|
Post by treptoplax on Nov 8, 2018 16:29:09 GMT
You can do a bit better than that with perfectly legal coilguns: Well, this is a prime candidate for some kind of payload launcher! Also, wow, that's a lot of pricy hafnia. Running the numbers real quick in my head (I may have dropped a zero, but...) I think it would cost about the same to just have a couple petawatts worth of reactors instead and fire rapidly!
|
|
|
Post by AtomHeartDragon on Nov 8, 2018 18:15:51 GMT
You can do a bit better than that with perfectly legal coilguns: Well, this is a prime candidate for some kind of payload launcher! Also, wow, that's a lot of pricy hafnia. Running the numbers real quick in my head (I may have dropped a zero, but...) I think it would cost about the same to just have a couple petawatts worth of reactors instead and fire rapidly! Look at the efficiency and heat jump. 100% legit coilgun, do not steal!
|
|
|
Post by AtomHeartDragon on Nov 11, 2018 0:13:18 GMT
Ran a quick test that seems to confirm my previous theory. 10 guns, 33 ms reload, 23 ms firing time; only one gun at a time fires due to power not being sufficient: 20 ms reload, 1.1 ms firing time, all 29 guns fire with each gun having 1 GW draw and only having 1 GW mounted on the ship: This is big news, since this means non-capacitor coilguns are not made useless by their extremely short firing times. You can get significantly lighter gun loadouts with coilguns at 20 km/s muzzle velocities than you could with railguns, assuming you want an absolutely massive rate of fire. Plus you'll be firing needles for free without losing efficiency to having a separate armature. Apart from needless part this also applies to railguns. It also seems to be the reason behind incredible (by stock standards) effectiveness of 6mm 39MW turreted railgun and both 1mm turreted coilguns. This also means that during my first, clueless and blundering steps in CDE I was already doing something right and that my current stock module ships are about to receive some serious boost in power.
Stock 3mm 100MW coilgun is unaffected due to its loong firing time.
|
|
|
Post by airc777 on Nov 11, 2018 1:04:48 GMT
Do I post this here or on the 750 t wonders thread? Heres a 666 t 1 gw drone with 60 1 gw railguns.
|
|
|
Post by AtomHeartDragon on Nov 11, 2018 1:16:57 GMT
Do I post this here or on the 750 t wonders thread? Heres a 666 t 1 gw drone with 60 1 gw railguns.
Must be manned for 750t wonders thread, not enough gun for this one.
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Nov 27, 2018 22:29:21 GMT
I've gone in and "Sawed Off" my barrels on the guns I showed here earlier. Ended up using the extra mass instead for a lightweight actuator turret. The muzzle velocity is halved, and the gun is set to just burn the propellant completely, and no more. I've sent 10 drones armed with it against the Hiveship, since it seems to have good armor, if it wasn't for the nuke cannon killing the ship (which actually didn't happen). These are the entry holes (though I think some of the shot broke apart and actually bounced out near the crew compartments). This is the back of it. Basically only one shot connected, and it still devastated the target, though I think it's because the target actually had TOO MUCH armor. 3 cm of RCC and 3 cm of silk. I also tried it against the solar lance and had good results. The gunship snipes all the drones pretty much immediately though, and I can't get 600 m/s to connect, even if the drones burn their 6 km/s Dv at it.
|
|
|
Post by AtomHeartDragon on Nov 28, 2018 21:23:43 GMT
These are the entry holes (though I think some of the shot broke apart and actually bounced out near the crew compartments). BTW: Has anyone ran any sorts of systematic tests with same gun and same mass projectiles, but built of different materials? Also, has anyone tested how projectile material effects change at different impact velocities (high velocity testing being difficult, because CGs and RGs are more fussy in regards to their bullet material than "can be made to fit in the barrel")? What about non-payload projectile aspect ratio (easiest to test with RG vs CG at high velocities and CG vs cannon at low ones)?
|
|
|
Post by doctorsquared on Nov 29, 2018 2:21:43 GMT
These are the entry holes (though I think some of the shot broke apart and actually bounced out near the crew compartments). BTW: Has anyone ran any sorts of systematic tests with same gun and same mass projectiles, but built of different materials? Also, has anyone tested how projectile material effects change at different impact velocities (high velocity testing being difficult, because CGs and RGs are more fussy in regards to their bullet material than "can be made to fit in the barrel")? What about non-payload projectile aspect ratio (easiest to test with RG vs CG at high velocities and CG vs cannon at low ones) So I took the stock 60mm Turreted Cannon, reduced the projectile mass to 1g and added a test projectile as a payload (see attached) I tested the following materials, altering the propellant load so that the projectiles were traveling at the same velocity despite variations within the test projectile mass against 10cm of aluminum armor. - Osmium (as the non-modded material with the greatest yield strength)
- Aluminum
- Copper
- Lead
- Polyethylene
- Nitrile Rubber
All without failure of the projectile upon impact with the surface of the armor. Osmium showed damage to the other side of the armor after piercing, while lead and nitrile projectiles failed to make a visible impact after punching through the other armor layer. This leads me to think that the game really only checks to see what the size of the 'projectile' made in the weapon editor is for purposes of gas expansion stress, barrel deflection stress, and shattering of the projectile due to acceleration forces. IE 22.0kJ is 22.0kJ regardless of what the mechanical properties of the projectile are.
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Nov 29, 2018 2:34:51 GMT
BTW: Has anyone ran any sorts of systematic tests with same gun and same mass projectiles, but built of different materials? Also, has anyone tested how projectile material effects change at different impact velocities (high velocity testing being difficult, because CGs and RGs are more fussy in regards to their bullet material than "can be made to fit in the barrel")? What about non-payload projectile aspect ratio (easiest to test with RG vs CG at high velocities and CG vs cannon at low ones) So I took the stock 60mm Turreted Cannon, reduced the projectile mass to 1g and added a test projectile as a payload (see attached) View AttachmentI tested the following materials, altering the propellant load so that the projectiles were traveling at the same velocity despite variations within the test projectile mass against 10cm of aluminum armor. - Osmium (as the non-modded material with the greatest yield strength)
- Aluminum
- Copper
- Lead
- Polyethylene
- Nitrile Rubber
All without failure of the projectile upon impact with the surface of the armor. Osmium showed damage to the other side of the armor after piercing, while lead and nitrile projectiles failed to make a visible impact after punching through the other armor layer. This leads me to think that the game really only checks to see what the size of the 'projectile' made in the weapon editor is for purposes of gas expansion stress, barrel deflection stress, and shattering of the projectile due to acceleration forces. IE 22.0kJ is 22.0kJ regardless of what the mechanical properties of the projectile are. I think that might be more of an issue with how the game handles payloads. I tend to get some different results with my cannon when it fires standard projectiles of different types. The hard part is dealing with the mechanical stresses, as mentioned to get the same type of result out of the gun, and the issue of the ships themselves adding (or reducing) projectile velocities. Granted, this "snub nosed" gun I made can basically fire anything, as long as I lengthen the barrel, since the projectile gets longer for less dense projectiles.
|
|
|
Post by AtomHeartDragon on Nov 29, 2018 18:00:59 GMT
So I took the stock 60mm Turreted Cannon, reduced the projectile mass to 1g and added a test projectile as a payload (see attached) The main problem here is that payload collision is suspect and payload mechanical stresses not modelled at all, so using payload kind of defeats the whole purpose. You should probably also use heavier load at lower ROF to see the effects of a single projectile more clearly - whether 1g pellet shatters or not (and when) is probably not going to have much impact. Meanwhile 0.5t of diamond shattering and bouncing around the interior of your ship might be quite significant.
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Nov 29, 2018 23:20:25 GMT
I gave it another try, this time with DU as the projectile. The result is marginally different. DU has the lowest tensile yield the current cannon will accept, anything lighter will shatter with the current configuration. Same entry size, of course. This one actually made a large visual "glow/burn" mark, where the last shot of diamond went through "cool", though for a clearer shot of the armor I let the ship sit after the fight, and went back in for the inspection. There are also significantly fewer holes on the backside of the craft, though some fragments bounced around to where the fuel storage is on the front. I think the spider silk actually saved the ship here. P.S. I just noticed that the chunk of diamond actually shattered out the ship on the last set of images and took the radiators with them too, so big difference.
|
|