|
Post by concretedonkey on Jun 13, 2017 3:53:00 GMT
I encountered the same thing during the stock ship redesign ... it was pretty tedious removing the duplicated entries :\.
|
|
|
Post by concretedonkey on Jun 13, 2017 3:44:39 GMT
So this is the drone and carrier version of the trumpeter: drone internals : price is 3.26Mc and it could be further optimized. Missile payload is decresed from the manned version to 130 M 9Cs 200 Bs and 200 As. Guns have been cut to modest 15km/s 565kg mounts that are not going to win any awards for speed or rate of fire, but are cheap, light and relatively accurate. Defensive laser drones have been cut to only 3, a newer decane fueled version to be able to refuel them from the capital drone. I added something that I was missing on the manned version - a laser. And the carrier itself: Price is 82Mc, mainly because of the drones. Ship itself is just a drone taxi, has minimal armor and no weapons. Its been ready for days now but I was going in circles with the new propellant. Methane, as good of a ballance as it was offering me for NTR, just wasn't cutting it for thrust for MPDs. Especially on low power. I tried Neon, Argon, Water but for the moment the best ballance I've got is with decane. Initially I tried switching to decane for the missiles too but for the moment I switched only the A version : even if its 10kg heavier it still a bit better in everything else. Not the same story for the B and C versions however: as you can see the mass and the price quickly escalated with the fuel amount and since there wasn't any armor around the drop tanks I wasn't really winning anything so for the moment I'll stick with methane for the longer legged versions. I rarely refuel missiles anyway. Both the drone and the carrier can do 1.8mg with the new MPDs and even if its hideously inneficient (for MPD) the drone's engines still give up to 30km/s delta V. The other thrusters there are NTRs with 8.4km/s delta V and modest 460mg acceleration. The carrier has another engine arrangement, since there was more power available the mpds there are much better, giving her about 57km/s delta V. I also gave her 5 relatively large resistojets for better delta V compared to NTRs. I tried the same arrangement with the drones, that gave me 10km/s delta V with 2x50mw resistojets but I prefered to be able to fire the laser while dodging so I stayed with the NTRs. This decane development was largely due to discussions in this forum after my last post. Peon...my warship has 1200 km/s dV.....at .35g Fusion 4tw! I will go fusion the moment qswitched goes to fusion, which is what, 10 years for now ? On a more serious note , anyone on team pentane ?
|
|
|
Post by concretedonkey on Jun 11, 2017 19:06:27 GMT
So this is the drone and carrier version of the trumpeter: drone internals : price is 3.26Mc and it could be further optimized. Missile payload is decresed from the manned version to 130 M 9Cs 200 Bs and 200 As. Guns have been cut to modest 15km/s 565kg mounts that are not going to win any awards for speed or rate of fire, but are cheap, light and relatively accurate. Defensive laser drones have been cut to only 3, a newer decane fueled version to be able to refuel them from the capital drone. I added something that I was missing on the manned version - a laser. And the carrier itself: Price is 82Mc, mainly because of the drones. Ship itself is just a drone taxi, has minimal armor and no weapons. Its been ready for days now but I was going in circles with the new propellant. Methane, as good of a ballance as it was offering me for NTR, just wasn't cutting it for thrust for MPDs. Especially on low power. I tried Neon, Argon, Water but for the moment the best ballance I've got is with decane. Initially I tried switching to decane for the missiles too but for the moment I switched only the A version : even if its 10kg heavier it still a bit better in everything else. Not the same story for the B and C versions however: as you can see the mass and the price quickly escalated with the fuel amount and since there wasn't any armor around the drop tanks I wasn't really winning anything so for the moment I'll stick with methane for the longer legged versions. I rarely refuel missiles anyway. Both the drone and the carrier can do 1.8mg with the new MPDs and even if its hideously inneficient (for MPD) the drone's engines still give up to 30km/s delta V. The other thrusters there are NTRs with 8.4km/s delta V and modest 460mg acceleration. The carrier has another engine arrangement, since there was more power available the mpds there are much better, giving her about 57km/s delta V. I also gave her 5 relatively large resistojets for better delta V compared to NTRs. I tried the same arrangement with the drones, that gave me 10km/s delta V with 2x50mw resistojets but I prefered to be able to fire the laser while dodging so I stayed with the NTRs. This decane development was largely due to discussions in this forum after my last post.
|
|
|
Post by concretedonkey on Jun 7, 2017 16:38:25 GMT
... -SI Destroyer: [ID] Primary Combat Ship. Larger variant of the cruiser; will have a new more powerful class of railguns, more redundancy, possibly thicker armor. May also come equipped with lasers and a small compliment of Microdrones. ... Minor nitpick: traditionally, cruisers are larger than destroyers. Destroyers are versatile all-around performers at an acceptable cost, the workhorse of a navy. They were originally developed to protect capital ships from torpedo boats, but grew through the ages as their role become more cruiser-like (fleet escort and scouting). Cruisers were larger ships used for scouting, supporting other capital ships and for neutralizing destroyers. They are (generally speaking) larger and less versatile. While destroyers (both now and during WW2) often serve anti-sub, anti-air and anti-surface roles, cruisers are almost exclusively used for anti-air and anti-surface. If you're looking for something bigger than a cruiser, you're probably meaning a heavy cruiser (if greater in size, armour and firepower, but still less than a battleship's firepower and armour) or a battlecruiser (also known as a 'pocket battleship', they are cruiser sized and have typical cruiser speeds and armour, but battleship-grade cannons). If you mean a versatile ship smaller than a destroyer, you probably mean frigate or corvette (which are even smaller than frigates and only barely larger than torpedo-, gun- and missile-boats). Not that navies always keep themselves to these rules. The USSR had a class of cruisers they called destroyers because "cruisers are too bourgeois". And the US Navy has the Zumwalt class 'destroyer', which is a cruiser in function (anti-air and anti-surface, but no anti-sub) and size (larger than a Ticonderoga class cruiser). yep, just to add more in to the mess, everything got extremely muddy after WW2, there was one point in which the US navy had frigates larger than destroyers and the germans still call their destroyers frigates because destroyer sounds too... agressive.
|
|
|
Post by concretedonkey on Jun 4, 2017 12:41:27 GMT
The Soviet Trumpeter, sort of a cheap missile frigate with strong emphasis on delta V - both for the ship itself and the missiles. It has around 13 km/s with the droptanks without its a bit above 10. Main weaponry are 3 variations of my current "reasonable" missile - that is to say reasonably effective, reasonably priced and with a reasonable mass and survivability : Variation A is without droptanks, delta V 10km/s , carries 2000 of those. B is A + 4x15kg droptanks , 16km/s delta V, 600 carried. C is the largest 3x40kg droptanks , 19km/s delta V, 400 carried. Missile defense is handled by upgraded version of my prepatch anti missile laser drone: As you can see it got fatter since missiles got significantly faster and it needed a larger laser... I suspect it will soon get a powerplant upgrade too, but for the moment it works. Also it has 2x50km/s railguns 6x10km/s railguns both purely secondary, its not supposed to rush anything just pound from a distance with missiles. What is in those missiles ? Methane NTR ? yep methane NTR, if you are interested I can post the designs... its my mainstream missile for the moment. edit: after a bit of optimization I managed to shrink the price to 23.6Mc. I switched the Li6 radiation shielding (unrealsitic) to polyethylene but still improved the weight by modifying the powerplants and engines with boron nitride neutron reflectors. Now if can get rid of the railguns and minmaxed missile engines it might be the most realsitic ship I've made to date :\. But those would really hurt.
|
|
|
Post by concretedonkey on Jun 4, 2017 8:46:30 GMT
shit, those guns almost make me consider trying mods ... but I will resist the temptation... sinner! btw where does the potassium go in all of this ? The momentum wheels ? They aren't as good as they seem on paper. There seems to be some hardcoded ROF cap and at long ranges wobble makes them less effective. And yes, the potassium is in the wheels. How does the damage model handle projectiles as small as this? I would love to see some shots of the result.
|
|
|
Post by concretedonkey on Jun 4, 2017 8:12:37 GMT
New ship, heavily modded and uses limit editing but nothing too absurd. ... It pretty handily butchers any stock design, and if you glitch to within 10 km everything dies before it has a chance to fire. ... These are its weapons. I felt that graphene was reasonable here considering how small the projectiles are. shit, those guns almost make me consider trying mods ... but I will resist the temptation... sinner! btw where does the potassium go in all of this ? The momentum wheels ?
|
|
|
Post by concretedonkey on Jun 4, 2017 7:52:06 GMT
I'm trying to keep my power levels by design low, I have 1GW 3GW powplants on other ships, 10 is probably the max I'll use, but not on this ship. This is supposed to be mass produced cheap long range raider and to provide long range striking power for smaller fleets. There will be a larger missile cruiser with more exotic missiles - also more expensive, in the future. However as a rule you can expect that even those more expensive ships would probably not have more than 3GWs. I'm aware its an unpopular position, call it illogical, call it stubborn, call it stupid . Edit: Also keep in mind of what I said about the drone version - as all of my cheap and small combat ships there is always the though about turning them to drones if the concept works well - in this case long range cruising will be handled by the mothership. Probably big one with lots of power (by my standarts, again ). 32.8 Mc is hardly cheap. Anything above 10 Mc is on the expensive side where I'm concerned. yes its one of the things I would like to improve on this design now , above 1/4th of the price are the railguns and there the aramid fiber armor is driving the price significantly up , there is still work to be done on that regard before I go with the drone. I'm considering droping them completely - maybe even on the whole fleet level - its also one of the things that still bug me from realism perspective - besides the whole unlimited power escalation tendency, - the rate of fire of of railguns. I'm finding it even more completely rediculous than the terawatt laserstars .
|
|
|
Post by concretedonkey on Jun 4, 2017 6:40:43 GMT
I'm trying to keep my power levels by design low, I have 1GW 3GW powplants on other ships, 10 is probably the max I'll use, but not on this ship. This is supposed to be mass produced cheap long range raider and to provide long range striking power for smaller fleets. There will be a larger missile cruiser with more exotic missiles - also more expensive, in the future. However as a rule you can expect that even those more expensive ships would probably not have more than 3GWs. I'm aware its an unpopular position, call it illogical, call it stubborn, call it stupid . Edit: Also keep in mind of what I said about the drone version - as all of my cheap and small combat ships there is always the though about turning them to drones if the concept works well - in this case long range cruising will be handled by the mothership. Probably big one with lots of power (by my standarts, again ).
|
|
|
Post by concretedonkey on Jun 4, 2017 6:22:06 GMT
This one has again MPD but again added as an afterthough, acceleration is low , I'm able to use it in some situation but ofcourse its not as usefull as a 1TW version. Also I was interested not only in high delta V but in high acceleration too- without the tanks acceleration is 1.2G and this is a compromise, I prefered it above 1.5 as it was initially... but the price is the king. There will be a capital drone version in the future.
|
|
|
Post by concretedonkey on Jun 3, 2017 20:23:35 GMT
The Soviet Trumpeter, sort of a cheap missile frigate with strong emphasis on delta V - both for the ship itself and the missiles. It has around 13 km/s with the droptanks without its a bit above 10. Main weaponry are 3 variations of my current "reasonable" missile - that is to say reasonably effective, reasonably priced and with a reasonable mass and survivability : Variation A is without droptanks, delta V 10km/s , carries 2000 of those. B is A + 4x15kg droptanks , 16km/s delta V, 600 carried. C is the largest 3x40kg droptanks , 19km/s delta V, 400 carried. Missile defense is handled by upgraded version of my prepatch anti missile laser drone: As you can see it got fatter since missiles got significantly faster and it needed a larger laser... I suspect it will soon get a powerplant upgrade too, but for the moment it works. Also it has 2x50km/s railguns 6x10km/s railguns both purely secondary, its not supposed to rush anything just pound from a distance with missiles.
|
|
|
Post by concretedonkey on Jun 1, 2017 3:51:42 GMT
Cartainly sounds interesting, if you think I can help in anyway ping me. Keep in mind that the redesigned stock ships are currently in limbo - I got everything to work but it was a bit of a slapdash work. I want to spend a bit more time to equalize them to the new stock parts.
|
|
|
Post by concretedonkey on May 31, 2017 5:58:40 GMT
concretedonkey - The simplest way to improve acceleration is to upscale the power generation and the MPD. I'd say 208 kt is quite a bit too much to handle with only ~10 GW; more appropriate for this mass would be 1 TW. Or alternately, reduce the mass to around 10 kt. Also, I notice the MPD you are using seems to have comparatively low exhaust velocity for an MPD of that power. (I use neon a lot just because it's the cheapest, and my big ships don't need any propulsion other than MPD. Methane is a fine multipurpose propellant.) mmm I'm not prepared to go there, I have psychological boundaries with high power builds, you may have noticed .... and now its around 10 GWs , the power plant is one of yours btw.... The way I see it we play this game in two completely different ways - some people like to go way overboard with everything - large ships and terawatt reactors and so on. Mess around with the limitations of the game. I on the other had constantly worry about limitations that the game doesn't take in to account, for example on this build you may notice that the radiators are relatively short - this is because as I was scaling them up I got worried if there shouldn't be some kind of degradation of effectiveness as the radiator gets too long and if there shouldn't be power and additional mass taken in to account for that coolant on the heat pipes running to and in the radiator. Call me a party pooper. On the other hand if I think that what I did was going to work in real life and is relatively realistic I always get a warm feeling inside ... .. The MPDs are 70km/s 2GWs around 50kN if I remember correctly (I'm at work now and can't check), I'm not very experienced in them and most of mine are slapped on to warships because why not - you really have no downside of adding them if they use the same propellant, but none of my ships designed around them, so I never really payed much attention to them. Also I usually do not have that much power available , from what I see they really start to shine with more juice .
|
|
|
Post by concretedonkey on May 31, 2017 3:35:59 GMT
I had worries about this too but this is why you have the resistojets. The idea was to use them to brake away from the gravity well, then when you are farther switch to mpds on long run. Its pretty much given that you are not going anywhere very fast but the alternative was to use an additional higher density propellant (I see that apophys is fond of neon) for the MPDs and that will turn the methane in to that much dead weight, the ship would grow... how much I'll have to test , I don't have any non-methane mpds at the moment. I've tested it braking away from Earth and atleast there there wasn't much of a problem with this approach - boost for around 800m/s beyond moon's orbit and then do what you want. Admittedly I haven't tested it on lower Jupiter orbits for example and that might be a problem but I see no reason for this ship to be there on the first place. Its a long range / long term support vessel not a fast transport. Still all of this is very much WIP, I'll try denser propellants or even might switch the main propellant to something else entirely for the whole fleet if it turns out to be more beneficial. Or alternatively I can go the easy way and just use NTR instead of the resistojets as on my military ships that will have enough punch for sure .
|
|
|
Post by concretedonkey on May 30, 2017 20:32:38 GMT
Since everything starts with logistics .. I present you the support backbone of my still unfinished new fleet after the patch - the Atlas fleet auxiliary - cargo is 5000 tons , 100 passengers, 40 crew and 200 000 tons of methane , the only interesting thing about it its that its my first use of combined MPD/Resistojet propulsion. I occaisionaly use both + NTRs but usually the resistojets are just RCS. Idea was to use high efficiency drives since it will not do any good for the fleet if it just sucks all the fuel to get to the warships. On resistojets its a bit above 24km/s delta V and acceleration is 16mg. MPD its 230km/s delta V and 131 micro G.
|
|