game. The armor was tested on the latest version, the boron is in there, because nothing ever reaches it, so I kind of forgot about it. As for cavitation being modelled, it isn't. A 1g projectile at 300km/s has the energy of roughly 10kg of tnt. This should rip a hole of at least a meter in diameter in a VCS plate depending on penetration depth if the projectile is absorbed. I believe that the game simply assumes the projectile is shocked into plasma and then expands to form holes (based on this blog post). This is why larger projectiles with the same energy would do more damage: theres more to be shocked into plasma. Cavitation may be impossible to modell though, so they may simply ignore it. Even if most of the projectile energy would be spent on cavitation rather than plasma. Also, the UHMPWE is the innermos layer of armor. I looked at the damage internally, there are still only pinpricks for damage.
|
|