|
Post by AtomHeartDragon on Feb 1, 2021 22:49:29 GMT
Dazzlers would need sensors modelling.
|
|
|
Post by AtomHeartDragon on Feb 1, 2021 20:12:17 GMT
Image was giant, so here's link instead. That's lowest settings, and shows engagement range. I'm replaying Vesta Overkill and always getting 5 seconds per frame as soon as enemy fleet starts firing - no joke. I tried to keep playing on this, but after sustaining 10 hours of this madness, I'm about to get mad at this. Is there any way to turn off distance ignore on NPC? Or is everyone just bearing this off and playing with missiles only? 3700X on steady 4.2GHz with RTX 3070, gets steady 230+ fps when engaging with one fleet carrier at that distance. There are two (mutually exclusive) mods to help reduce the lag: steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2301816113 <- might make campaign a tiny bit easier, but is mostly vanilla. steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2233547551 <- will make the campaign a good deal harder by making AI better at using stock ships. Also, using custom components before beating VO is technically cheating - you only unlock customization by beating it.
|
|
|
Post by AtomHeartDragon on Jan 30, 2021 17:12:08 GMT
Long rods are probably no longer going to be of much help at 10km/s impact velocity, neither will any self-sharpening behaviour - your round simply won't have time to deform before the penetration is over. And then your CG is still broken in other ways. Sorry for the necro but wherever did you get this idea? Is this a game engine issue? Because from what I’ve read about hyper velocity impact long rod penetration should still be in the “getting better” stage at 10 kms relative in most cases. 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.
|
|
|
Post by AtomHeartDragon on Dec 25, 2020 21:46:53 GMT
Building your own ships over other people's modules is easy. But if you want to uninstall other people's mods, you have to delete all of your own designs that depends on them, or the game will crash. That's why you should never do that. If you want to use someone else's modules, even provided expressly for this purpose, make your own (uniquely named) copies instead and use those. It also fixes crippling issue with portions of your ships disappearing on reload. And with same named modules overwriting each other in designs using them.
|
|
|
Post by AtomHeartDragon on Dec 13, 2020 17:33:15 GMT
Long rods are probably no longer going to be of much help at 10km/s impact velocity, neither will any self-sharpening behaviour - your round simply won't have time to deform before the penetration is over.
And then your CG is still broken in other ways.
|
|
|
Post by AtomHeartDragon on Dec 12, 2020 23:50:10 GMT
It shoots an armor based rod, I found it much effective than a radiation shield based rod, especially after segmenting the armor in three sections using variable dimension spacers. I rate it NaN/10 Coilgun relies on known numerical integrator bug. It's evident from efficiency, acceleration graph, firing time (coilguns using this bug always fire in exactly 10.00ms) and the fact that if you try to improve the rate of fire by beefing up the loader, it'll suddenly stop working. Not a fan of payload based kslugs either as they are extremely laggy and use limitations of simulation mechanics to circumvent some physical issues.
|
|
|
Post by AtomHeartDragon on Sept 23, 2020 19:29:00 GMT
If both reactor(s) and their radiator(s) were intact it might have been caused by bisection bug - game counts ships with missing rear part as without power generation even if they have both power and radiators. It limits usefulness of distributing vital systems somewhat.
|
|
|
Post by AtomHeartDragon on Sept 23, 2020 19:26:10 GMT
Also, one of the problems with Devastators is that they are awful even by meagre stock design standards. They are death sentence to the launching ship if it's intercepted before emptying magazines, have beyond abysmal dV and have neither survivability or even hitting power to make up for this.
The only way to sensibly use them against capship fleets with existing PD is preboosting them with the launching capship. Still when I did gold VO with stock module custom ships I actually used rough SillySiloship counterparts with 50 Devastators and a lot of other stuff each.
Overall nukes can be pretty effective but they really benefit from being combined with some way to do kinetic damage* (even by just homing for collision, especially with delayed warheads).
*) Flak and nuke on a single missile is subject to the explosion teleportation AKA "brimstone" bug, mind you,
|
|
|
Post by AtomHeartDragon on Aug 28, 2020 21:26:14 GMT
The work is promising so far, although upgraded AI campaign might not be exactly n00b friendly.
|
|
|
Post by AtomHeartDragon on Aug 18, 2020 11:16:37 GMT
At extreme distances it becomes quite apparent. Where does an extreme one start? Hundreds of km seems still a flawless sniping distance for me. Should I bring a more powerful laser to notice a wobble? Try extremely focused one engaging. For example I have MLS missiles Deep Fryer/Cooker have trouble even hitting for most of their engagement range. They only start tracking them reliably and mowing them down up close at which point they are slowly getting saturated.
|
|
|
Post by AtomHeartDragon on Aug 15, 2020 8:39:34 GMT
Lasers (completely) and sniper coilguns (almost) accuracies are not affected by distance. It seems very odd for me, and I think introducing a wobble to guns may break the laser meta and make another weapons more viable. Guns and lasers do have wobble. At extreme distances it becomes quite apparent.
|
|
|
Post by AtomHeartDragon on Aug 9, 2020 8:34:13 GMT
To the nearest kt for mass budget.
|
|
|
Post by AtomHeartDragon on Aug 8, 2020 19:40:41 GMT
while creating a custom campaign level, how to limit the costomizable ship mass and cost? I think mass and cost limits are based on default fleet for a mission.
|
|
|
Post by AtomHeartDragon on Aug 2, 2020 7:51:44 GMT
EchoCould you also drop editor screenshots with relevant layers selected? It might be possible to see what's happening without loading and I always forget which column is which, so it's hard for me to just parse the exports.
|
|
|
Post by AtomHeartDragon on Jul 30, 2020 6:08:47 GMT
That is not the case; it's quite the contrary - MMH is more stable, but UDMH is more performant. According to Ignition! it actually seems to be the other way around? p.43:
|
|