|
Post by jtyotjotjipaefvj on Oct 7, 2018 19:33:24 GMT
How do you... pretty much anything without NPP under Windows? By using Visual Studio Code obviously
|
|
|
Post by jtyotjotjipaefvj on Oct 6, 2018 19:39:57 GMT
More power solves any problem. Sadly bigger railguns grow too heavy to be worthwhile at these ranges, so I had to go pure laser. 15x1GW lasers with 50 turrets, and a nice spider web design for bonus points mean it can effectively deal damage out to the maximum range limit of lasers. It also has a blast launcher for engagement range if you don't have an extended range limit for lasers in limits.txt. It can disarm three meta laserstars simultaneously at 9.95 Mm range while suffering minimal attrition. This massive range should make it impossible to outrange it with kinetic capital ships and even drones should have a hard time doing so. The only downside is that burning through armor at this far ranges takes a really long time, so killing ships is pretty boring. But you can always declare yourself the victor after destroying all enemy weapons and save yourself some time. Damage taken while disarming three laserstars: (it lost three more laser turrets while destroying the remaining turrets on the ring, but the destroyed laser counter message is more important) Design screenshot: Design export: jt Laser Spider.txt (8.62 KB)
|
|
|
Post by jtyotjotjipaefvj on Oct 1, 2018 1:40:06 GMT
The stock 100 MW laser mainly differs from the deep fryers 100 MW one by having a few more zeroes in the mass and cost columns, and having a far less focused beam. It's still decently good at ablating armor at close range.
|
|
|
Post by jtyotjotjipaefvj on Sept 27, 2018 10:51:27 GMT
Hubble is not mounted on a massive war machine full of turbopumps ramming tons of propellant/coolant per second into plumbing, thrusters performing unpredictable evasive and corrective burns, steep, changing kilokelvin temperature gradients, propellant sloshing in tanks, a lot of gimballing stuff and vibrations from impulsive shocks and tens of hairless apes flailing inside. You could mitigate most of those by using laser drones instead of capital ships. A laser satellite with a short burn time chemical laser and no engines would probably be quite cheap to produce, and would have none of these issues. Just chuck a few of them out of a bay door when you need to lase something, while your carrier continues with its maneuvering. With a large number of lasers, the individual turn rate won't be that relevant either, since you can just pop out one satellite for every target. Alternatively, if your lasers are too expensive to be disposable, you could have a small chemical thruster on the drone that allows it to catch up to the carrier after expending its lasing fuel. Probably yeah, although guesstimating the effect of improved technology might get quite difficult.
|
|
|
Post by jtyotjotjipaefvj on Sept 27, 2018 9:37:08 GMT
True, however: - I'm not sure if turret wobble is unrealistic, especially given that it's specifically simulated and separate from the random wander of ablation point around laser's spot.
Maybe calling it outright unrealistic is a stretch, however the issue could be mitigated by trading turret RPM for accuracy. All of our turrets have 0.09 arc seconds of accuracy, while for example the Hubble can do 0.007 with 90's tech. I'm sure in a few hundred years we could improve on that number slightly. The Hubble does take 15 minutes to turn 90 degrees, but you don't exactly need to turn in a hurry if you can kill ships a hundred Mm's away. That's yet another part of the game that could use some more attention.
|
|
|
Post by jtyotjotjipaefvj on Sept 26, 2018 10:02:20 GMT
But in the hexagonal cow world of CoaDE, we have an additional constraint that the hot and cold side temperatures of our thermocouples cannot differ by more than ~500 K. It seems like the optimal hexcow temperature ends up being ~2630 K radiators, which is as hot as possible without reducing the ΔT across the thermocouple. The in game case is further complicated by the fact that reactor heat is incorrect. You always need to radiate the thermal power of the reactor, when in reality waste heat would be P_thermal - P_electric. IIRC this slightly lowers the optimal temperature for radiators.
|
|
|
Post by jtyotjotjipaefvj on Sept 24, 2018 12:09:12 GMT
Well that's why I want to design against other broken designs. It's no fun of the opposition doesn't even get a chance to fight back. I guess it depends what you want out of the game. If you want to design with and against relatively realistic ships that's fine. At that point armor is very relevant. But if you want to design with and against the most broken setups that can you engage from millions of meters away, armor use changes drastically. I think this is what you meant to say. The only thing broken about laser stars is how ineffective they are. With pulsed lasers[1], fixed beam intensity[2], realistic efficiency[3] and a less limiting damage model[4], you could get one or two orders of magnitude more ablation out of your laser than you can do with the ones in game. Not to mention the unrealistic turret wobble and hard cap of 10 Mm on the lasing range. The ship might be significantly heavier and slower than what our laserstars are, but that doesn't really matter when you can kill any ship from a few dozen Mm's out. [1] Pulsed lasers can ablate armor by shattering it instead of vaporizing everything, which is far more energy efficient [2] The game has confused beam diameter and radius, which means all lasers have 1/4th of the intensity they should. [3] Real lasers can reach around 30-40 % efficiency instead of the max 4% we can do in game [4] The laser damage model in game is almost useless. It only simulates heating armor to melting point, and disregards any energy past the ablation cap of a material, so against well optimized targets, you just waste any intensity past around 4 MW/m². With enough power and big enough mirrors, you could lase targets until your effectiveness is limited by light lag instead of beam intensity falling off due to beam dispersion. Past a light minute or so of range, the target can start dodging your lasers effectively due to the travel time of the laser.
|
|
|
Post by jtyotjotjipaefvj on Sept 17, 2018 16:54:49 GMT
]Probably not going to get a chance to play with that for a few days, looking forward to it. Aspect ratio seems a bit extreme but that's pretty much what I was asking for, I guess...? Against lasers, aspect ratio doesn't make any difference. Diameter and armor thickness are the only two metrics relevant to survival, if you discount maneuvering. The first shots did land at around 450 km, but for some reason the cooker decided it doesn't care about getting shot. I've seen it do this before as well: The last two lasers ended up killing all the drones once they got closer. I don't really see the point of that. If you want to shotgun lasers, you can just target all the lasers. Or leave the guns to fire untargeted, which means they'll cover the entire surface of the ship, but will never waste ammo to missing, which would be an issue with a fixed spread angle. Plus the added barrel thickness may be relevant to keeping the gun cool.
|
|
|
Post by jtyotjotjipaefvj on Sept 17, 2018 9:49:43 GMT
Here's a thinner gun and a thinner drone, with higher muzzle velocity too. 10 of them can close to around 120 km of a deep cooker before the last guns fall off. You can probably beat any stationary long-range design with a few of these. They're a bit more expensive but who cares about ten kc here or there. Drone export: Needle.txt (5.1 KB) Screenies: Gun: It also gets around 1.1 million points. Drone:
|
|
|
Post by jtyotjotjipaefvj on Sept 10, 2018 14:36:55 GMT
Disregarding the silly point system, here's my entry: Comes out as 346 260 points. And if you're more serious about deleting laserstars (or any ship really), this should be good:
|
|
|
Post by jtyotjotjipaefvj on Sept 4, 2018 21:28:38 GMT
The 60mm cannon is pretty much the only actually good stock module. It's a bit heavier and more expensive than it needs to be, but otherwise it's pretty close to the conventional guns I use myself. You can easily beat any stock design using only them and a fast intercept on a minimalistic ship.
|
|
|
Post by jtyotjotjipaefvj on Sept 1, 2018 1:19:25 GMT
Is modding allowed? If yes, here's my candidate. Useful when you need a quick trip to the moon but don't want to wait for a passing liner.
|
|
|
Post by jtyotjotjipaefvj on Aug 30, 2018 11:42:58 GMT
Despite nasty rumors, this is a totally unrelated ship to the AE deep fryer. There are numerous differences: -It can move while firing (with 1/3 MPDs) -It has armor so it can take a few hits from kinetics without blowing up -It has 100 km/s railguns with no payload so it can deal with enemies resistant to lasers far better, and has longer range against missiles -Its lasers are optimized against PE ablation cap so it's less wasteful -It has spare laser turrets since the turrets can be smaller Ship export: jt Deep Cooker.txt (7.28 KB)
|
|
|
Post by jtyotjotjipaefvj on Aug 29, 2018 22:08:52 GMT
apparently you can fix disappearing mod modules by placing mods into Mods/Data/Designs.txt rather than Mods/Data/Imports/[whatever].txt t. Apophys
|
|
|
Post by jtyotjotjipaefvj on Aug 28, 2018 10:39:29 GMT
The best way to solve this issue is to have an unarmored carrier running on ridiculously powerful MPDs that spews out drones (or even full capitals) running on hydrocarbon NTRs. That way you can have basically unlimited dv while also having high acceleration and armor when it matters. The only time I'd use HD, the only really light propellant, is when I need a single ship to have both high acceleration and DV close to the 20 km/s mark. Which happens quite rarely. Personally I would aim to share propellant between MPDTs and thermal rockets for the purpose of gear shifting. If you use different propellants with hybrid propulsion your delta-v will fluctuate wildly depending on the order in which you use them and with military, general purpose ships you can't just ensure the order in which you will burn different engines up front. Your dv will fluctuate wildly depending on burn order even if you do share propellant, so limiting yourself to that doesn't make that much sense to me. Especially since the best MPD propellants tend to be terrible with NTRs and totally incombustible. Not to mention that high-powered MPDs can be fast enough for use in combat too.
|
|