|
Post by ironclad6 on Aug 27, 2017 16:03:09 GMT
Wouldn't it be a good idea to use fewer and larger fuel tanks? At least from my experience, module count is directly related to game performance and I remember you complaining about poor performance. You should be able to do the same thing with far fewer tanks at least. That's really helpful. Thankyou. I'll adjust now. Technically they're not stellarators but within the setting I'm writing the term has become generic. In much the same that all vacuum cleaners are hoovers. It's actually using p-B11 aneutronic fusion. I'll accept the lower efficiency for the deliciously high thrust.
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Aug 27, 2017 16:24:55 GMT
Wouldn't it be a good idea to use fewer and larger fuel tanks? At least from my experience, module count is directly related to game performance and I remember you complaining about poor performance. You should be able to do the same thing with far fewer tanks at least. That's really helpful. Thankyou. I'll adjust now. Technically they're not stellarators but within the setting I'm writing the term has become generic. In much the same that all vacuum cleaners are hoovers. It's actually using p-B11 aneutronic fusion. I'll accept the lower efficiency for the deliciously high thrust. With high efficiency I meant the nature of Stellerators/fusion reactors where the fuel is completly fused instead of most fusion engines which burn only a small percantage. 8000km/s is too low for interstellar warfare and too overkill for solar system combat. If your setting plays in the later you should consider using a reaction mass like water, even more thrust fof less costs while still having sufficant Delta-v budgets.
|
|
|
Post by ironclad6 on Aug 27, 2017 16:39:44 GMT
That's really helpful. Thankyou. I'll adjust now. Technically they're not stellarators but within the setting I'm writing the term has become generic. In much the same that all vacuum cleaners are hoovers. It's actually using p-B11 aneutronic fusion. I'll accept the lower efficiency for the deliciously high thrust. With high efficiency I meant the nature of Stellerators/fusion reactors where the fuel is completly fused instead of most fusion engines which burn only a small percantage. 8000km/s is too low for interstellar warfare and too overkill for solar system combat. If your setting plays in the later you should consider using a reaction mass like water, even more thrust fof less costs while still having sufficant Delta-v budgets. The setting I'm writing in uses a sort of hybrid system. Interstellar travel is accomplished using Visser non-rotating wormholes on branching space/time networks. I was originally setting myself a D/V budget of 3000km/sec but as I wrote I realized that this was actually pretty inadequate. The D/V budget is a matter of endurance. Ships like Morokweng need to be able to operate for cruises of many months with minimal support.
|
|
|
Post by ironclad6 on Aug 27, 2017 16:47:26 GMT
Wouldn't it be a good idea to use fewer and larger fuel tanks? At least from my experience, module count is directly related to game performance and I remember you complaining about poor performance. You should be able to do the same thing with far fewer tanks at least. Switching to bigger tanks won me 27 milligees acceleration and cut my turnover by about 28 seconds. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Aug 27, 2017 16:54:48 GMT
With high efficiency I meant the nature of Stellerators/fusion reactors where the fuel is completly fused instead of most fusion engines which burn only a small percantage. 8000km/s is too low for interstellar warfare and too overkill for solar system combat. If your setting plays in the later you should consider using a reaction mass like water, even more thrust fof less costs while still having sufficant Delta-v budgets. The setting I'm writing in uses a sort of hybrid system. Interstellar travel is accomplished using Visser non-rotating wormholes on branching space/time networks. I was originally setting myself a D/V budget of 3000km/sec but as I wrote I realized that this was actually pretty inadequate. The D/V budget is a matter of endurance. Ships like Morokweng need to be able to operate for cruises of many months with minimal support. But for what do you need so much Dv for? You still have to replenish your food and other vital ressources every few months. Most of the time you won't cruise around at dozens to hudred kilometers per second in the system. Creating Stable orbits cost few dozens km/s at most. Though if you have wormholes nanotech should be advanced and cheap enough to generate p-B11 out of Seawater and borax at prices similar to tap water.
|
|
|
Post by ironclad6 on Aug 27, 2017 17:54:24 GMT
The setting I'm writing in uses a sort of hybrid system. Interstellar travel is accomplished using Visser non-rotating wormholes on branching space/time networks. I was originally setting myself a D/V budget of 3000km/sec but as I wrote I realized that this was actually pretty inadequate. The D/V budget is a matter of endurance. Ships like Morokweng need to be able to operate for cruises of many months with minimal support. But for what do you need so much Dv for? You still have to replenish your food and other vital ressources every few months. Most of the time you won't cruise around at dozens to hudred kilometers per second in the system. Creating Stable orbits cost few dozens km/s at most. Though if you have wormholes nanotech should be advanced and cheap enough to generate p-B11 out of Seawater and borax at prices similar to tap water. First of all, as I figure it, B11 and hydrogen are so cheap they are practically free. Second, there's no hyperspace ansible. There's a built in lag to any attempt to co-ordinate any operation, so the ability to turn and burn without really considering remass constraints is a huge virtue. I'm also dealing with planetary systems with much steeper gravity wells than any in our solar system. Providence, the main planetary sub system I'm dealing with with in my novel is actually about eighty Jupiter masses. Getting around in that context is actually extremely propellant hungry. Finally, the game engine forces me to use remass tanks as a sort of spine so that I have something to hang the rest of my ship off.
|
|
|
Post by L5Resident on Aug 28, 2017 0:13:12 GMT
The setting I'm writing in uses a sort of hybrid system. Interstellar travel is accomplished using Visser non-rotating wormholes on branching space/time networks. I was originally setting myself a D/V budget of 3000km/sec but as I wrote I realized that this was actually pretty inadequate. The D/V budget is a matter of endurance. Ships like Morokweng need to be able to operate for cruises of many months with minimal support. But for what do you need so much Dv for? You still have to replenish your food and other vital ressources every few months. Most of the time you won't cruise around at dozens to hudred kilometers per second in the system. Creating Stable orbits cost few dozens km/s at most. Though if you have wormholes nanotech should be advanced and cheap enough to generate p-B11 out of Seawater and borax at prices similar to tap water. I mean having so much dV you can make a constant acceleration round trip from Earth to mars in 4 days or make it pluto in a couple of weeks.
|
|
|
Post by ironclad6 on Aug 28, 2017 0:15:45 GMT
She's a warship. That's the point. Skimping on remass capacity is a false economy because then you have to forward stage. You want to be using your tankers to shuttle between well established, well defended hubs, not bringing remass out to the boonies where they're exposed to potential enemy action. My original design brief was Earth to Mars in four days followed by a knock down drag out fight with enough remass left over to reverse course. In the end remass is cheap as tap water while fissiles, man-hours and complex electronics are very expensive. Why economize on tap water?
|
|
|
Post by ironclad6 on Aug 28, 2017 0:30:22 GMT
The workhorse of the Systems Commonwealth Navy.
|
|
|
Post by ironclad6 on Aug 28, 2017 0:35:27 GMT
The composer Class. You need to be a special kind of crazy to get assigned to one of these. The propulsion system from a Standout class on a ship less than a fifth the mass. We had to develop an entirely new line of acceleration couches and G-suits to make this design work.
|
|
|
Post by ironclad6 on Aug 28, 2017 7:25:29 GMT
Lots of likes but few comments.
|
|
|
Post by L5Resident on Aug 28, 2017 7:28:43 GMT
Seriously great design and lore! I suppose the ships come from the Anglo-sphere given the RR powerplants? I would suppose for a more US centric design would include GE reactors, Lockmart fusion drives, General Atomics Drones/Railguns, etc
|
|
|
Post by bigbombr on Aug 28, 2017 7:29:47 GMT
Lots of likes but few comments. We might be awed by the pretty pictures. All your craft seem pretty large though, do you have any in the sub-kt range?
|
|
|
Post by ironclad6 on Aug 28, 2017 7:51:43 GMT
Lots of likes but few comments. We might be awed by the pretty pictures. All your craft seem pretty large though, do you have any in the sub-kt range? Thank you. I wanted them all to look like they'd been designed and built by the same engineering team, hence the same basic scheme (steeply sloped armour, compact turreted lasers, drone bays behind heavy armour etc) applied to ships of immensely different sizes and roles. As for mass, no. The RN's smallest capital class is the Composer class at 3.72Kt. The Standout class flight I (Jean Sans Peur, Goyathley, Bjorn Ironsides) were built to a 20Kt design. From Amina on they were built with a revised armour scheme. The Crater class of Drone Tenders are the largest warships in the Systems Commonwealth Navy at 122Ktonnes. The Fleet Auxiliary's fast fleet tankers are closer to 200Kton fully loaded. Operational experience has shown that bigger is better. Lasers seem to be the dominant weapon and spot intensity at range scales directly to aperture size. It's often more effective to use a relatively low powered laser with a very large mirror to generate a very destructive beam at very great distances. The Composer class are considered barely survivable in this context. There is after all, no replacement for displacement. L5Resident Avatar Aug 28, 2017 0:28:43 GMT -7 L5Resident said: Seriously great design and lore! I suppose the ships come from the Anglo-sphere given the RR powerplants? I would suppose for a more US centric design would include GE reactors, Lockmart fusion drives, General Atomics Drones/Railguns, etc Thank you for noticing. It's nice to know when someone is genuinely paying attention. It's worth pointing out that I'm using the game engine to test ideas and develop lore for a separate setting. It doesn't really fit in with the CDE setting. There's no room in that canon for a post colonial parliamentary monarchy when literally every habitable and worthwhile rock is settled. The idea behind the Systems commonwealth is that it's a devolved commonwealth that grew out of a really quite brutally oppressive empire. As such it still carries a lot of it's Imperial forms around with it but in practice it's a pluralistic parliamentary democracy. The former colonies all govern themselves for the most part but foreign policy and common defence are still handled on the "Imperial" level. The professional head of the Systems Commonwealth military for example is still referred to as "Chief of the Imperial General Staff" of "CIGS" for short. I am having some difficulty getting their principle opposition to work properly as CDE doesn't seem to be able to cope with aiming internally mounted weapons. I'll post up when I sort it out.
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Aug 28, 2017 8:07:11 GMT
ironclad6Can you give some more infos about your ships? Way of creating artificial gravity (or not), information on the armament etc.
|
|