|
|
Post by Durandal on Oct 15, 2016 16:32:19 GMT
Protip: If you place weapon(s) on the front, it will look like the image on the right. Here its not that bad because I don't have much spaced armor. (I don't need it because the stacked stuff in the nose are blocks of graphite aerogel and tin layer of armor. From the front it can sustain quite allot of punishment while remaining realy light.) Now, if you move down your weapon(s) just a little bit down, they will still point foward as you see on the second image. Giving it a much nicer pointy nose, and it is also more light that way.  It works with engine too, but only if you have gimbals of more than 45 degree. It is usefull to add additional control to gimballess/small angle engines. Its the best way to control roll too:  I've been using this setup for forward weapons om a rather large ship I've been working on. Very helpful. I hadn't noticed that about engines yet though, I'll have to try it out. |
|
|
|
Post by dwwolf on Oct 15, 2016 18:54:15 GMT
I have been meaning to experiment with small (<1kN) no gimbal control thrusters near the nose of my heavy flak missile. The missile weighs about 400 kg. And 4 thrusters are about 8kg.
For some reason they really cut into dV though. I think I will try using a different fuel for em.
I guess it is because the usual 3 degree gimballed missile engines ostensibly also generate dV by the wide turns they are required to make. Overall that procedure seems more wasteful to me however.
I wonder if missile survivability will go down with more off angle missile main thruster burns.
|
|
|
|
Post by dwwolf on Oct 15, 2016 19:44:11 GMT
My heavy flak/EFP missile utilises The following setup : A 2 kg octogen charge with an 8kg Osmium EFP on top of it.. ~30cm diameter. Followed by an 30kg shrapnell charge (round pill shapped ) that uses a smallish amount of exlosives to break up into ~2/3 kg chunks. Then : 10kg shrapnell charge that breaks up into ~5g bits. Again round pill shaped. And lastly : The stock 10kg flak explosive rod ( 5000 2 g bits ). I think I settled on a 100m standoff range on the explosives. IIRC it uses a 28kN LOx/Decane thruster. Has around 7g Accell and just under 3km/s dV. Its a bit of a chainsaw vs stock designs.....  It produces 3 distinct cones of shrapnell (4 if you count the EFP ). 1 tight dispersal with the heavy chunks. 1 low/medium dispersal with the 5g bits. 1 wide pattern with the side blast 2g flak storm. Its quite versatile vs both enemy ordnance and capital ships. |
|
|
|
Post by Durandal on Oct 15, 2016 21:00:58 GMT
My heavy flak/EFP missile utilises The following setup : A 2 kg octogen charge with an 8kg Osmium EFP on top of it.. ~30cm diameter. Followed by an 30kg shrapnell charge (round pill shapped ) that uses a smallish amount of exlosives to break up into ~2/3 kg chunks. Then : 10kg shrapnell charge that breaks up into ~5g bits. Again round pill shaped. And lastly : The stock 10kg flak explosive rod ( 5000 2 g bits ). I think I settled on a 100m standoff range on the explosives. IIRC it uses a 28kN LOx/Decane thruster. Has around 7g Accell and just under 3km/s dV. Its a bit of a chainsaw vs stock designs..... It produces 3 distinct cones of shrapnell (4 if you count the EFP ). 1 tight dispersal with the heavy chunks. 1 low/medium dispersal with the 5g bits. 1 wide pattern with the side blast 2g flak storm. Its quite versatile vs both enemy ordnance and capital ships. I might have missed something, but we can now do duel-charges in warheads now? |
|
|
|
Post by dwwolf on Oct 15, 2016 21:03:56 GMT
Next up are my 50kg class missiles.
Smallish 4to5kN thruster. Again LOx/decane.
I have 2 warhead combos ATM for EFPs.
One uses the standard 2/8 Octogen/Osmium EFP combo in the nose. 250m standoff.
The Other EFP uses one in nose and one behind the smaller decane tank which is above the larger LOx tank.
I seem to be getting more ragged holes and more complete penetrations with the double EFP charge so it seems worthwhile for the small dV and g costs of the slightly heavier missiles.
For more Science I may follow up with a small 20cm or so spacer and a 3rd EFP with a slightly smaller Octogen charge( 1.5 kg or so ).
My KKV is fairly standard : small armored internal nose cone 5mm thick under silica Areogel.
Payload is a 3 x 45 cm Osmium rod.
|
|
|
|
Post by dwwolf on Oct 15, 2016 21:07:02 GMT
My heavy flak/EFP missile utilises The following setup : A 2 kg octogen charge with an 8kg Osmium EFP on top of it.. ~30cm diameter. Followed by an 30kg shrapnell charge (round pill shapped ) that uses a smallish amount of exlosives to break up into ~2/3 kg chunks. Then : 10kg shrapnell charge that breaks up into ~5g bits. Again round pill shaped. And lastly : The stock 10kg flak explosive rod ( 5000 2 g bits ). I think I settled on a 100m standoff range on the explosives. IIRC it uses a 28kN LOx/Decane thruster. Has around 7g Accell and just under 3km/s dV. Its a bit of a chainsaw vs stock designs..... It produces 3 distinct cones of shrapnell (4 if you count the EFP ). 1 tight dispersal with the heavy chunks. 1 low/medium dispersal with the 5g bits. 1 wide pattern with the side blast 2g flak storm. Its quite versatile vs both enemy ordnance and capital ships. I might have missed something, but we can now do duel-charges in warheads now? Why not ? As long as the fuses are set on the same distance I havent seen any problems. My heavy flakEFP produces large pie plate holes surrounded by tons of flak impacts. |
|
|
|
Post by dragonkid11 on Oct 16, 2016 0:40:22 GMT
I finally did it.  This is an old version, the next version has updated armor and is freaking expensive. Dammit armor, stop being so expensive. |
|
erin
Junior Member
Smash Mouth Plays From The Depths Of Hell As You Traverse A Deep, Rat-Infested Cave
Posts: 57 
|
Post by erin on Oct 16, 2016 1:42:41 GMT
I want that thing on my coffee table. It looks great.
Could you try a half-armored version? I'd be very curious to see how that performs, and maybe it'll cut some of that price tag too.
|
|
|
|
Post by dragonkid11 on Oct 16, 2016 4:42:48 GMT
 After finding a viable but kind expensive armor and have one pain in the ass editting because of the radial armor setting... This is as cheap as I could get. The aramid fiber and Vanadium chromium steel layer, which consist of the 50% price of the freaking spacecraft (75% before reduction) become half armored to protect against light projectile. They still does absolutely nothing against the 286mm stock coilgun, but not much armor can handle that either anyway. The image is outdated because I decided to reduce the vanadium chromium steel layer back to 1cm, reducing the price to only 21.5 mc. As for why I don't use the old armor setting? Turn out boron isn't the super material for everything because it shatters from impact and basically rip everything inside into shred. It's bloody cheap for a reason. Still, the spacecraft is still dirt cheap for what its worth compared to stock spacecraft, so I say it's worth it. Now... Does anyone have any good armor idea for crew compartment? Because reinforced carbon-carbon is freaking expensive... Also anyone has any idea on how to reduce crew number? Because I want to reduce the size of the crew compartment too... Seriously, I know how to change everything but crew compartment just baffles me! |
|
|
|
Post by Durandal on Oct 16, 2016 5:11:57 GMT
So I've been working on some new designs here. The first is my Leda-class cruiser. At 300+ meters, it's beast. It uses an 5cm V-Chrome Steel citidel over the forward cone, with the radiators and most of the launchers protected by the mid hull armor bulge. A 15cm boron armor layer protects the hull behind the gold livery, all of which is covered by a 3cm boron wipple shield protected by a layer of silica aerogel. Primary weapons are 6 prow-mounted 8mm coilguns with an effective range of 92km. Secondary armament consist of 5 1.45Mt osmium nuclear explosive forced penetrators. The nukes took some adjusting after the patch, but I've got them working again.  It carries 3 launchers of my tactical drones, which follow a similar hull profile to the cruiser. It took some work getting those radiators to fit behind the hull-bulge. The use an admittedly broke calcium coilgun created by a fellow member (I apologize for not giving credit where credit is due, but I can't find your original post. You should recognize your gun though. ) They are highly maneuverable, able to almost dog-fight enemy drones and missiles while their guns can literally buzz-saw through enemy capitals. I plan on finding a new weapon for them whenever qswitched fixes the coilgun problems but for now they're fun. The ship also carries three Spartanian drones which carry a single modified version of the Leda's main cannon scaled down to fit on a drone and be supplied by a 36mw generator, along with a trio of 2 shot nuke launchers. Before the patch they carried 1.6kt missiles, but I'm still working on getting the missiles working again so I'm not going to bother posting those drones yet.  The next ship I'm proud of is my first attempt at a disk shaped hull. The Dralthi-class drone uses a lot of these broken calcuim guns, along with a pair of stock 400kw lasers. it has almost catlike maneuverability too. I'm still tinkering with it but I thought a few folks might get a kick out of it. ![]()  Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by dragonkid11 on Oct 16, 2016 5:37:24 GMT
Yeah, putting thrusters sideway can make any spacecraft moving weirdly. Still, your drone look absolutely shiny with that paint coating. Hmm...maybe I should make some cheap disk shaped drones... EDIT:  Honestly, after spending a whole day trying to figure out how make flying saucers, these are finished rather quickly. Still have no idea how well they work in the field, gonna test them out later. EDIT 2: Okay, they are decent, but compared to normal drone, they are simply lacking. The maneuverability of disk shaped space craft caused micro disk drone to jiggle around instead, causing them to not be able to aim even with a gimballed gun and generally become an unstable out of control spacecraft. |
|
|
|
Post by concretedonkey on Oct 16, 2016 9:28:34 GMT
Hey , interesting saucers, I have to experiment a bit with them  . So a day after the patch I had to redesign my drones so the second versions look like this :  The "fighter" :  And the attack drone:  Berserker has two versions - a conventional and a nuclear one. Missiles look like this :  I'll post the details in the micro missiles thread. Also you can find the warhead in the pocket nukes thread as well. Cheers! |
|
|
|
Post by dragonkid11 on Oct 17, 2016 15:07:36 GMT
So...tweaking and upgrading my saucer spacecraft yet again.  If Mark 4 looks like an very old fashioned flying saucer, Mark 5 could be described as a modern sleeker version of it. I meant just look at it, it looks like freaking Enterprise. For armor scheme, I used Nivik's armor composition which worked quite well for its price but it's bloody heavy. With its current slope, Mark 5 can deflect bullet like nothing. Well, for most of the time at least. Here's the internal  Basically, ammo and drone on top, crew compartment in the middle, fuel tanks and then finally the small sized nuclear reactor at the bottom. Might experiment with osmium half armor to all of the front instead, since the back of it won't be facing anything anytime soon. |
|
|
|
Post by goduranus on Oct 17, 2016 16:06:14 GMT
I really wish there's official support for blueprint sharing so we can fight against each other's designs now.
|
|
|
|
Post by ross128 on Oct 17, 2016 17:28:29 GMT
The recent changes to nukes mean that I'm going to have to overhaul my entire nuclear product line. However, that gives me a convenient excuse to finish adding EFP caps to all my warheads.
So far the results are not too devastating. To be sure, the nukes themselves are bigger and heavier while offering significantly lower yields, not surprising when a series that consisted of nearly pure-fusion nukes gets converted to nearly pure-fission with only minor fusion boosts.
However, the switch to U-233 for better hydrogen containment has significantly lowered the cost (in fact the cost is driven almost entirely by the conventional explosives that set it off now), and in EFP designs (which my entire arsenal is being converted to) the higher warhead mass can be offset by the lower yield allowing a much thinner, lighter EFP cap.
Early tests seem to indicate that the EFP remains as lethal as ever, even when only driven by a 133kt warhead. It'll still run most targets it's pointed at clean through, it just doesn't also melt everything around the target anymore.
Also on the drawing board, bi-propellant conventional micro-missiles.
|
|
.
