|
Post by Durandal on Oct 21, 2016 3:26:31 GMT
So I'm noticing that a ship I have that's using 1m of graphite aerogel that was able to just TANK hits last night gets rounds through it like a hot knife through butter. Was there a stealth update or something?
|
|
|
Post by Durandal on Oct 21, 2016 0:38:15 GMT
Well for landing craft most of the time you will not need to re enter the atmosphere as most of the things you want are airless bodies. But capitals and very major installations are on very large moons with atmosphere or even full up planets and as those are the final objective you will eventauly need a landing craft but then again why are you invading a body that you can threatened with nuclear annihilation if they do not agree to all terms of surrender? Granted, "landing" on a rock would be much different than atmosphere. But sometimes you need boots on the ground. I'd assume an invasion would carry specialized craft for whatever environment it was intended to occupy, but at the same time it would cost-prohibitive to have huge arsenals of Luna-rated and Encleaudus-rated landers. There'd have to be some sort of standardization. Do the gravities of most of the Jovan moons vary? I know the atmospheric pressures very. So how would the ships be rated?
|
|
|
Post by Durandal on Oct 20, 2016 22:58:33 GMT
I think I may try to build one of these "assault ships" tonight. I'd assume it would be a large carrier, loaded up with smaller landing ships. What sort of weight ratio would you expect for equipment/supplies/troops? What's the smallest deployment unit for a landing ship? Do we need to landing ships to be atmosphere-capable so they're utilitarian or do we build them mission specific?
Gamewise, has anyobe tried using a remote control and a crew compartmentry on the same ship? At work so I can't test it.
|
|
|
Post by Durandal on Oct 20, 2016 21:24:33 GMT
I know that graphite aerogel was discovered to be extremely effective at stopping high-V kenetic at thickness of up to 1m or more. Given its cheapness and low density I've got a few ideas churning on some unique armor schemes.
|
|
|
Post by Durandal on Oct 20, 2016 19:23:11 GMT
My general impression is that needleships generally have better survivability (tiny cross-section, thick, highly-sloped nose armor, ability to hide radiators behind the cone), though these advantages aren't fully realized due to the current limits on ship construction. Broadside ships have more firepower, simply because they have more room to place guns. Full-armor broadside ships are also (mostly) facing-agnostic, because correctly spaced rings of guns can bring a full broadside (usually about half the ship's guns, unless we got elevated turrets to expand their firing arcs beyond 90 degrees) against a 360 degree cylinder around the ship. Half-armor broadside ships sacrifice that in order to gain radiator protection similar to a needleship. A needleship would get a boost from being able to mount elevated turrets too though, because by gradually increasing the elevation you could bring rows of turrets to bear on the front arc all along the cone. Needleships are probably also a good configuration for missile boats, because launchers can simply be placed behind the cone as long as their launch velocity is high enough to clear it before the missiles' engines ignite. I'd agree up to a point. My main needleship design (a hulking 45kt 567Mc monster) can tank fire all day on its frontal cone. But not long after the enemy has LOS on the rear-cone and/or missile ports ai can expect a catastrophic armor failure/internal explosion. Now that might be a problem in my launcher design(despite having separate internal missile magazines with non-explosive methane fuel), but the armor scheme on this rear cone uses 1m of graphite aerogel over 3cm of boron over 2cm of reinforced carbon-carbon. A properly manuverable full-armor broadside ship, under the right conditions, can destroy a well equipped needleship and vice-versa.
|
|
|
Post by Durandal on Oct 20, 2016 13:24:14 GMT
What would be the point of turning such an asteroid into a fortress? There's no reason for your enemy to attack it, since it has little inherent value, and they can always go around it to attack something else. If you're going to fortify something, it should be something valuable. Also, how would you aim a mass driver built deep into the asteroid? Its your political enclave in a solar system full of bloodthirsty tyrants.
|
|
|
Post by Durandal on Oct 20, 2016 13:15:55 GMT
How do you get the EFP thing detonating correctly? My missiles usually don't detonate at all if they hit their target directly - they just turn to KE perpetrators. Or, if they miss, they detonate when they just pass the target and the front of the warhead is already pointing away from it at that point. That's a known problem with missile tracking. Usually 1 in 20 of my NEFP gets a hard kill, and it's usually at something close to a 45 degree or perpandicular angle. Most kills seem to just be from detonating a nuke inside the engine cone of the ship with no hits from the NEFP effect. I've tried different setups. Flat disks of osmium, multiple "pills" layer in the same stack level. Pill-disk combo. The best and most consistant results have been with a single 20x20 osmium rad shield pill. I use it with a 1.54Mt warhead with good results, and I believe I've got a 3kt design as well. I'll have to try the multiple long-rod idea tonight. Also, I had a really good view of a gunship that I swiss-cheesed last night that I should have taken a screenshot of. It had 5-6 solid hits along the flanks by the radiators. Clean solid holes punched out on one side; glowing radioactive crater on the other. It's one thing to show penetrating on an armor test hulk but another I think to show a dead gunship.
|
|
|
Post by Durandal on Oct 19, 2016 22:47:32 GMT
Has anyone tried to make neutron bombs as anti-nuke warhead, to cause other nukes to fizzle with neutron flux? I dint think that's possible in the game engine
|
|
|
Post by Durandal on Oct 19, 2016 19:16:07 GMT
What year does this game take place in again? I'd say any issues about computing power and size are moot. I'm writing this post on a touch-screen Internet capable supercomputer with a built in camera thats like 2cm thick and fits in my pocket. Moore's Law, folks. As close to now as possible. All of the tech in game is current tech that is fully understood and defined by equations. In essence the year could be 2016 or even earlier. True, but we do know that it's at least 200+ years in the future based on the Nippon Prime fluff about their immortal empress. Even with, say, 50 years of "dark times" with the Earth going kaput I'd say that's plenty of time for computer tech to advance.
|
|
|
Post by Durandal on Oct 19, 2016 19:11:08 GMT
Ah yes but you see our PC are running black boxes. This game is a simulation and therefore simplified to allow our computers to run it. For example modern naval warships have supercomputers on board just to run everything. Take the Zumwalt class destroyer for example. It contains a massive server system in order to operate all of the fairly simple modern technology. In comparison most of the capital ships we have are going to have to do a whole hell of a lot more processing to function and take in all of the sensor data. Aim the guns. Manage the power system the cooling system the life support the guidance system the engine controls the ammo transportation and all of the million other things that all need a computer to run and then you need to operate all of this remotely from the mother ship. Honestly thinking about it there should be a separate computer module for all ships in game simply due to how vital the computers are to making everything work and the non insubstantial amount of cooling and power they will need to run and if they go then the whole ship is doomed. I think you underestimate the required amount of computational power to run a modern warship. It really is not that hard to do all the calculations for gun laying - people had automatic target tracking guns in WW2, you could do it on an Arduino. I am sure that the gaming consoles in the ships recreational facilities are easily comparable to the vital systems of the ship itself, computing power vise. Wiki states that Zumwalt uses PPC7A and PPC7D computers for it's control needs and the manufactures website states that they are 512MB RAM, 1.4GHz CPU computers that are even obsolete and discontinued. My guess is that by far the largest reasons for big computers on ships are requirements for massive redundancy, robustness, ease of expansion and use of old technology (dictated by conservative designs, as in all safety critical applications, small production runs and huge amount of paperwork). Of course, 1kg computer controlling 1k t warship is still silly, tho. But still I would think that well less than 1% of that 1k t ship would be needed for this purpose, so it can be safely ignored. Definitely as long as sensors are abstracted away too - as these things would be something that I would like to see explicitly handled a bit more. What year does this game take place in again? I'd say any issues about computing power and size are moot. I'm writing this post on a touch-screen Internet capable supercomputer with a built in camera thats like 2cm thick and fits in my pocket. Moore's Law, folks.
|
|
|
Lasers
Oct 19, 2016 5:04:20 GMT
via mobile
Post by Durandal on Oct 19, 2016 5:04:20 GMT
Man, everyone is trying to build mega-laser while I'm struggling to make a 300 kilowatt and 1 megawatt laser light enough to be put on drones cheaply..... Riiiiiight?
|
|
|
Post by Durandal on Oct 19, 2016 1:10:18 GMT
Well, it does make sense that missiles are not very crew-intensive due to how they're controlled. The entire swarm is slaved together during orbital maneuvers, so an arbitrarily large missile swarm only requires a single pilot (or more accurately, navigator). During terminal approach they are set to heat-seeking mode, and require no pilots at all. Presumably drones can achieve similar efficiency by putting the weapons under the control of a fire control computer, so the "drone pilot" only herds the swarm in broad strokes. Possibly, but it still game breaking. Here is the DonnagerI, it carry 4 Tashi I. Basically its twice as powerful as the Rosi, and only have a crew of 37. Thats 10 less than the Rosi. Here is the picture, with that much DV, the Donnager can't be catched by the design I have seen so far. It carry 4 pocket battleship, each of them can cut a ship in half before bing destroyed. I have seen its gun destroy 12 out of a 20 missile volley, and I didn't even use the 3kt dwarf missile to destroy them. Its so small that most KKV missile have a low chance of touching it. Its armor should be good enough to counter flak missile and nuke. This is just a prof of concept, there is room for allot of improvement here, the way Tashi is too powerful for what it does. I say its game breaking. Well, it isn't supposed to be a "balanced" strategy game. It's supposed to be a simulation. I'd like to add though that I haven't been able to develop a working micro missile yet. I mean yeah, I've built a few, but they don't seem that useful.I've troed up to 3cm of silica aerogel on them, and against a stock gunship they just get burnt up by lasers not long after launch. Only got a 20ish second burn time even with 8+kms dV. I much prefer 20g acceleration 5kt "standard" missiles that can cook a target from 60+ km away.
|
|
|
Post by Durandal on Oct 18, 2016 1:40:15 GMT
I was editing a missile recently, and deleted all modules to start over. I accidently clicked "accept". The game crashed instantly and now I cannot get it to load. I cannot find my user design files anywhere (was hoping to delete the file for the missile in question in hopes that it might fix the problem) Running on Windows 8 Any advice? I'd hate to lose 80+ hours of work. Your inability to find your UserDesign file might simply be a matter of the appdata folder being hidden, I know it is by default in Windows 10. Just go to local disk > users > username and click on the view tab at the top. On the right hand side there should be some show/hide options, just click the box for hidden items. My apologies if you've already tried this. Okay, I hate to sound like an amature here, but no luck. I can't open the file location for CODE. I've opened up my local files within Steam, but the userdesign.tXT isn't there. I can see the default designs and other files, which I is where I'd assume the user files would be. This is very frustrating, as I can't even get the game to run to bring up an error code. *edit* Found it! Now to delete everything related to that damn missile... *edit edit* HUZZAH!Back in business.
|
|
|
Post by Durandal on Oct 17, 2016 22:53:42 GMT
Use a jacketed armor piercing round - the actual penetrator can be made out of your tough metal of choice (W, Os, Ir, etc) but have a thin sleeve of something light and easy to vaporize along the outside. If there is a pointed end to the projectile this will destroy any initial armor layers of the target and allow your armor piercing component to delve further before it begins doing any mechanical work. These actually exist, they're known as composite shells or capped shells. A lot of them come with some kind of explosive filler, but that's not really necessary when a.) the round is going 20,000 ft/s and b.) the enemy armor is, by comparison to a tank or naval ship, paper-thin. I take it you've tried using an inert AP-payload?
|
|
|
Post by Durandal on Oct 17, 2016 21:09:26 GMT
So...tweaking and upgrading my saucer spacecraft yet again. If Mark 4 looks like an very old fashioned flying saucer, Mark 5 could be described as a modern sleeker version of it. I meant just look at it, it looks like freaking Enterprise. For armor scheme, I used Nivik's armor composition which worked quite well for its price but it's bloody heavy. With its current slope, Mark 5 can deflect bullet like nothing. Well, for most of the time at least. Here's the internal Basically, ammo and drone on top, crew compartment in the middle, fuel tanks and then finally the small sized nuclear reactor at the bottom. Might experiment with osmium half armor to all of the front instead, since the back of it won't be facing anything anytime soon. I wonder if a very, very thin rad shield of a sufficiently cheap material spaced out to an extelremely wide diameter would help to widen the hull and create and even sharper angle for the edge. Really hope I'm able to get my game up and running again after yesterday's glitch...
|
|