|
Post by AtomHeartDragon on Jan 30, 2022 22:56:24 GMT
Note that: First, my published ships are as of now stock designs. That means they use stock weapons, including stock missiles and stock drones, and while all stock weapons aren't great, stock missiles and drones in particular are deeply underwhelming, so if I build a stock ship that isn't a dedicated siloship, basic optimization dictates only keeping enough stock missiles to open up tactical options, rather than as main source of firepower.
Second, missile/drone carrier ships are just less interesting to build because when used as intended they are just bundles of dV, thrust and payload.
|
|
|
Post by AtomHeartDragon on Jan 29, 2022 18:09:48 GMT
I'm not on very often, just dropping by every once in a blue moon. I meant feature scope more then number of explosions on screen at once. The campaign is very short and strictly linear. I don't think that's bad design, for a one man project it very much achieved what it set out to do and it feels complete, but I kind of just want more game you know? Wait only one man made this game? Yes.
|
|
|
Post by AtomHeartDragon on Nov 28, 2021 17:00:11 GMT
I think one of the issues here is that radiation environment is far from homogeneous across solar system. Close to the sun it's probably going to be bad, Jupiter at Ganymede and below is a literal hellscape, most of the outer system is going to be benign, etc. It would be nice to have values listed for individual bodies at least and shielding checked against that.
Also some, but not enough shielding is worse than no shielding against charged particles, because instead of having a few insanely high energy particles just zip through you, you get shotgunned by showers of much lower energy particles they knocked out of shielding. It's like spall damage with ineffective bulk armour in a way.
|
|
|
Post by AtomHeartDragon on Sept 2, 2021 15:58:31 GMT
p.s. Oh lookie what his boss still pushes: Wut.
|
|
|
Post by AtomHeartDragon on Aug 19, 2021 11:03:35 GMT
On that subject of the oxygen cycle, does anyone know how our military ship are not dead traps. Form the info give for the crew modules, the air is pure oxygen. Like pure oxygen from the Apollo 1 "we are on fire" mission. There is a reason why the ISS air is 79% nitrogen and 21% oxygen. So where is the mass for the nitrogen. Unless we are trying to destroy our own ship with a little spark. Apollo 1 was pressurized at 5ATM to simulate launch conditions. 0_0 Is that confirmed info? Why 5 freaking bar?
|
|
|
Post by AtomHeartDragon on Jul 26, 2021 16:14:16 GMT
Depends on the size of the ship. Warships we have on CoADE are much too small to be any good for that. Small medical centrifuges could be used to spin up the patient (sedated, of course, it'd be way too nauseating otherwise), with a teleoperated surgical robot for performing procedures without spinning up the doctor to nauseating speeds (such a robot failing would make for nice a bit of drama, too, since the doctor would have then to operate in rather extreme conditions). You can tether a ship and a countermass (possibly propellant or supply store, transhab or another ship in nose-to-nose orientation) and spin that up. If the ship is has crew area sufficiently abaft of center mass you can also just tumble it. Given relatively weak propulsion technology and the penalty of encasing additional volume in armour, I would expect tumbling transhab-warship pairs to be the norm in the setting when in transit or stationing somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by AtomHeartDragon on Jul 12, 2021 20:14:55 GMT
In the expanse we are told that medical procedures cannot be done under zero G. The importance of gravity to medical procedures cannot be understated during long spaceflights or military engagements. So the question I pose is what is the minimum acceleration needed to do medical procedures on a spaceship. You know that spin gravity is easy, right?
|
|
|
Post by AtomHeartDragon on Jul 9, 2021 22:59:11 GMT
if you use built-in "Inspect" ( Ctrl+Shift+C and point to the image in google- pushed browser), then you can find out what is the content of <img src=" tag, and link that via "Link" forum button ( the one with a globe and roster). In any case, welcome to the forum - registering will allow message editing afterwards edited to add: there's a minimum on core mass in real life, lower than that - and any [ practical] pressure that you can apply to it with explosive lenses will produce nothing more than a fizzle. So if your intention is for a nuke to be realistic - please do a research on lowest-yield modern-day ones, especially US ones ( some data is available); other than that - I recall people using non-realistic "micronukes" as a substitute to armor-eating cumulative charges, specifically stating so. Just saying. Any good estimates for minimalistic micronuke core mass?
|
|
|
Post by AtomHeartDragon on May 11, 2021 0:16:03 GMT
Naming something "ion engine" doesn't make it an ion engine. On occasions when SW technobabble happens to align with real life, it's most of the time still a gobbledygook - arguably more egregiously so, because just asspulling new words and concepts is ultimately more honest.
As for the topic:
RailgunModule _DCA 'Jotunn' 300km/s 45MJ 10.68mm Spinal Capacitor Railgun (920 MW) Description Massive railgun with enormous exit velocity requiring an entire ship to be built around its 123m long barrel. UsesCustomName true PowerConsumption_W 9.2e+08 Capacitor Count 1 DielectricComposition Hafnia Dimensions_m 3.33 0.098 Separation_m 2.5e-05 Rails Composition Vanadium Chromium Steel Thickness_m 0.29 Length_m 123 BarrelArmor Composition Graphite Aerogel Thickness_m 6.69 Armature Composition Vanadium Chromium Steel BoreRadius_m 0.00534 Mass_kg 0.001 Tracer Hafnium Carbide Payload null Loader PowerConsumption_W 50000 ExternalMount false InternalMount true AttachedAmmoBay Capacity 100000 Stacks 1 TargetsShips true TargetsShots true Note that it's an absolute beast of a railgun and a spinal weapon, totaling at 740t with just the barrel ( + bracing), capacitor and magazine.
|
|
|
Post by AtomHeartDragon on Apr 19, 2021 17:09:36 GMT
I just watched this video talking about nuclear thermal propulsion. Did the producer of the video make a mistake with regard to type of reaction mass? I am used to using methane for that in COADE yet he is saying that you would need to use hydrogen in a nuclear thermal rocket. Armour is the thing that makes the difference. Liquid hydrogen has piss poor density - if you want to not only store it but also put some armor around it you run into issues. OTOH methane performs much worse, but is also much denser so it takes much smaller volume and exposes much lower surface area that needs to be armored (mind you, hydrocarbons like methane might have some non-trivial engineering issues attached, namely solid carbon buildup). In general, the heavier your armor, the denser propellant you need. Another issue is that chemical engines perform less than optimally in COADE due to it not modelling non-stoichiometric combustion properly. IRL you'd burn, for example hydrolox, fuel rich, not only saving engine components from oxidation, but also increasing Isp while driving temperature down by having a lot of uncombusted hydrogen in the exhaust. In COADE, as far as I can tell, all the uncombusted mass disappears down a black hole. Combine it with somewhat optimistic solid core NTR performance and it really makes nuclear propulsion using variety of propellants come up on top.
|
|
|
Post by AtomHeartDragon on Feb 15, 2021 19:52:18 GMT
And here's the list of stereotypes for the stock factions Republic of the Free People : United states of Islam United Sol Trade Alliance : America's fear of their Cold War enemies Nippon Prime : America's fear of their Japanese enemies during world war 2 Iroquois Resurgence : America seeing the people they almost wiped out as terrorist The Liberty Exchange : And of course the good of capitalism I think a lot of CoaDE lore and writing benefits from looking at it through a somewhat darkly humorous lens, which I believe was the intent. In this case also consider utter lack of USA derived faction a fitting punchline.
|
|
|
Post by AtomHeartDragon on Feb 14, 2021 9:07:14 GMT
No, until the source code is published. Then how do some people change the stock ship though steam? Stock ships are not hardcoded.
|
|
|
Post by AtomHeartDragon on Feb 5, 2021 21:45:35 GMT
Aren't they kind of modeled in the context of the dueling laserstars that have tiny fast anti laser lasers that destroy the opponents laser mirrors? I mean, a photon emitter that can destroy a camera from naval artillery ranges is just a laser, yes? How is that relevant if there is no camera to be destroyed because it's not modeled?
|
|
|
Post by AtomHeartDragon on Feb 5, 2021 21:30:21 GMT
My understanding is that if impact is energetic enough (beyond cratering velocity) the back of the rod will get disrupted before it makes contact with the target. I thankfully brought my best reference on this home before COVID and it’s math doesn’t mention that effect but the impact velocities we’re talking aren’t really covered. The math doesn’t show a discontinuity or limit like your describing but that literally means nothing. This mechanism makes sense...penetrator usually denser than armor so acoustic velocity in the rod is likely faster than in the armor. This I must learn more about. Any idea where you learned it? I crave a reference! It might be mentioned on the official blog and I don't remember if I didn't arrive at this conclusion independently. It also seems to me that pancakes might be harder to ricochet off sloped armor than needles. Of course in newtonian approximation regime rods DO get best penetration depth. Do you (yes you) actually need their centralized "Web 2.0" with all that tracking & shitcode? I hate Web 2.0 with passion, but that doesn't change the fact that communication channels inherently commodify their user base and easily monopolize access to entire communities, regardless of whether it is an intention or not in any given case (in most it is because surveillance capitalism, but that's besides the point here). If you want to talk COADE and want someone to talk with you don't really have that many choices - ones I do know of: - This forum
- Discord
- Reddit
- Steam
Discord is reasonably lively if mostly offtopic.
|
|
|
Post by AtomHeartDragon on Feb 2, 2021 19:02:46 GMT
The lag problem definitely gets worse if AI set to ignore the range is badly outranged. A way around that (apart from using weapons in-line with AI's rage) is disabling your weapons before combat to force short range intercept.
Also, you might want to turn on the bloom - it's the only thing used to render incandescence, such as radiator glow.
|
|