Real barrels aren't made from monolithic materials, there's no options in-game for different forgings or heat treatment, or work hardening.
Modeling it as a uniform hardened steel barrel (say, as VCS steel) is equivalent to just specific parts being hardened by heat treatment as long as the other parts do not exceed their yield strength in real life. The stiffness of the steel does not change with temper, only its yield strength.
And hardness, and toughness. But as we aren't calculating endurance loads (heavens forbid, half the railguns in the game would rent themselves asunder in a short burst of fire if endurance were considered) and barrel wear doesn't exist (Also something that would be a much larger problem for railguns than conventional)... both of those tend to not matter quite so much. And they also don't seem to matter much for penetrating targets either at least as implimented. (Using hard tungsten projectiles doesn't seem to show any notably better performance over soft aluminum shots)
In a chemical gun, when firing, the barrel suffers from a phenomenon known as Barrel Whip, where the barrel does flex around due to the shockwave from the propellant exploding. In real-world small arms this can be seen at high frame rates, e.g. www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9ULBtsnkR0
There is a fairly well-established science to this, as pressure waves travelling through rigid materials is well understood. See more here: www.shootingsoftware.com/barrel.htm
If it's caused by whip stress, then why is it not referred to as whip stress?
Also, were that the case, why is it that I can't produce several real guns ingame, due to this stress? IRL barrel materials are generally subpar to the VCS we have to work with ingame, but yet the real barrels being significantly thinner than the ones we have ingame?
For example try making a very real 7.62x39 gun, .50 cal M2, or a flak 88, or a 5in or 8in US naval gun. With correct powder and shot, you can get real world performance within a few m/s of muzzle velocity. But then you error out on beam deflections stress because your wall thickness isn't high enough?
Unless you have a long list of guns with barrel total diameters more than 3x the bore diameter... while being made out of materials with yields in the 400-700MPa range as opposed to 5170MPa VCS.
In any kind of gun you make in the game, one of the limitations of "Beam deflection stress". Which as far as I'm aware, is the stress on a beam supported at 1 or more points, caused by loads across the beam (usually being caused by gravity)
This parameter makes 0 sense to me, in a 0g environment, if only considering the gun. When you bring in the ship accelerating, and turrets turning quickly... I could see it being a relevant statistic, as a long barrel begin whipped around at 20deg/s and brought to a sudden stop... could cause some deflection problems.
But when calculating forces on the gun by itself, there should be no notable forces trying to bend the barrel.
Timed fuses could be for non-proximity fused flak shells... but there's good reason why those went out of favor for proximity fused flak shells IRL.
Initially when I read them being added I thought they were going to be impact fused, but it would be the time delay after impact that they'd detonate (so you can have it explode on impact, or build a shell solid enough to make it through the outer armor, wait half a second, then go off, deeper in the ship probably inside of something more important)
This might have to be included in the explosive settings itself, since modules can't be linked AFAIK.
Radiators are linked to reactors, crew, launchers, and lasers; laser turrets are linked to laser cannons
So it could probably be done Sweet.
Thoughts suddenly abound of making an APHE round that has a small nuclear payload. Would be worthless to detonate anywhere near the target ship due to low yield. But setting it off just within the armor on the other hand.
TLDR. If the armor thickness of a layer of armor on a ship exceeds the actual diameter of the ship it's armoring... parts of the armor seem to intersect or something, and end up making the armor denser than it should be. Doesn't happen when the ship itself is thicker than the armor.
Was playing around with large conventional cannon shots. Noticed that 1 type of shot was severely overperforming compared to the others despite all of them being "equal" (same launch speed, same mass, same length).
Went to figure out why, noticed that 1 of the shots (Left in the attached image) was 7mm smaller in diameter than the other test projectiles.
Projectile is made up of a sub millimeter tungsten radiation shield that is ~70cm long, and has 1cm of tungsten armor on it to make up the bulk of its weight. As you can tell, it's actually denser than it should be compared to the shot on the right (purely a radiation shield. And it's dimensions/mass match up with what math says they should be).
Even a gun that fires 13 kg rods at a rapid rate takes forever to penetrate the modified Gunship when it's head-on, and only manages to do damage when hitting the sides.
Instead of a rod shaped projectile (best against a target perpendicular to the projectile's path), try something shorter and larger diameter but the same mass.
Another thought if sloping is really that much of a bother. Make large "explosive rounds" (ideally they'd travel until they were near the heavily sloped part of the armor and detonate throwing shrapnel at a better angle to penetrate the armor. Could possibly fudge it with blast launchers being fit to the projectile itself) IRL we do have some antitank warheads that do just this (although with a HEAT round, and the "explosion" only goes in 1 direction towards the armor, not the majority of it out into space)
And they told me close combat is not a thing in space...
As you can see from the engine exhausts, both ships are still active as well.
... is that an armor ring with some guns mounted on it?
I really didn't know you could do that. Don't really have the time to play around with it heavily, but it looks like you can keep them from interfering with radiators as long as they don't touch the center of the radiator. So one could possibly give some broadside protection to their radiator banks so that's actually quite interesting. But does the game track that this configuration would cause rampant heating problems for your radiators?
Step 1: Get Good at Drawing Step 2: Learn Japanese Step 3: Create a COADE Manga or light novel through Pixiv in Japanese Step 4: License that into a popular anime series in Japan Step 5: Have that anime dubbed into english so that it's popular in the west
I wonder what route the COADE manga/anime/visual novel/light novel empire should go for. Should it be like kantai collection where all the characters are schoolgirls that are personified ships? Should it be like Planetes and have a somewhat serious tone about space war? Should it be like lucky star or girls und panzer and have a slice of life focus? I don't know, but I think going for a light novel style anime where the MC is the only male and gathers a larger and larger harem or SoL cute girl anime would get the most nippon bux.
I mean, I could kinda see a COADE comic series (manga styled or otherwise) being interesting.
Slice of life/drama could be interesting. After all, communications are a real problem on interplanetary scale. There's also the angle of "what do crews do with their time on long deep space voyages" as even with extremely efficient and powerful engines, most interplanetary maneuvers are weeks>months scale.
Also most ships tend to have fairly small crews in fairly... cozy, living conditions. Realistically most would probably live aboard a station or larger fleet tenders.
Then there's the fact where, even if the crew weren't specifically military, there'd still be military about. Civilians trying to work, when there's 2 opposed militaries both of whom you can't really say "no you can't take our fuel/supplies/life support" to because they can just kill you and take them anyways.
The Ship's Side would become to flat then and easily penetrable. The whole idea is to maximize firepower while minimizing your profile.
You can still have the edge facing the target, just have turrets that can depress over 90 degrees. (or have the option of building conventional turrets instead of ball turrets).
The problem with sticking the guns in the "edge" of the blade, is specifically, any weapons on the other side of the ship can't fire as they're out of LOS. With armaments mounted on the flats and the "edge" towards the target, the full battery of the ship can be brought to bear against the target.
Ofcourse there is still a problem with any "blade shape" ships. Where do you put the radiators? Perhaps you could design a "single edged" ship and have radiators (and thrusters) sticking our of the back side of the blade. But by that point, you're kinda making a big wedge ship (just wider than most).
A spin I'd rather like to see, is the ability to make a ship in shape similar to say, the Cobra of the Elite series. It's a pretty standard wedge or chisel shape. Theoretically, could have it's main engine (or engines) in the back able to gimbal up to 90 degrees in 1 axis, and be able to make evasive maneuvers with the full power of its main engine almost laterally, while still keeping it's best armor, and all firepower pointed at the target. Thing possibly wouldn't be much heavier than a cone shaped ship either, as to get the same angle on the armor, you'd need a very pointy cone, while to get the same maneuverability, you'd actually need a shorter stubbier and wider (to have the same internal volume) cone.
TBH cones and cylinders might not actually be the most efficient shape in all circumstances. BUT the additional geometry of designing ships like this, is likely quite a bit more obnoxious
Another side thought on the cobra shape. It's actually still quite well angled even not from the front. Optimal ship angle would actually be off to the side ~20-30 degrees. Which holds true for cylinder ships, but doesn't actually work on cones.
like the guns on a battleship, how the second forward most guns can fire over the forward guns, that way you would present an even smaller target and be able to fire all of your guns
I believe the term you're looking for is "superfiring". Of course this generally isn't such a problem on a conical or wedge shaped ship as turrets are dispersed up the hull so they superfire by default.
My thought was to use a lens-shaped cross-section for the hull, with the broadside armament aiming down the points - sort of a blade shape. This would get extreme armor angles when broadside-on to the enemy, and curved armor to make perfect perpendicular hits less likely if they get you off-angle or while changing orientation.
Would it not be better to mount weapons on the flattest portion, as you'd be able to bring the full firepower of your ship on target, rather than guns situated on the edges where you can only reasonably bring half at any given time?