|
|
Post by dwwolf on Nov 8, 2016 17:34:19 GMT
Did we get an update ?
|
|
|
|
Post by magusunion on Nov 8, 2016 18:14:30 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by argonbalt on Nov 9, 2016 0:21:19 GMT
Well, silica gel is no longer the strongest thing against laser. Time to search for a new laser armor. As i recall from the capitol ship armour thread"Aerogel is a bit OP" "No it is really good, missile spam eternal" Hate to say i told you so |
|
|
|
Post by dragonkid11 on Nov 9, 2016 3:55:06 GMT
Well, missile spam is still workable.
Just that you need load of them now instead of just sending one or two cheaply.
My micro missile with crap for armor (For now since silica gel is kinda irreplaceable for their super light weigh and price) still can kill off a stock laser frigate at the ratio of 100 micro missiles per laser frigate.
The problem is the 1GW laser that can be made and deployed cheaply and now has a max range of 1 MEGAMETER.
Hell, even player optimized, lower powered laser can kill missiles efficiently.
|
|
|
|
Post by amimai on Nov 9, 2016 5:21:14 GMT
my current experimental armour
top
diamond (2cm)
space (80cm)
boron (4cm)
graphite aerogel (2.5m)
boron (8cm)
spider silk (6.5cm)
bottom
I find boron is really nice as armour, per tone it does much better vs coil guns then any other armour I have tried, carbon-carbon and the various steel alloys seem to simply shatter when faced with any high velocity weaponry... my 150kW/70g coil gun drones are hilariously efficient against such "hardened" targets.
It's also as far as I can tell one of the better mono-material armours, it's quite safe to simply slap 20-30cm of the stuff on something instead of more complicated composites and not have to worry about it failing due to anything
2.5m of graphite aerogel seems to be really effective at stopping anything that gets through the outer armour layers, and diamond is a nice all-purpose top coat that seems to be good at everything (heck i have been tossing the biggest nukes I have at some of the craft I armoured with this and they simply sit there ignoring the damage
|
|
|
|
Post by demetrious on Jan 4, 2018 19:04:58 GMT
I find boron is really nice as armour, per tone it does much better vs coil guns then any other armour I have tried, carbon-carbon and the various steel alloys seem to simply shatter when faced with any high velocity weaponry... my 150kW/70g coil gun drones are hilariously efficient against such "hardened" targets. I recently tried two of my own ships against each other in the sandbox; one with a big fixed gun and a heavily armored, sloped nose, and the other a ship loaded with my "point defense"capacitor railguns scaled up to 3MW power. Since the PD railguns are sandblasters, I'd expected 5cm of steeply-sloped Vanadium-Chromium to skip it off handily... and it did, for the first several seconds, before the insane ROF simply beat its way through the VC - and popped through the underlying 5cm of A-carbon just as fast. This surprised me, as a stock gunship facing me nose-on had taken the same barrage (after all its weapons had been sniped off) for so long that I had to fly past him and target the engines to kill him. The stream of white lithium death had glanced off the Gunship's underlying carbon-carbon like a firehose for over a minute at least. I'm pretty sure it's because carbon-carbon, though significantly weaker in an absolute sense, is a lot stiffer - and thus bounces projectiles better. The high ductility of A-carbon - the gap between yield strength and ultimate tensile strength - is actually one of the things that usually makes it great as a bulk backstop armor; it doesn't shatter under heavy impacts. So I went back and rearranged the ship with 4cm of A-carbon and 1cm of Boron Fiber over the top, as it's both hideously strong and stiff, (yield strength == ultimate tensile strength,) to see if I could get the benefits of the hard shell and the ductile bulk armor. It worked much better. I'll have to test it more to be sure, but it seems like a good combo for deflecting sustained sandblaster fire and as a bulk layer that can stop spalling and heavier projectiles from coilguns. |
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Jan 4, 2018 19:50:48 GMT
The key to stopping sandblaster fire, in my opinion is a stuffed whipple shield. They can absorb basically everything that isn't a 50 g or greater shot.
|
|
Prancer
Junior Member
Jousting in space. We're all Knights of the Stars.
Posts: 57 
|
Post by Prancer on Jan 5, 2018 7:00:16 GMT
Wow you can practically trace the history of the early meta in this thread
|
|
|
|
Post by bigbombr on Jan 19, 2018 19:02:10 GMT
I know this is an old thread, but I was thinking of an in-universe explanation for the use of armor schemes that are non cylindrical (hexagonal, octagonal, etc). If one looks closely at the ship armor texture in game, it is clear that the armor is actually comprised of many smaller plates joined next to one another to create the armor's actual composition. With cylindrical schemes, the individual plates are curved slightly so that they match the contours of the ship and their layout. This is especially true if one uses a form fitting "concave" armor scheme. The nature of this round armor scheme implies that there are a very wide variety of armor plates with different curvatures to suit different positions on the outer layer of the ship. Although this circular armor scheme presents a generally better means of protection than hexagon or octagon shaped structures, I believe that the repair of damaged armor plates on a circular scheme would be far more difficult than with a hexagonal or octagon shape. For instance, all the plates on an octagon shaped ship are square or rectangular, and the octagon is made by joining them at a set angle relative to one another. Regardless of the plate's actual position on the ship, its shape is generally the same (with the exception of a pointed tip). This uniformity would make it easier for a supply ship to give new armor plates to a damaged ship. Due to the fact that all the armor plates are the same or nearly the same, the amount of armor plate types a repair ship would have to bring for an octagonal or hexagonal ship would be much lower than the amount of armor plate types needed for a circular scheme ship. This relative ease of repair and maintenance could explain in part why one would use a non circular armor scheme, although the hassles of logistics are unfortunately not truly presented in CoADE so its not like it would matter in-game that much. Easy to repair is why I advocate aluminium whipple shields. IRL, they seem the best solution: cheap, light, easy to work with (compared to some alternatives). |
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Jan 19, 2018 19:25:16 GMT
Easy to repair is why I advocate aluminium whipple shields. IRL, they seem the best solution: cheap, light, easy to work with (compared to some alternatives). Aluminium likes to bend though. They are cheap and light, but in my opinion Tin is slightly more viable. It's less likely to bend while you're outside putting the new sheet into place, though you might need to deal with the implication of it being slightly more "spally". |
|
|
|
Post by bigbombr on Jan 19, 2018 19:40:37 GMT
Easy to repair is why I advocate aluminium whipple shields. IRL, they seem the best solution: cheap, light, easy to work with (compared to some alternatives). Aluminium likes to bend though. They are cheap and light, but in my opinion Tin is slightly more viable. It's less likely to bend while you're outside putting the new sheet into place, though you might need to deal with the implication of it being slightly more "spally". Aluminium is more common AFAIK though. |
|
|
|
Post by AtomHeartDragon on Feb 10, 2018 16:50:52 GMT
They are cheap and light, but in my opinion Tin is slightly more viable. It's less likely to bend while you're outside putting the new sheet into place, though you might need to deal with the implication of it being slightly more "spally". I question the wisdom of armouring a spaceship with something that, on one hand, melts in 505K and, on the other, autocatalytically dusts itself when cooled to temperatures not far from the freezing point of water (depending on impurities and how bad do you want it to get how fast). No, I wouldn't build crew modules out of potassium either. |
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Feb 10, 2018 18:39:57 GMT
They are cheap and light, but in my opinion Tin is slightly more viable. It's less likely to bend while you're outside putting the new sheet into place, though you might need to deal with the implication of it being slightly more "spally". I question the wisdom of armouring a spaceship with something that, on one hand, melts in 505K and, on the other, autocatalytically dusts itself when cooled to temperatures not far from the freezing point of water (depending on impurities and how bad do you want it to get how fast). No, I wouldn't build crew modules out of potassium either. I don't know if the game models the fact that melted armor tends to disperse slightly more safely than a more temperature resistant material, but the added hardness of tin and general extra density tends to make it work out decently well for a whipple shield compared to other alternatives, like Aluminium. We don't have to deal with the armor freezing to a point where it falls apart either, so I think it works out great if you ignore the fact that lasers will ruin everything, but that's the case for almost all whipple shielding. |
|
|
|
Post by AtomHeartDragon on Feb 11, 2018 10:20:43 GMT
I question the wisdom of armouring a spaceship with something that, on one hand, melts in 505K and, on the other, autocatalytically dusts itself when cooled to temperatures not far from the freezing point of water (depending on impurities and how bad do you want it to get how fast). No, I wouldn't build crew modules out of potassium either. I don't know if the game models the fact that melted armor tends to disperse slightly more safely than a more temperature resistant material, but the added hardness of tin and general extra density tends to make it work out decently well for a whipple shield compared to other alternatives, like Aluminium. We don't have to deal with the armor freezing to a point where it falls apart either, so I think it works out great if you ignore the fact that lasers will ruin everything, but that's the case for almost all whipple shielding. It still has just some 200 degrees stability range. Go into battle around Mercury and it will likely have melted off before even seeing enemy lasers, go to outer planets and it will have dusted itself off the hull before you get there. Aluminium doesn't do this kinds of shenanigans and is nice, cheap, common and has RL precedents. Does anyone know how does magnesium fare, BTW? Also, has anyone tested most effective thicknesses and spacings (either vacuum or vacuum++) for different materials? |
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Feb 11, 2018 21:00:52 GMT
someone did some kinetics armor test awhile back
|
|
