This would be a good trade off too, exposed turrets and radiators could take up less mass and bulge ship armor less versus the retractable turrets which would need storage space.. Would force you to be creative with module positioning. You can't just put the smallest ones up front when putting them in the middle would give you a space to hide your turrets in without warping the armor..
I'd also like to suggest in-line guns with shutters, like torpedo tubes. In fact, missile launch tubes of this exact sort would be nice. I usually have spare volume around my fuel tanks where I could place in-line weapons, but they point radially instead, and if I turret them then they go on top of the armor instead of under it, and also mass more.
Post by The Astronomer on Aug 20, 2018 5:41:14 GMT
Well, if your weapons are out-of-range and the enemy is already firing at you, it is a great idea to hide them away. Retracting non-defense weapons when missiles are coming for you is also a smart move.
Plus, unmodeled yes, but I don't think your guns like micrometeoroids very much.
I think a majority of the projectiles shot are a good enough way to simulate micrometeorites. Seems like most shots people make currently are going fast enough to escape the solar system (I recall someone saying solar escape velocity is 10kmps and I can't recall seeing a user made railgun with a velocity lower then 20kmps). Aaaand now I'm having a flashback to all those sub-10kmps stock railgun rounds I shot that missed their target and are caught in a high velocity orbit.... they didn't stop..... they can't, not until some unlucky stranger crosses paths with them. They are for all intents and purposes invisible to every kind of sensor now that the tracers have burned off. That's a pretty good reason to put a whipple shield on civilian craft, in case any phantom rounds from a forgotten war decide to finally hit their mark.
I was just about to post this. Laser apertures are incredibly fragile, doesn't do me any good to laser all the guns off an enemy ship from a mega meter away if five minute later before I can destroy their engines their kinetics just remove all of the turrets from my hull. I've though about using armor bulges to conceal the turrets from the front, firing from broadside, and then rotating nose forward to weather the railgun rain, but if I was already going to spend the mass on the armor then just having the turret retract when not powered would be great. Screw putting meters of homogeneous, flat armor on the turret when I can just put centimeters of well angled, composite armor on the hull.
An alternative approach would be to have moveable armor, a literal "shield" that could be positioned to cover vulnerable systems/turrets and even angled to deflect the rounds. E.g. a slab of armour on an arm of some sort.
Can we also get the option of mounting engines outside of the armor to reduce the size of the engine armor hole, and also retractable engine turrets?
My designs might actually incorporate reverse thrust and maneuvering engines if they didn't put giant holes in my armor.
Retractable engines would be handy, but you can already put engines outside or otherwise avoid compromising armour:
Gimballed engines are automatically put outside if the gimbal angle exceeds 45o
All lateral thrusters are mounted outside if you have partial armour. "Partial" might be as little as 0.1% missing.
Partial armour allows avoiding bloated "skirt" as well.
Main thrusters can be put outside of the main hull if you offset them radially. Do it with individual engines instead of groups to avoid bloating your hull diameter (same applies to guns for nose-shaping).
Non-gimballed verniers only create big enough holes to fit their nozzles