|
|
Post by amimai on Nov 20, 2016 6:21:54 GMT
Wait, potassium? Are you sure these coilgun won't just explode when in contact with just about anything?  not to mention the barrel will deform if someone sneezes... here is a more reasonable version, not as accurate but you can just stick 3 of these on and hope for the best with range uncapped  |
|
|
|
Post by randomletters on Nov 20, 2016 7:36:01 GMT
First gun, for sheer physics breaking I think this is my best yet.  Same basic design, but much cheaper and easier to mount on a turret.  Edit: And for the sheer absurdity of it:  |
|
|
|
Post by dragonkid11 on Nov 20, 2016 8:38:18 GMT
For some reasons, I have this feeling that magnetic metal glass is going to get nerfed next patch...
I meant holy shit, these are bullshit. You made coilgun out of everything and it works!
It seems like Qswitch merely delayed doom coilgun because magnetic metal glass is stupidly power and expensive.
|
|
|
|
Post by amimai on Nov 20, 2016 8:43:37 GMT
another practical reality breaker design, you can actually mount these things on more or less practical ships without breaking the bank or the scales:  and here is the iron modification for it, its not actually that bad :  |
|
|
|
Post by dragonkid11 on Nov 20, 2016 10:53:09 GMT
So I looked at yet another unique ship design in the game, this time the Tumbler!
.....
Which is a ship that no one sane should use because I have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA HOW DOES IT WORK!!!
Seriously, I want to try to make a ship based on the Tumbler but this thing is insane and it doesn't dodge and it just...SUCKS!!!
I will try something tonight, can't guaranteed it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Crazy Tom on Nov 20, 2016 15:28:46 GMT
So I looked at yet another unique ship design in the game, this time the Tumbler! ..... Which is a ship that no one sane should use because I have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA HOW DOES IT WORK!!! Seriously, I want to try to make a ship based on the Tumbler but this thing is insane and it doesn't dodge and it just...SUCKS!!! I will try something tonight, can't guaranteed it. The stock tumbler is pretty bad. To fix it, you need to reduce the number of engines to two, and place them on the ship's center of mass. |
|
|
|
Post by dragonkid11 on Nov 21, 2016 10:28:53 GMT
So, I designed something tonight. First, a possibly really stupid and brave design.  Yeah, I basically made another version of my famous Quiver Mark 1 design with no armor to save on cost and mass. I also replaced the coilgun with laser instead, seeing as the only real threat here is drones and missiles. Testing against stock vessels, this ship work surprisingly well. I just spam my drones at the enemy vessel, preventing them from ever getting into a gunfight with my ships. And I just shoot down their drones and missile with my laser. Easy peasy, and I kinda like the look of this naked vessel. Heh, naked. Next up.  I have made cylinder sub-capital drone pod carrier, I have made UFO sub-capital drone pod carrier. Time for the broadside sub-capital drone pod carrier to show up. And yes, that's 32 coilguns lined side by side. And yes, they are a pain in the ass to arrange. The broadside sub-capital drones work pretty well, as their small size allow them to get close to firing range without the enemy ever reaching their. The broadside drones launcher from those sub-capital drones are nice too. Finally.  I was just wondering, 'Hey, if the enemy laser always target my drone's turret armor, why should I armor my drone so much?" So I basically reduce the armor of my drone to only covering the front. And it works. I basically increased the number of drones in my carrier by being a cheap bastard, without lowering the efficiency. I iz totally genius. |
|
|
|
Post by starwhip on Nov 22, 2016 3:52:22 GMT
Not entirely sure that I'm doing stuff right, but I've got a few fun designs that I've been fiddling with for a few weeks. And I've poked around a lot here and there, figuring out what materials are better for my purposes, and I've progressed a lot! Pictures speak a thousand words, so here's the main gun on my current cruiser (On the left) compared to the one I built at the start of my campaign (Right)  Here's the actual specifications of the gun:  And here's the ship I put it on. The original concept was to build it small, so the enemy was at a range disadvantage, and combine that with a forward-facing gun to even further minimize profile. The original ship had a much more sloped front due to the smaller gun, and could fly straight into clouds of incoming fire with ease.  This new one, due to how cheap it is, thrives in numbers. One fleet carrier is equivalent to ~15 of these in mass, and ~24 of them in cost. In such large numbers, they can destroy salvos of missiles and drones with relative ease (Two could take down 20 flak/nuclear striker missiles). And of course, their long range and high accuracy is very useful in capital ship engagements. It isn't a great weapon for every engagement, but it's adequate for a lot of them.  Looking into some other ship designs that utilize extremely long-range sluggers or missiles combined with long-range point-defense guns like these. |
|
erik
New Member
Posts: 34 
|
Post by erik on Nov 22, 2016 12:45:41 GMT
This new one, due to how cheap it is, thrives in numbers. One fleet carrier is equivalent to ~15 of these in mass, and ~24 of them in cost. In such large numbers, they can destroy salvos of missiles and drones with relative ease (Two could take down 20 flak/nuclear striker missiles). And of course, their long range and high accuracy is very useful in capital ship engagements. It isn't a great weapon for every engagement, but it's adequate for a lot of them. Looking into some other ship designs that utilize extremely long-range sluggers or missiles combined with long-range point-defense guns like these. How much does it cost? You've begun with a thought out concept. Next steps could be in armouring better the turret and hull against whatever you want to armor it against, and perhaps squeezing in some small fuels tanks in the long nose to increase dV. I see that the crew quarters take a large portion of the mass pie, it could be worthwhile to make a lighter one. You could probably squeeze half a km/s of dV out of it and reduce its price tag. |
|
|
|
Post by starwhip on Nov 22, 2016 16:26:11 GMT
This new one, due to how cheap it is, thrives in numbers. One fleet carrier is equivalent to ~15 of these in mass, and ~24 of them in cost. In such large numbers, they can destroy salvos of missiles and drones with relative ease (Two could take down 20 flak/nuclear striker missiles). And of course, their long range and high accuracy is very useful in capital ship engagements. It isn't a great weapon for every engagement, but it's adequate for a lot of them. Looking into some other ship designs that utilize extremely long-range sluggers or missiles combined with long-range point-defense guns like these. How much does it cost? You've begun with a thought out concept. Next steps could be in armouring better the turret and hull against whatever you want to armor it against, and perhaps squeezing in some small fuels tanks in the long nose to increase dV. I see that the crew quarters take a large portion of the mass pie, it could be worthwhile to make a lighter one. You could probably squeeze half a km/s of dV out of it and reduce its price tag. The gun itself costs <800 kc, while the ship I'm not sure what it cost, probably around 1.04 Mc. I deleted it last night after realizing I made experimental changes to the version I liked instead of a duplicate, that's what I get for doing math-y stuff late at night. :/ I am definitely understanding flak explosives, railguns, coilguns, and armor better than before, I've made a couple of nice missiles and a 10 megaton boosted fission warhead that I'm still tweaking (it isn't that much larger than the stock one). I want to learn how to build reactors; I've built a few custom designs but I'm not sure why they're behaving like they do. And engine nozzles are currently out of my grasp as well. Once I get the hang of those I think I can really start cutting cost and weight the way I want to. |
|
|
|
Post by starwhip on Nov 22, 2016 22:42:41 GMT
imgur.com/a/9JKAzSo I did more refining of my design... a lot more. It's almost the same mass, and the armor makes it cost a little bit more than before. I think it might be better with little to no armor, if anything is disabled, the ship is almost useless anyways. (I have double redundancy on the radiators, but if the gun is hit it's no bueno.) I'd call this Version 1.0 for sure. A fleet of three took out a fleet carrier and drone waves with no problems, or damage recieved.
|
|
|
|
Post by wafflestoo on Nov 22, 2016 22:50:14 GMT
So, I designed something tonight. First, a possibly really stupid and brave design. Yeah, I basically made another version of my famous Quiver Mark 1 design with no armor to save on cost and mass. I also replaced the coilgun with laser instead, seeing as the only real threat here is drones and missiles. Testing against stock vessels, this ship work surprisingly well. I just spam my drones at the enemy vessel, preventing them from ever getting into a gunfight with my ships. And I just shoot down their drones and missile with my laser. Easy peasy, and I kinda like the look of this naked vessel. Heh, naked. Next up. I have made cylinder sub-capital drone pod carrier, I have made UFO sub-capital drone pod carrier. Time for the broadside sub-capital drone pod carrier to show up. And yes, that's 32 coilguns lined side by side. And yes, they are a pain in the ass to arrange. The broadside sub-capital drones work pretty well, as their small size allow them to get close to firing range without the enemy ever reaching their. The broadside drones launcher from those sub-capital drones are nice too. Finally. I was just wondering, 'Hey, if the enemy laser always target my drone's turret armor, why should I armor my drone so much?" So I basically reduce the armor of my drone to only covering the front. And it works. I basically increased the number of drones in my carrier by being a cheap bastard, without lowering the efficiency. I iz totally genius. I just had to say that I really enjoy your designs, yes, even the crazy ones. Not entirely sure that I'm doing stuff right, but I've got a few fun designs that I've been fiddling with for a few weeks. And I've poked around a lot here and there, figuring out what materials are better for my purposes, and I've progressed a lot! Pictures speak a thousand words, so here's the main gun on my current cruiser (On the left) compared to the one I built at the start of my campaign (Right) Here's the actual specifications of the gun: And here's the ship I put it on. The original concept was to build it small, so the enemy was at a range disadvantage, and combine that with a forward-facing gun to even further minimize profile. The original ship had a much more sloped front due to the smaller gun, and could fly straight into clouds of incoming fire with ease. This new one, due to how cheap it is, thrives in numbers. One fleet carrier is equivalent to ~15 of these in mass, and ~24 of them in cost. In such large numbers, they can destroy salvos of missiles and drones with relative ease (Two could take down 20 flak/nuclear striker missiles). And of course, their long range and high accuracy is very useful in capital ship engagements. It isn't a great weapon for every engagement, but it's adequate for a lot of them. Looking into some other ship designs that utilize extremely long-range sluggers or missiles combined with long-range point-defense guns like these. Looks like the philosophy behind your ships is similar to mine. Minimal cross-sectional area and redundancy through numbers. |
|
erik
New Member
Posts: 34
|
Post by erik on Nov 23, 2016 6:06:58 GMT
imgur.com/a/9JKAzSo I did more refining of my design... a lot more. It's almost the same mass, and the armor makes it cost a little bit more than before. I think it might be better with little to no armor, if anything is disabled, the ship is almost useless anyways. (I have double redundancy on the radiators, but if the gun is hit it's no bueno.) I'd call this Version 1.0 for sure. A fleet of three took out a fleet carrier and drone waves with no problems, or damage recieved. You could try making the turret smaller to make it harder to hit and give it less gimbal angle. With less gimbal, the ship itself would be pointed better towards the incoming fire. 40 degrees could be more than enough. If you look at the cost and mass pies, the armor is about 1/6 of mass and 2/3 of the 15.2 Mc price tag. And apparently that armor does not even hold too well? You can make the outermost armor layer as thin as 3 mm(it'll be enough to break up incoming projectiles) and make the aerogel layer beneath it 10 to 20 cm without paying too much in mass or credits. You probably want your armor to withstand low angle glancing hits from the front mostly, so that 3 cm of maraging steel could be thinner by a full centimeter if not more. I've seen experimented some with Vanadium Chromium Steel and when its angled a bit with proper layering on top of it, just 1.5 cm can withstand a lot of fire. Is the coilgun or its turret armored too? |
|
|
|
Post by starwhip on Nov 23, 2016 19:45:03 GMT
You could try making the turret smaller to make it harder to hit and give it less gimbal angle. With less gimbal, the ship itself would be pointed better towards the incoming fire. 40 degrees could be more than enough. If you look at the cost and mass pies, the armor is about 1/6 of mass and 2/3 of the 15.2 Mc price tag. And apparently that armor does not even hold too well? You can make the outermost armor layer as thin as 3 mm(it'll be enough to break up incoming projectiles) and make the aerogel layer beneath it 10 to 20 cm without paying too much in mass or credits. You probably want your armor to withstand low angle glancing hits from the front mostly, so that 3 cm of maraging steel could be thinner by a full centimeter if not more. I've seen experimented some with Vanadium Chromium Steel and when its angled a bit with proper layering on top of it, just 1.5 cm can withstand a lot of fire. Is the coilgun or its turret armored too? Well, the ship itself survives full-on flak swarm impacts, but the frontal turret doesn't. I'll try to follow the suggestions for the rest of the armoring, and also buff the turret armor itself. EDIT: The reason I had the turret at the size I did was to run the reaction wheels at 1 MW while also maintaining a decent turning speed. |
|
acatalepsy
Junior Member
Not Currently In Space
Posts: 97
|
Post by acatalepsy on Nov 23, 2016 20:19:17 GMT
It isn't a great weapon for every engagement, but it's adequate for a lot of them. Looking into some other ship designs that utilize extremely long-range sluggers or missiles combined with long-range point-defense guns like these. One stress test to consider putting it through: see how it handles anything like its weight/cost in well-optimized long range lasers. Large laser arrays excel at disabling weapons at long range, and that single turret with only 3.1mm of boron carbide doesn't look like it will last more than a second or two; not long enough to get into engagement range even on a very high velocity intercept. (Lasers have their own weaknesses, and can be swamped by large numbers of missiles with good anti-laser armor. Still, that kind of weakness would make me very hesitant to field this craft.) |
|
Looking into some other ship designs that utilize extremely long-range sluggers or missiles combined with long-range point-defense guns like these.
