blkcandy
Junior Member
Burn complete. Crawling back to bed.
Posts: 78
|
Post by blkcandy on May 22, 2018 1:58:59 GMT
I don't expect a ship with such limitation to be cost effective. I mean you can only put on one weapon, on each ship, all must be crewed. I'm expecting the fleet cost to bloat.
And by big gun I meant in relative to the ship size. A ship designed to fit and fire just one weapon and no more.
And laser allowed. No turret though. So I don't know if it is even possible.
|
|
blkcandy
Junior Member
Burn complete. Crawling back to bed.
Posts: 78
|
Post by blkcandy on May 19, 2018 6:21:10 GMT
Hmm... Indeed, let's add a condition to ban missiles and drones. I want to see guns. Big,big guns.
|
|
blkcandy
Junior Member
Burn complete. Crawling back to bed.
Posts: 78
|
Post by blkcandy on May 18, 2018 3:10:19 GMT
I just thought up a new challenge. Clear vesta overkill with everything on the spine. You must only use ONE spinal weapon per ship, no missile nor drone allowed, and cannot have anything placed parallel to each other, except for the engine and radiator which you can have only two so you can rotate and retain the center of mass.
You may use unlimited number of ships and design as long as they follow the design rule. Score is based on the total cost spent clearing the mission. The cheapest win.
Current leaderboard: Vanilla: *No entry Modded: *No entry
|
|
blkcandy
Junior Member
Burn complete. Crawling back to bed.
Posts: 78
|
Post by blkcandy on Jul 20, 2017 4:57:54 GMT
Hmm, maybe we should make a challenge: the strongest non-lethal cannon!
Make a cannon (conventional, rail, coil.) that can deliver as much energy as possible without piercing a corvette armor!
|
|
blkcandy
Junior Member
Burn complete. Crawling back to bed.
Posts: 78
|
Post by blkcandy on Jul 18, 2017 0:57:06 GMT
If you successfully flyby the enemy engagement zone, the game should ignore the tragectory after the engagement.
I generally plot the course manually to get closest flyby distance I can and use auto flyby as final course correction for both ships and missiles.
Though be careful if you want to keep your fleet in orbit after the engagement. High speed flyby could throw you out of orbit, or down toward a giant chunk of rock.
|
|
blkcandy
Junior Member
Burn complete. Crawling back to bed.
Posts: 78
|
Post by blkcandy on May 7, 2017 9:19:22 GMT
I also use microflak railguns. My flaks are launched at 37km/s and explode into ~400 20mgs shrapnels. It can pierce through composite armor of graphene and 3-d graphene with repeated shots. Destroy turrets and radiators with a good hit.
Against stock design? It one shot everything as long as it hit in the right place. It can pierce from the flat nose, through internal modules, all the way out behind the ship. Even the favored gunship could not survive a direct hit frin the front.
|
|
blkcandy
Junior Member
Burn complete. Crawling back to bed.
Posts: 78
|
Post by blkcandy on May 6, 2017 10:16:34 GMT
Nope. The railguns are cold. But their barrels are thinner than the turret and their rails are zirconium coppers.
|
|
blkcandy
Junior Member
Burn complete. Crawling back to bed.
Posts: 78
|
Post by blkcandy on May 6, 2017 10:10:53 GMT
Never reallly tested aramid-fiber. Too expensive. I might try it later. Graphene has mad thermal properties though. My ships use aluminum over graphene as laser shield and it works really well.
|
|
blkcandy
Junior Member
Burn complete. Crawling back to bed.
Posts: 78
|
Post by blkcandy on May 6, 2017 10:02:31 GMT
Don't forget to consider the output power. Even if the laser is intense AF, it could be ineffective if its raw power is too low.
That aside, I am using 10cm graphene for both turret armor. Last a few seconds against 87/200MW laser fire from 500km though still too soon. Laser turrets somehow last longer despite using the same armor scheme. Might be because of the barrel. The barrel armor is only 3cm.
But graphene is a cheatish mod material.
My current solution is out laser them.
|
|
blkcandy
Junior Member
Burn complete. Crawling back to bed.
Posts: 78
|
Post by blkcandy on May 6, 2017 9:57:42 GMT
Possible. I have been having the same problem. Somehow my active laser turrets now last longer against laser than my railguns. I assume it is the barrel as both turrets has the same armor scheme.
|
|
blkcandy
Junior Member
Burn complete. Crawling back to bed.
Posts: 78
|
Post by blkcandy on May 6, 2017 6:42:16 GMT
To verify that:
Engine 1(6.73km/s 30.0MW Decane Resistojet) In-game exhaust velocity: 6.73km/s Thrust: 597kN Mass flow rate: 110kg/s Chamber Contraction Ratio: 1 Specific Impulse = (597kN)/(110kg/s) = 5.4727km/s (19.36% Error)
Engine 2(6.76km/s 30.0MW Decane Resistojet) In-game exhaust velocity: 6.76km/s (100.45% of Engine 1) Thrust: 745kN Mass flow rate: 110kg/s Chamber Contraction Ratio: 1000 Specific Impulse = (745kN)/(110kg/s) = 6.7727km/s (0.19% Error) (123.75% of engine 1)
Both engines are based on the same model. Only chamber contraction ratio, throat radius, and chamber thickness are adjusted.
Try those engines on 1kt tanker drone: Engine 1 dV = 55.1 km/s Engine 2 dV = 55.4 km/s (100.54% of Engine 1)
I think this should confirm your suspicion. There is something wrong with how the game calculate the effect of the chamber contraction ratio. And the game determine dV based on exhaust velocity regardless of the thrust per propellant specific impulse.
|
|
blkcandy
Junior Member
Burn complete. Crawling back to bed.
Posts: 78
|
Post by blkcandy on May 6, 2017 5:10:59 GMT
So I checked my engines:
Engline 1 (Decane NTR): In-game exhaust velocity: 6.76km/s Thrust: 20.2kN Mass flow rate: 2.99kg/s Impulse per propellant (Specific impulse) calculation: Thrust/mass = (20.2kN)/(2.99kg/s) = 6.7559kNs/kg = 6.7559km/s (0.06% error)
Engine 2 (Decane Resistojet): In-game exhaust velocity: 6.76km/s Thrust: 248kN Mass flow rate: 36.8kg/s Impulse per propellant (Specific impulse) calculation: Thrust/mass = (248kN)/(36.8kg/s) = 6.7391kNs/kg = 6.7391km/s (0.31%) Tested on 1kt unarmored tanker drone: Engine 1 dV: 67.2 km/s Engine 2 dV: 66.9 km/s
All errors looks very minor for me.
And for my larger engines which I am to lazy to slap on my tanker:
Engine 3 (Fluorine Hydrogen): In-game exhaust velocity: 5.15km/s Thrust: 1.78kN Mass flow rate: .345kg/s Impulse per propellant (Specific impulse) calculation: Thrust/mass = (1.78kN)/(.345kg/s) = 5.1594km/s (0.18%)
Engine 4 (Decane Resistojet): In-game exhaust velocity: 6.76km/s Thrust: 745kN Mass flow rate: 110kg/s Impulse per propellant (Specific impulse) calculation: Thrust/mass = (745kN)/(110kg/s) = 6.7727km/s (0.19%) Engine 5 (Decane MPD): In-game exhaust velocity: 210km/s Thrust: 391kN Mass flow rate: 1.86kg/s Impulse per propellant (Specific impulse) calculation: Thrust/mass = (391kN)/(1.86kg/s) = 210.2151km/s (0.10%) And stock engines: Engine 6 (Fluorine Hydrogen): In-game exhaust velocity: 4.92km/s Thrust: 887kN Mass flow rate: 206kg/s Impulse per propellant (Specific impulse) calculation: Thrust/mass = (887kN)/(206kg/s) = 4.3058km/s (12.484%)
Engine 7 (Hydrogen Deuteride NTR) In-game exhaust velocity: 9.10km/s Thrust: 1.09MN Mass flow rate: 133kg/s Impulse per propellant (Specific impulse) calculation: Thrust/mass = (1.09MN)/(133kg/s) = 8.1955km/s (9.9396%) Engine 8(Ammonia Resistojet) In-game exhaust velocity: 4.05km/s Thrust: 2.46kN Mass flow rate: .600kg/s Impulse per propellant (Specific impulse) calculation: Thrust/mass = (2.46kN)/(0.600kg/s) = 4.1km/s (1.23%) Engine 9(Helium MPD) In-game exhaust velocity: 24.3km/s Thrust: 172N Mass flow rate: 7.07g/s Impulse per propellant (Specific impulse) calculation: Thrust/mass = (172N)/(7.07g/s) = 24.3281km/s (0.46%)
The error of the engines I check are minor except for the 2 stock engines. I still cannot figured out why.
|
|
blkcandy
Junior Member
Burn complete. Crawling back to bed.
Posts: 78
|
Post by blkcandy on May 6, 2017 4:06:50 GMT
So let me try this:
Engine 1: In-game exhaust velocity: 6.18km/s (This should mean 6.18MNs impulse per ton propellant if this is the effective exhaust velocity.) Thrust: 8.09MN Mass flow rate: 1.59t/s Impulse per propellant (Specific impulse) calculation: If thrust = specific impulse (in ms) * mass flow rate specific impulse = thrust/mass flow rate = (8.09MN)/(1.59t/s) = 5.0881MNs/t = 5.0881km/s
Engine 2: In-game exhaust velocity: 6.18km/s Thrust: 8.65MN Mass flow rate: 1.41t/s Impulse per propellant (Specific impulse) calculation: Thrust/mass = (8.65MN)/(1.41t/s) = 6.1348MNs/t = 6.1348km/s
I honestly don't know why it doesn't match, but this could be the problem. Either we got this wrong, or the game got the thrust wrong, or it got the exhaust velocity wrong, or the exhaust velocity wasn't an effective exhaust velocity yet still mistakenly used in calculation.
|
|
blkcandy
Junior Member
Burn complete. Crawling back to bed.
Posts: 78
|
Post by blkcandy on May 6, 2017 3:06:17 GMT
Something like that.
The thrust impulse per ton propellant (specific impulse) of engine 2 is higher than engine 1, yet he got the same dV. goduranus calculated the specific impulse of both engines by using thrust(MN) divided by mass flow rate (Ton/seconds).
Now this impulse is pretty much the 'ability to change momentum'. 1Ns impulse gives 1Ns momentum or gives 1m/s dV for a mass of 1kg. Higher impulse = more dV.
In godurnus case: for every ton of propellant, engine 1 can creates an impulse of 5.07MN-second. Engine 2 can creates 6.31.
So, engine 2 should gives more dV, but it doesn't.
|
|
blkcandy
Junior Member
Burn complete. Crawling back to bed.
Posts: 78
|
Post by blkcandy on May 4, 2017 7:22:42 GMT
There is also me, playing this on a potato and really prefer to minimize the amount of units/projectiles in an engagement.
To be honest, the latest patch seems to consume much more processing resources with my microflak railguns than before. I used to love them. Still do. But I can't use them without turning the game into crashy slideshow now. My 1 kinetic capital drone with 3 microflak railguns against unarmed stationary(?) target lag even worse than 5 vs 5 gunships.
|
|