|
|
Post by ironclad6 on Aug 28, 2017 20:45:53 GMT
"p-B11 Aneutronic Fusion" is from an older version made nerd10 (or something like that) "Fusion proton Boron-11" is from the overhaul made by Astrogator with some help. Ah That explains a lot. Standby. I have both versions. I'm basically going to have to re-do everything I've done so far. |
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Aug 28, 2017 21:11:57 GMT
"p-B11 Aneutronic Fusion" is from an older version made nerd10 (or something like that) "Fusion proton Boron-11" is from the overhaul made by Astrogator with some help. Ah That explains a lot. Standby. I have both versions. I'm basically going to have to re-do everything I've done so far. Huh, fourth time this year to be responsible for someone to re-do practically everything. Atleast you can improve the realism of your novel. |
|
|
|
Post by ironclad6 on Aug 28, 2017 21:12:50 GMT
 Interstellar NeedleDelta-v: .139c Cruise speed: .12c (decelerate with magsail) This is one of the most beautiful designs I've seen on here. |
|
|
|
Post by ironclad6 on Aug 28, 2017 21:14:50 GMT
Ah That explains a lot. Standby. I have both versions. I'm basically going to have to re-do everything I've done so far. Huh, fourth time this year to be responsible for someone to re-do practically everything. Atleast you can improve the realism of your novel. That is always the upside. I was previously planning to use P4 fusion. I'm not totally certain which fusion cycle to use now. Everything else I pretty much understood going in but I've more or less aped my way through fusion propulsion. I know that the Adamists will be reverting to Zubrin NSWR designs. |
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Aug 28, 2017 21:34:01 GMT
Huh, fourth time this year to be responsible for someone to re-do practically everything. Atleast you can improve the realism of your novel. That is always the upside. I was previously planning to use P4 fusion. I'm not totally certain which fusion cycle to use now. Everything else I pretty much understood going in but I've more or less aped my way through fusion propulsion. I know that the Adamists will be reverting to Zubrin NSWR designs. D-T: high energy density, moderatly common, 80% of the reaction can't be directed because they are fast neutrons. D-He3: high energy density, quite rare on earth but somewhat abudant on gas giantd, very high charged particle fraction. P4: very high energy, extremely abudant, nearly impossible to ignite, never achieved, unknown reaction charged particle fraction. p-B11: low energy density, quite abudant, nearly 100% charged particle output, extremely hard to ignite. Your best bets are either p-Boron 11 or D-He3. Later comes with many advantages that makes it the better for an warship. p-B11 can be used for world building as an fusion fuel for the civilian sectore. |
|
|
|
Post by matterbeam on Aug 28, 2017 22:02:34 GMT
Hi guys!
I've been reading this with quite some interest and I like what ironside6 is doing.
May I suggest using much smaller, lower number representations of your ship designs for testing in the game?
For example, a 10kT 10TW 1g acceleration 1000km/s rocket can be represented by a 100t 100GW 1g acceleration 1000km/s deltaV model in the game. Same performance and behaviour, but much fewer part numbers and better on-screen performance.
Even more importantly, laser defense against missile swarms. If your design can shoot down 4000 missiles using 200 point defense lasers, then how about equipping your in-game representation with only 2 lasers, taking a dead weight penalty for the missing lasers instead? That way, you only need to send 40 missiles on-screen to defeat it.
For realism's sake, you could say that each on-screen missile is actually a packet of 100 missiles, and each firing laser is actually a set of 100 networked lasers.
The best thing with this approach is that you can fully implement multi-ship testing without crashing the game. Even with 10 ships per side, it's only 400 missiles on screen and 20 lasers firing!
|
|
|
|
Post by ironclad6 on Aug 28, 2017 22:03:35 GMT
Thanks. It winds up improving the story as it plays into the two main factions technologi Al and cultural strengths and weaknesses.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Aug 28, 2017 22:10:05 GMT
Thanks. It winds up improving the story as it plays into the two main factions technologi Al and cultural strengths and weaknesses. Who you mean? |
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Aug 28, 2017 22:16:06 GMT
Hi guys! I've been reading this with quite some interest and I like what ironside6 is doing. May I suggest using much smaller, lower number representations of your ship designs for testing in the game? For example, a 10kT 10TW 1g acceleration 1000km/s rocket can be represented by a 100t 100GW 1g acceleration 1000km/s deltaV model in the game. Same performance and behaviour, but much fewer part numbers and better on-screen performance. Even more importantly, laser defense against missile swarms. If your design can shoot down 4000 missiles using 200 point defense lasers, then how about equipping your in-game representation with only 2 lasers, taking a dead weight penalty for the missing lasers instead? That way, you only need to send 40 missiles on-screen to defeat it. For realism's sake, you could say that each on-screen missile is actually a packet of 100 missiles, and each firing laser is actually a set of 100 networked lasers. The best thing with this approach is that you can fully implement multi-ship testing without crashing the game. Even with 10 ships per side, it's only 400 missiles on screen and 20 lasers firing! Hey matterbeam, hows the blog doing? Also nice tips for simulating greater amounts of forces. |
|
|
|
Post by matterbeam on Aug 28, 2017 22:25:49 GMT
Hi Kerr ! You're welcome. I'm preparing a 'How to Live on Other Planets: Saturn' post, but its ballooned to over 12k words and I took a holiday in between. It should be nearly done though. |
|
|
|
Post by ironclad6 on Aug 28, 2017 22:44:28 GMT
Hi guys! I've been reading this with quite some interest and I like what ironside6 is doing. May I suggest using much smaller, lower number representations of your ship designs for testing in the game? For example, a 10kT 10TW 1g acceleration 1000km/s rocket can be represented by a 100t 100GW 1g acceleration 1000km/s deltaV model in the game. Same performance and behaviour, but much fewer part numbers and better on-screen performance. Even more importantly, laser defense against missile swarms. If your design can shoot down 4000 missiles using 200 point defense lasers, then how about equipping your in-game representation with only 2 lasers, taking a dead weight penalty for the missing lasers instead? That way, you only need to send 40 missiles on-screen to defeat it. For realism's sake, you could say that each on-screen missile is actually a packet of 100 missiles, and each firing laser is actually a set of 100 networked lasers. The best thing with this approach is that you can fully implement multi-ship testing without crashing the game. Even with 10 ships per side, it's only 400 missiles on screen and 20 lasers firing! That is really important to me as I have been admiring your technical contributions. I will respond in more detail shortly. |
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Aug 28, 2017 22:46:52 GMT
Hi Kerr ! You're welcome. I'm preparing a 'How to Live on Other Planets: Saturn' post, but its ballooned to over 12k words and I took a holiday in between. It should be nearly done though. Nice, what do you think might the best fuel option for ironclad6? Given the battleship aspect an water afterburner for high Acceleration bursts might be worth considering |
|
|
|
Post by ironclad6 on Aug 28, 2017 22:52:00 GMT
Hi Kerr ! You're welcome. I'm preparing a 'How to Live on Other Planets: Saturn' post, but its ballooned to over 12k words and I took a holiday in between. It should be nearly done though. Nice, what do you think might the best fuel option for ironclad6? Given the battleship aspect an water afterburner for high Acceleration bursts might be worth considering I was thinking of using metallic hydrogen for my reheat since I already have that on hand for my munitions and the fusion products and lawson's criteria are more or less the same. I'm going to need technical help modelling magnetic confinement nozzles and I probably need to switch from my current generation of compact fission reactors to some sort of heinous fusion reactor if I want to be able to operate my weapons and thrust at the same time. |
|
|
|
Post by ironclad6 on Aug 28, 2017 22:53:29 GMT
Also, all involved, I appreciate your help so so very much. THere is an immense amount for me to comb through here so if I don't respond to you directly I probably missed something interesting and important so do feel free to jog my elbow.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironclad6 on Aug 28, 2017 22:57:09 GMT
Thanks. It winds up improving the story as it plays into the two main factions technologi Al and cultural strengths and weaknesses. Who you mean? HAHA You've made them FASTER!. I've started modelling a variable geometry magnetic confinement nozzle mounted on a blade armature. I'm currently working through how field strength equates to power input from my reactors and how to convert that number into GPA so CDE doesn't hate me. |
|
