|
Post by dragon on Jan 27, 2019 15:25:33 GMT
Can this be done with a monolithic armature? Also, you could probably replace the barrel armor with something heavier, but more rigid. That could improve accuracy without the need for limit editing.
|
|
|
Post by tetraflon on Jan 27, 2019 15:46:23 GMT
If you dun mind spinal.
|
|
|
Post by tetraflon on Jan 27, 2019 16:25:18 GMT
A rip off of your gun. Fires faster, cost less, more accurate while super spinal.
|
|
|
Post by tetraflon on Jan 27, 2019 16:33:04 GMT
NOw, It Can be fit o smaller capitals.
|
|
|
Post by airc777 on Jan 28, 2019 3:00:08 GMT
So you'll are better then me at the very high velocity thing, so I increased the payload to 1 kg and the capacitor charge time to 1 minute.
|
|
|
Post by airc777 on Jan 28, 2019 4:32:05 GMT
I fixed the turret traverse speed, and made it 1/5th the mass, but it now has 154,000 times the power draw. Apophys, you wouldn't happen to have a 10 TW reactor sitting around would you?
|
|
|
Post by gyratron on Jan 28, 2019 4:44:20 GMT
After much searching I still haven't been able to find an EM gun with a monolithic projectile which can crack a gunship straight through the nosecone, something which saboted rounds achieve easily. Some very high muzzle velocity railguns in the 0-200g range can make a bunch of black tiles on the front, but they never seem to achieve anything much when they get in.
|
|
|
Post by airc777 on Jan 28, 2019 6:09:09 GMT
Tried to build a ship that could mount it, occurred to me how much 154tw is, changed to 50 meter osmium momentum wheels to maintain 20 degrees / second turret traverse and reduce power draw to 3tw. Built a ship that could actually mount it for less then 10megatons, ended up being a perfectly good excuse to mount my 2.5giganewton engines, has 6km/s delta V with only NTR's, would have significantly more delta V if I liberated 30 of Apophys' 100gw methane MPD's. Tested it against a stock gunship, first shot missed, second shot penetrated the nose and destroyed every crew module, though some how left all of the fuel intact. Need a harder target.
|
|
|
Post by airc777 on Jan 28, 2019 8:21:07 GMT
Decided to steal first place in velocity with the first Mm/s needle gun, and push the 1,000m^2 target range estimate to 6Mm, and put it in a ship.
|
|
|
Post by dragon on Jan 28, 2019 21:19:21 GMT
Now that's a big gun. If you can keep your distance, you could probably own laserstars with it (although I wonder if they could shoot down those rounds?). That said, it might be more effective than it would be in reality, see below. After much searching I still haven't been able to find an EM gun with a monolithic projectile which can crack a gunship straight through the nosecone, something which saboted rounds achieve easily. Some very high muzzle velocity railguns in the 0-200g range can make a bunch of black tiles on the front, but they never seem to achieve anything much when they get in. I wonder if this is because a saboted projectile would really be that effective, or because hypervelocity collisions between "payload" rounds are modeled incorrectly. Given the results so far, I'd guess the latter, since the system was meant to be used in collisions between starships or missiles, not projectiles going that fast. Hypervelocity impact physics are a very different beast from regular impacts, and while they seem to be simulated for monolithic rounds, it's likely that for payloads, this isn't considered. As far as I know, sandblasters should be pretty useless against heavily slanted whipple shields. Mass is what determines how hard is it to change velocity of the projectile, so a sub-gram round should, in most cases, bounce off a gunship's nose.
|
|
|
Post by jtyotjotjipaefvj on Jan 28, 2019 22:54:12 GMT
A slightly lighter 1 Mm/s needler. Most of the mass savings come from the 0.1 deg/s turning speed, but it is a lot more efficient too. At least it's cheap enough to realistically mount on a ship.
|
|
|
Post by cipherpunks on Jan 28, 2019 23:01:30 GMT
dragon Do You consider 111 km/s 1g regular (not Pt-needle-payload) railgun a sandblaster? If yes, then I'm still pondering just how to stop ten of such (that are on modded Deep+Cookermod - may post its design later) eating totally through 9.5 o slanted nosecone of my latest corvette-alike (both use Graphene mod and all the nanobling). Yes, the stock gunship nose at 8.666 o is somewhat more slanted than my ' victim's, but so far I refuse to believe that my composite armour layering is inferior to stock 2-layer. I'm aware of the fact that initially said railguns are working in tandem with original lasers, but laser turrets - despite being modded - die first (due to {62,54,46} km/s {200,333}mg ~490KJ sandblasting battery and huge aperture), while railguns remain shooting much longer; so I don't think that victim is being burnt by lasers here. Will re-test just to be sure. WiP, will report on how it ended. So, in my eyes - sub-1g round is sand, but 1g+ with decent velocity isn't. I may be totally wrong ofc.As a side note: blast decoy launchers are a huge bait for most stock AI types. Moving them far back, around main nozzle, seems to make AI aim 'through' entire ship, effectively hitting blast decoy projection onto the nosecone. Previously I had them BDLs on sides, which made the problem to mask itself. But the game lays slanted armor such that at the tail end of each BDL is a slotty hole in which some of incoming projectiles go, and then they ricochet between armor layers, exiting mostly through the back around main nozzle, but destroying some internal module sometimes, which is irritating. That's why I moved BDLs on that design, and that's how above mentioned problem became evident.
p.s. original Deep Cooker was a sissy ;P even six-pack of them. Modded - victim can't even handle three of them.
|
|
|
Post by jtyotjotjipaefvj on Jan 28, 2019 23:21:27 GMT
dragon Do You consider 111 km/s 1g regular (not Pt-needle-payload) railgun a sandblaster? If yes, then I'm still pondering just how to stop ten of such (that are on modded Deep+Cookermod - may post its design later) After I made those 50-200 km/s non-payload sandblasters, I did some extensive testing against them, and they are quite survivable even with a fairly light armor layout. I believe this was the layout I ended using, though it has an additional anti-nuke flash layer as the outermost one. It could usually survive for roughly a minute against a concentrated battery of 1-gram sandblasters. Screenie of ship with anti-sand armor: If you really don't like using needle payloads, your armor-piercing options are fairly limited. The next best thing I've found is coilguns firing extremely slim rods at the highest possible velocity you can manage to turn out. I've had a hard time going past 44 km/s on such guns, but it's already a pretty usable velocity. The downside is that your gun will be roughly 100 times heavier than a similar needle gun would be, and it's less effective too. Gun stats and gunship nose being melted through in roughly 5 seconds of 9 guns firing at max RoF:
|
|
|
Post by cipherpunks on Jan 28, 2019 23:35:13 GMT
Thanks; our crafts even have similar gun layouts ;) Also, the manner in which screenshot could be taken (switching display to portrait orientation) somehow never occurred to me; thanks again. May I (despite the possibility of derailing this thread somewhat) ask why exactly Beta Titanium e.g. which physical properties are giving it up as being appropriate there, and why Zirconium Carbide as anti-flash, ditto? Oh, and AFAIK there's no need to go tighter than 33.3 ms reload time, as the game only models at this rate (30 sim.FPS).Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by jtyotjotjipaefvj on Jan 29, 2019 0:00:37 GMT
Also, the manner in which screenshot could be taken (switching display to portrait orientation) somehow never occurred to me; thanks again. I actually just run the game in a window and stretch it to fit whatever I need to screenshot :v Those are based entirely on just testing different materials that look like they could be worth using and seeing what happens. I doubt either is an optimal choice, they're just fairly good ones I've found. Plus Zirconium Carbide makes blue sparks when hit, which is a big plus. Well yes, but I could maybe shave a few grams off a 100-ton gun so it really makes no difference. The firing time being under 33 ms does actually count, however. The 9.something firing time means I can fit three shots in a single simulation frame (resulting in 28.x ms of reactor use from a single 1 GW reactor), which means that my effective power draw is actually pretty close to 300 MW instead of the listed 1 GW. You just need to mount multiple guns on your ship to benefit from this.
|
|