|
Post by linkxsc on Nov 7, 2018 6:38:29 GMT
Threadnomancy.
Trying to store 90 crewmembers.
If I split them into 3 30 crew modules, each 10 decks long. The individual modules will be 2.29m radius, 22.7m long, have an internal volume of 120m3 (4m3 per crew, 360m3 total). A cluster of 3 modules is less than 10m diameter. If I put them in 1 module, 14 decks long. Module is 4.86m radius, 31.7m long, has an internal volume ~750m3 (each crew gets 8.3m3). The module will fit in a 10m diameter space, but is over 10m longer.
This makes absolutely 0 sense, especially as the second module should have much better packing efficiency to the first ones (which have a lot of empty space between them)
|
|
|
Post by linkxsc on Nov 4, 2018 19:26:10 GMT
I get that it's the breech block. but in most cases, a larger grain size means lower peak pressure (and thus needing a smaller block... but it doesn't seem to have an effect on the gun's weight, so it doesn't matter much)
You can probably get a noticeable performance jump, switching from firing coins to firing rods.
Currently your weapon is firing a coin ~8cm in diameter, and 1cm thick. The contact area of the shot is ~50cm2. Thats a pretty large area of the target's armor resisting your shot penetrating.
Instead you can probably make a round ~2cm in diameter and like 15-20cm long. Contact area is then only ~3cm2. 1/16th the amount of armor is available to try and resist penetration.
There's a few options to do this. 1 easy one is to just make a "radiation shield" use it as the basis for a projectile, and just shoot those out of the gun. Another is to make a smaller rad shield, load it into the ammo design, and then add armor to it to make up the bulk of it. Can add a spacer to the nose when doing this to give it a pointed nose. But in practice I haven't noticed better penetration from having a sharp nose on my projectiles. Bug warning. last I messed around with it heavily, there was a bug where with a thin enough rad shield core for a round, you could add armor in a broken manner where for the same total mass, the projectile was denser.
|
|
|
Post by linkxsc on Feb 27, 2018 4:15:13 GMT
At the usual railgun projectile speeds, hardness matters much less than momentum. Chemically powered guns should, of course, make use of armor piercing properties. One more thing for the list! At typical railgun/coilgun velocities the impact details vary between resembling firing a squirt gun into a pool of liquid and firing a nitroglycerin squirt gun into a pool of liquid. Mechanical properties no longer matter. Hardness was with regards the to projectile and the rails themselves and barrel wear, not penetration performance. Unless you mean for me to believe that most of the railguns players make regularly would actually work and not... shred themselves after a couple shots due to barrel wear.
|
|
|
Post by linkxsc on Feb 23, 2018 3:04:06 GMT
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)
|
|
|
Post by linkxsc on Feb 20, 2018 19:36:34 GMT
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.htmIf 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.
|
|
|
Post by linkxsc on Feb 13, 2018 20:50:54 GMT
Exactly as the title says.
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.
|
|
|
Post by linkxsc on Dec 25, 2017 3:51:25 GMT
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). Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by linkxsc on Dec 20, 2017 5:36:18 GMT
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)
|
|
|
Post by linkxsc on Dec 14, 2017 5:34:24 GMT
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? *checks game* 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?
|
|
|
Post by linkxsc on Dec 14, 2017 4:55:03 GMT
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.
|
|
|
Post by linkxsc on Nov 12, 2017 2:30:30 GMT
WWII US Navy instructional videos for introductory training on mechanical fire-control computers. Really neat if you like that sort of thing, some ingenious stuff here... Mechanical Computers (navy series): www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9cQ2Ddo6YCwNcDh15h2IheFHzXiHH8QFThere may be better copies of this, not 100% sure if this is the same one I saw a while back. Well there goes an hour of my life edit, 3 hours. God what is it with these instructional videos from the 30s and 40s.
|
|
|
Post by linkxsc on Aug 2, 2017 23:55:00 GMT
>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.
Apparently conventional cannons don't exist. Might as well remove them then, clearly a waste of gamedev's time adding them in the first place. Sorry to have wasted time wondering why large caliber conventional cannon shots don't respond in a realistic manner when striking anything angled, and if systems were actually in place to operate on sub-speed of sound impacts. Apparently, you can do anything with ~5cm of aluminum @ ~30 degrees. Military's been doing it all wrong with these composites. Course ignoring any angular stuff, direct perpendicular penetration seems odd with large caliber/mass projectiles, though apparently spalling works and solid shot seems to break apart inside the target sometimes.
I fully realize that overmatching doesn't matter once you're beyond the speed of sound in the target material. It's right there in newton's impact depth approximation (which overmatching is just applying the concept to a 2d system instead of a 1d). That doesn't change the fact that the game does have sub material speed of sound impacts happening, and they seem a tad "off" to me.
>Is overmatch actually a thing outside of World of Tanks?
It existed in real life enough for militaries to consciously consider it when selecting guns and armor schemes in the post war. It's not something that wargaming made up out of their ass for a videogame mechanic if thats what you're asking. You can find plenty of info about it from long before WOT was even a thought. Course as it and War Thunder are the 2 games in the world that the concept are most relevant to, there tend to be a lot of discussion about them with relation to those games.
|
|
|
Post by linkxsc on Aug 2, 2017 19:05:45 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. 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.
|
|
|
Post by linkxsc on Aug 2, 2017 15:45:51 GMT
So how are they keeping the "orbital speed" rings up at those speeds? Would they not slow down dramatically as it's basically trying to accelerate the conduit ring (the one we would use to build stuff and tethers off of)
|
|
|
Post by linkxsc on Aug 2, 2017 14:48:46 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)
|
|