|
Post by concretedonkey on Oct 16, 2016 10:52:53 GMT
frankly I'm way over my head but it looks like its broken: 10 g projectile 0.01 kg 4.32 km/s velocity 4320 m/s 43.1 ms delay 0.043 s KE = 0.5 * 0.01 * 4320 * 4320 KE = 93312 J
P = 0.093312 / 0.043 P = 2.170 MW
unless I have a mistake somewhere
|
|
|
Post by morrigi on Oct 16, 2016 11:03:28 GMT
Looks pretty goddamn broken to me.
|
|
|
Post by dwwolf on Oct 17, 2016 7:07:09 GMT
Damn thats micro..... That nuke is almost asking for an Osmium rad shield pill on top of it.
|
|
|
Post by rathos on Oct 17, 2016 13:04:45 GMT
Just tried some micro flak missiles...They were real tiny things at 13cm diameter and 80cm long. Was easily able to get their reload time to 200ms on the launcher. Threw two of them at each other and....the swarm of missiles that erupted literally lagged the game to death until I had to end process, opps. Apparently the game doesn't like two ships spewing 40 missiles a second at each other, as it quickly leads to hundreds and thousands of missiles in play at the same time, haha.
|
|
|
Post by dwwolf on Oct 17, 2016 18:38:03 GMT
I wonder how optimised the game is for multicore. I cant grab a session footprint ATM....on holiday without a PC.
|
|
|
Post by concretedonkey on Oct 17, 2016 18:45:30 GMT
Frankly this is the only negative side I see of the small missiles. With a small charge and a drone carrier , delta V is no longer a problem, the sheer number make them a much better choice for penetrating enemy's missile defence... price is also a big plus.Just the damn FPS.
|
|
|
Post by captinjoehenry on Oct 17, 2016 18:48:28 GMT
Well most of the issue comes from the fact that each and every one of those missiles is running it's own guidance calculations and they are always updating. So there is only so much multi core can do when you are attempting to deal with 100s to 1,000s of relatively complex fully modeled physical objects constantly running an equation to figure out what they need to do to hit an object. This issue also shows up when you start shooting projectiles that are not just made of one thing as in that situation you are in full detail modeling the physical properties of 1,000s of objects and the enemy ship needs to figure out the whole CWIS situation. The issue of the level of detail can show up as well when there is a long range engagement with a lot of kinetic weapons as the game needs to calculate all of those projectiles and their impacts. A major example of this is when you start getting flack warheads into the ton range of weight as each warhead when it goes off spawns 100s of thousands of flack projectiles the game will basically just pause. Really I am impressed that the game doesn't crash or gets locked up from that type of weapon and instead the frame rate just drops to less than 1 frame a second
|
|
|
Post by ross128 on Oct 17, 2016 20:35:41 GMT
Yep, I have quite a few ship designs where deploying one of them will kill the enemy, but two will kill the game.
Including one that is basically a sandblaster boat, 54 1-gram, 10km/s, 6600rpm railguns, placed in 6-gun rings so that it can fire 27 of them at a time. The game can handle one of those, but deplpoy two, and I guess processing 5940 projectiles per second is a bit much for my CPU.
Looks pretty though, the guns are close enough together that the tracers all blend into what looks like a solid beam.
|
|
|
Post by nivik on Oct 18, 2016 23:48:58 GMT
Not as micro as most, and not combat-tested yet, but this is an early attempt. 6 km/s of dV, 95 ton NEFP (with the remote control and fuel tanks as the "penetrator", which I'm not sure if that actually works or not). Fuel mix is fluorine/ammonia. I went for the maximum density non-explosive fuel mix I could. I like nonexplosive. Magazine detonations suck. Final length is 165cm, wet mass 12.2kg, cost 54c. I haven't calculated the range yet, but based on the jerk-acceleration formula, I'm calculating around 120km of powered envelope. That may wind up being optimistic, however; it seems awfully high and my math may be off.
|
|
|
Post by ross128 on Oct 19, 2016 0:00:37 GMT
The fuel tanks will probably get vaporized (they look like UHMWPE, it doesn't handle heat well and would contribute negligible mass even if they did survive), but I don't know about the remote control. If the game treats it as a solid 1kg slab of aluminum it just might hold up, since the warhead is only 94 tons. You might want to put the warhead closer to the remote control if it does work, so you can capture more of its energy.
|
|
|
Post by nivik on Oct 19, 2016 0:18:13 GMT
The fuel tanks will probably get vaporized (they look like UHMWPE, it doesn't handle heat well and would contribute negligible mass even if they did survive), but I don't know about the remote control. If the game treats it as a solid 1kg slab of aluminum it just might hold up, since the warhead is only 94 tons. You might want to put the warhead closer to the remote control if it does work, so you can capture more of its energy. Hmm. I'll just have to test it out and see. If it doesn't work as-is, adding another 500g of payload would only require another 3.5 kg of propellant to maintain the same dV, and sacrificing a little dV in this instance is really not a big deal, since 6km/s is quite a lot. EDIT: Okay, adding a 500g graphite penetrator resulted in intermittent penetrations of 50cm of RCC. I'm pretty happy with that. I'm really liking the fluorine/ammonia fuel mixture. You can get a Ve of around 3.1 km/s, and the effective fuel density of the stoich-mix is 1521 kg/m 3. It's probably inferior to fluorine/methane, but the stoich mix is 5.58:1 instead of ~9:1, which makes the tanks a bit more manageable. Also I hate doing what everyone else does, so.
|
|
|
Post by dwwolf on Oct 19, 2016 9:01:33 GMT
Graphite as a nuke EFP ? Try copper, tungsten, DU or Osmium.
Osmium works best for heavier nukes given its absurdly high melting and boiling points. You still need an EFP a couple of centimeters thick. DeciTon range nukes and you might get away with other metals.
|
|
|
Post by nivik on Oct 19, 2016 15:50:35 GMT
Graphite as a nuke EFP ? Try copper, tungsten, DU or Osmium. Osmium works best for heavier nukes given its absurdly high melting and boiling points. You still need an EFP a couple of centimeters thick. DeciTon range nukes and you might get away with other metals. I wanted to try graphite because of the extremely low shear modulus and extremely high melting point. I like experimenting, and I like to avoid doing the obvious thing. We don't learn anything new if we don't fool around and try different stuff. :3 My main theory here is that the terminal ballistics of almost any material is probably going to involve an immediate conversion of the projectile's kinetic energy into heat -- and thus the conversion of the projectile to plasma -- no matter what you're using. So I'm more interested in avoiding fracturing and melting during the initial detonation. I'm not convinced that graphite is the best option -- I'm almost certain the poor tensile/yield strength are detrimental -- but it does result in penetrations of 50cm RCC now and then. That's better than I was originally expecting from a missile this size.
|
|
|
Post by dwwolf on Oct 19, 2016 16:37:05 GMT
How thick is your EFP ?
I wonder how close we can get by using Newtons approximation. Depth = l * d[pen] / d[target]
It gives the approximate penetration depth in penetrator lengths * penetrator density / target density.
Provided impact speed is sufficiently higher than the speed of sound in the target material.
|
|
|
Post by zuthal on Oct 19, 2016 17:47:48 GMT
Not as micro as most, and not combat-tested yet, but this is an early attempt. 6 km/s of dV, 95 ton NEFP (with the remote control and fuel tanks as the "penetrator", which I'm not sure if that actually works or not). Fuel mix is fluorine/ammonia. I went for the maximum density non-explosive fuel mix I could. I like nonexplosive. Magazine detonations suck. Final length is 165cm, wet mass 12.2kg, cost 54c. I haven't calculated the range yet, but based on the jerk-acceleration formula, I'm calculating around 120km of powered envelope. That may wind up being optimistic, however; it seems awfully high and my math may be off. -snip- For burnout range (assuming straight-line flight, from the launching point), you can simply calculate it using the delta-V and the burn time. This works because the acceleration increases linearly with time (due to fuel being consumed at a constant rate). Thus you can simply take the average acceleration, which is dV divided by burn time, and then plug that into the equation for uniformly accelerated motion, i.e. D=1/2*a*t^2, with a being your average acceleration and t the burnout time. Or, if you resolve it all, it simplifies to D=1/2*dV*t, which gives a burnout range of ~97 km.
|
|