|
Post by jtyotjotjipaefvj on Sept 14, 2017 23:46:18 GMT
Apparently the shaders are just plaintext glsl files in Resources/Shaders in the CoaDE install folder, so it should be trivial to modify them. Although looking at the stars, it looks like the issue might be floating point accuracy, not post processing. Edit: it looks like the problem already happens before the data arrives to the shader. I moved all stars one unit along each axis, so we end up outside the sky sphere: It appears the star positions are normalized before sending them to the shader, meaning we only draw things on the surface of a unit sphere. Probably not much we can do about this sadly, since it looks like the issue occurs on the CPU side that can't be modified.
|
|
|
Post by jtyotjotjipaefvj on Sept 14, 2017 16:16:56 GMT
Do you have a less garbage site I could get the file from? That requires me to register to download it. Dropbox or google drive should work fine if you don't.
I can also take a look at the shaders if someone knows how to modify them. It's hard to say from your tiny pictures but it looks like the blocky bloom/diffraction effect is probably what's causing the weird effects.
|
|
|
Post by jtyotjotjipaefvj on Sept 13, 2017 23:53:53 GMT
3 km sounds very low for an activation range. My missiles rarely go under 10 km/s, and KKVs do upwards of 20.
|
|
|
Post by jtyotjotjipaefvj on Sept 13, 2017 18:53:38 GMT
I changed both the braking and acceleration systems for the laser buses to conventional rockets, which reduced costs considerably. Now I can get 320 lasers for 30 Mc, and I was also able to increase cruise speed from 2 km/s to 5 km/s. This means that I can get around 300 lasers to sit next to a gunship in around 40 seconds from 150 km away. In my test I only used one salvo of laser accelerators since the deceleration has to be precisely controlled by hand. Otherwise you'll either get lasers that move too fast or the braking rocket runs out of fuel and gets disabled before it has time to pop out its cargo. Design of the ship below. Other parts are largely unchanged, except I switched blast launchers to a combination of NTRs and EM launchers. Combat test: Accelerators start their accelerating. The carrier ship is buried somewhere inside the thick cloud. Braking rockets deployed at around 30 km range. Lasers deployed around a kilometer away from the target. Velocity is not quite zero, but it's hard to time manually and this is close enough. 99 lasers out of 128 made it to their destination, now they can start their work. Gunship returning fire, but it only has time to take down a few satellite before the guns are melted off. At this range, the lasers melt through armor and guns almost instantly, so a few seconds later the gunship is disarmed A few more seconds and it's dead meat 94 lasers are still in working order after the gunship is dead. Only lost 5 lasers even though they were less than 5 kilometers from the gunship.
|
|
|
Post by jtyotjotjipaefvj on Sept 13, 2017 10:41:51 GMT
oh heh... Ive never watched that movie IT'S THE FLIPPIN HG WELL'S CLASSIC NOVEL "WAR OF THE WORLDS" There's no need to be upset nobody understood your obscure reference
|
|
|
Post by jtyotjotjipaefvj on Sept 13, 2017 10:39:02 GMT
Sounds like smaller versions of capital lasers could be useful for drones. They're single-use anyway so it wouldn't be an issue.
|
|
|
Post by jtyotjotjipaefvj on Sept 13, 2017 9:05:54 GMT
Like I said nothing is going to be very good. UWFPVCE fiber is the lightest you can get and it's still 60% blast wall by mass. Everything else is going to be even worse.
|
|
|
Post by jtyotjotjipaefvj on Sept 13, 2017 1:00:18 GMT
Another material suggestion, boron fiber is much more cost effective blast launcher material. Not so good on the mass side unfortunately. It's pretty bad regardless of what material you use.
|
|
|
Post by jtyotjotjipaefvj on Sept 12, 2017 23:58:03 GMT
I made a weapon system that can deliver a cloud of tiny laser satellites to a little under 5 kilometers away from the target ship. It works by carefully balancing the forward velocity of laser delivery buses and the muzzle velocity of a rear-facing blast launcher that's deployed by the delivery bus. When the two velocities cancel out, you end up with a hundred or so 1.4 MW lasers that are close enough that they reach the 25 MW/M² ablation cap. Currently they can only do a maximum of 2 km/s approach velocity, but it should be possible to get that way higher by using an unguided rocket instead of a blast launcher for braking. It might end up being cheaper too, since the blast launcher walls dominate both cost and mass budgets. Relevant designs: laser satellite: laser: braking blast launcher: ship: Combat test against a gunship: Braking vehicles approaching braking range. The delivery vehicle for them is just a hunk of laser-proof armor with four blast launchers that pop out the electric launchers at 20km, allowing them some time to clear the tight grouping. After delivery, you get a pile of spinning laser sats moving towards the gunship at 34 m/s, giving them a few dozen minutes of loiter time before they're too far to be effective. The turret has a 900 degree/s gimbal so it can deal with a little spinning easily enough as well. A few seconds later, the gunship has lost all dangerous weapons facing the satellite pile. A few seconds after that they melt the engines to prevent escape, and then systematically burn off everything else. Around 20 seconds in, the gunship is just a helpless hunk of metal. And finally after about a minute of burning, there's nothing left on the gunship's hull and the reactor dies out.
|
|
|
Post by jtyotjotjipaefvj on Sept 12, 2017 19:21:20 GMT
After a bit of fiddling I've designed a weapon system that can put out 107 GW of kinetic energy in projectiles (plus a bunch more if you count the guns that collide with the target) for just under 35 Mc. Calculation for the kinetic energy output below if you care: (relative) muzzle velocity of the gun: 1.37 km/s (gun) + 7.18 km/s (rocket booster) + 10.7 km/s (ship dv) = 19.25 km/s Projectile mass = 100 g Single projectile KE: 1/2 * m * v² = 0.5 * 0.1 * 19250 * 19250 = 18.5 MJ
One gun shoots 10 rounds per second, so each gun puts out 185 MW.
16 boosters times 36 guns per booster equals 576 guns.
185 MW * 576 guns = 107 GW
Designs for everything below: gun drone: gun: drone bus: launcher ship: Combat test: Buses start their acceleration at around 300 km range. They'll be done within 3 seconds of combat start, moving at about 18 km/s after the burn. Guns being deployed from the buses. The bus blast launcher on the launcher ship died halfway through and disabled all the buses, and I ended up with only about half of the guns I should have had. Still pretty good though. Guns opening fire. A few casualties due to the tight formation but we can afford to lose a couple of guns here and there. Target absorbing around 50 GW of kinetic energy just fine apparently. At least for the one frame this screenshot is from. Here's the same target one frame later. A lot of the damage is due to impacting gun drones, at least I think so. It's hard to tell when everything happened in a single frame.
|
|
|
Post by jtyotjotjipaefvj on Sept 11, 2017 17:42:11 GMT
In my quest to fire all kinds of weird shit from guns, I made a gun that fires smaller guns. The projectile is a 110 kg tube containing a 1.4 MW railgun, a 1.4 MW powerplant and some radiators to cool the reactor. The lack of engines cuts down the cost of these munitions and also seems to reduce lag. I was able to have around 400 of the things firing simultaneously without going into the minutes per frame range of performance. I'm not sure if it's actually a good idea but at least it looks entertaining. Gun, bullet and ship design: Combat test: Guns shooting a heckload of bullets: 1 meter of VCS torn to shreds:
|
|
|
Post by jtyotjotjipaefvj on Sept 8, 2017 15:18:07 GMT
Your burn time is 11 times longer than mine though, and the dry mass is only about a kilo. This means you'll have to launch around 300 km away, and only get about twice as much projectile energy. Your projectile mass is a lot higher leaving the barrel too, and the diameter is about twice as big, meaning you'll need a heavier gun and will get a slower rate of fire. It's not really comparable.
|
|
|
Post by jtyotjotjipaefvj on Sept 8, 2017 0:45:48 GMT
I modified the rockets to be smaller and have higher dv, and the launcher to have a higher rate of fire and muzzle velocity. Terminal velocity for the rockets is now 9 km/s, but due to lower mass they only pack a bit over 90 MJ per rocket. Still, with the 19-launcher ship, that's 6.8 GW of kinetic energy output from a 25 MC ship with a 50 MW generator. The 9 km/s projectile velocity makes the rockets a bit more accurate too, they can now take down gunships around 50% of the time before the gunship can thrust far enough to avoid the rockets completely. Although that too is simply due to the stupid targeting AI, with a flight time of ~7 seconds out to 50 km range, they really shouldn't be that easy to dodge. Updated designs for the rocket and gun: Video showing them chew through a meter of VCS in no time:
|
|
|
Post by jtyotjotjipaefvj on Sept 8, 2017 0:06:18 GMT
Gunship is about to eat some rockets
|
|
|
Post by jtyotjotjipaefvj on Sept 7, 2017 16:32:11 GMT
I was always put off from these by the kilogram remote, since achieving more ideal velocities of 3-4km/s (gun) and 5-10km/s (rocket) would demand a very heavy assembly, but it seems it may be lighter than I thought. How is accuracy, though — does the targetting AI account for the acceleration and final velocity of the rocket? Acceleration and dv are not taken into account, but accuracy is fine as long as tangential velocity relative to the target stays small enough. It's not really usable in general cases, but as a short-range weapon against big capitals it works well enough, since you can get an exact intercept on the launching ship. I've been able to take down gunships with no issues, since the first few hits will generally disable the ship, or at least the engines. Math wise, taking the projectile's acceleration into account wouldn't be too hard to do either, but would require a separate targeting routine for powered projectiles, so I guess we won't be getting that anytime soon. I'm also not sure how much you'd have to increase the gun size to fit a rocket with 10 km/s dv. It should also be noted that you want the rocket to accelerate to its top speed within a few seconds. Otherwise you'll have to fire from hundreds of kilometers away, and that would make the rockets very inaccurate.
|
|