|
Post by sage on May 8, 2022 19:12:04 GMT
Hello again, Apologies for not being around to do testing for the time being. My work restarted properly this year after the pandemic and I work intensively. This means I am away from my desktop rig for now, probably for most of the time until late September. My laptop is OK for 2D games with an integrated intel GPU but not for this. Moreover I only have a few hours each evening to eat, shower etc. then sleep. So that's me out for a long while. Regarding the tests, I was intending to use my standardised Osmium railgun projectiles which are 1.5 calibres long, the smallest is 1 gram and is roughly 3.3 x 5mm they're measured in imperial just because... and they step up to .577 inch at the largest but for these tests I would select the small set, 0.132 inch up to 0.30 inch (the same 7.62mm projectile I used for the initial tests) their speeds diminish as they get bigger so say;
Dimensions (rounded)
| Mass
| Speed
| Energy
| 3.35 x 5.03 mm (0.132 inch)
| 1 gram
| 34.5 km/s
| 595 kj
| 3.81 x 5.72 mm (0.15 inch) | 1.47 grams
| 34 km/s
| 849 kj
| 4.57 x 6.86 mm (0.18 inch) | 2.54 grams
| 33.5 km/s
| 1.42 Mj
| 5.08 x 7.62 mm (0.2 inch) | 3.49 grams
| 33 km/s
| 1.9 Mj
| 5.65 x 8.48 mm (0.223 inch) | 4.8 grams
| 32.5 km/s
| 2.54 Mj
| 6.35 x 9.53 mm (0.25 inch) | 6.81 grams
| 31.5 km/s
| 3.37 Mj
| 7.11 x 10.67 mm (0.28 inch) | 9.57 grams
| 30 km/s
| 4.3 Mj
| 7.62 x 11.43 mm (0.30 inch)
| 11.8 grams
| 29.5 km/s
| 5.14 Mj
|
Then test with a single Aluminium whipple (since material doesn't appear to matter) above a Zirconium Carbide bulk layer at a set of angles (10°,15°,20° etc. up to 45° at first) and just finding the exact thickness needed to stop the projectile hitting the bulk layer as indicated by the purple sparks. Past that I'm a little unsire about where to head next. Possibly testing multiple whipples with combined thickness, possibly laminates of differeing materials to see if there is any difference at all other than the precise thickness etc. Maybe it would be a good idea to standardise the projectiles at constant speeds, maybe slower speeds?
Again, sorry for dipping out I will come back eventually but it will be a while. Hope you all have a good summer season (or winter if you're in the South)
Happy to see that you are still here. But I have a question after about the rounds that you are using in your test. Are you using the projectile function, where you set the mass, or are you using a payload that uses kinetic kill penetrator, using a Radiation shield that you turned into a round, like a THMV drone? The reason why I am asking is that it could explain the odd results you were getting. The game models our ships a mesh. Points that relate to other points. How these points affect each other is affected thought material properties. When we use the mass setting, the game only applies a force or energy to a point on the mesh that is hit by our rounds. Modeling the deformation on our ships, thought changes in the mesh from the applied forces. But when we use akinetic kill penetrator, the games models it as two mesh hitting each other. Much like two ships ramming into each other. Both mesh deform form hitting each other based on velocity and direction of each respected mesh.
|
|
sammi79
New Member
I'll get it done now, in a minute.
Posts: 27
|
Post by sammi79 on May 10, 2022 20:40:43 GMT
Happy to see that you are still here. But I have a question after about the rounds that you are using in your test. Are you using the projectile function, where you set the mass, or are you using a payload that uses kinetic kill penetrator, using a Radiation shield that you turned into a round, like a THMV drone? The reason why I am asking is that it could explain the odd results you were getting. The game models our ships a mesh. Points that relate to other points. How these points affect each other is affected thought material properties. When we use the mass setting, the game only applies a force or energy to a point on the mesh that is hit by our rounds. Modeling the deformation on our ships, thought changes in the mesh from the applied forces. But when we use akinetic kill penetrator, the games models it as two mesh hitting each other. Much like two ships ramming into each other. Both mesh deform form hitting each other based on velocity and direction of each respected mesh. I use the projectile function in the gun design, setting the mass and calibre there. I do make equivalent radiation shield objects purely to make sure I can set the correct mass for the caliber using the length = 1.5x calibres formula for consistency between weapons, but I do not use the payload function. I like colourful tracers. Like I said before I decided on dimensions roughly analagous to pistol bullets as I dislike the idea of firing super thin discs face on. A long time ago I did design some payload projectile railguns but it became apparent that there is a bug in the way impacts are calculated which makes them ridiculously overpowered, with small calibre projectiles seemingly able to slice through substantial armour far too easily. Also the simulation treats payloads like space craft so once you get a few hundred rounds on the way it slows to a crawl. It was a bit dissapointing because I was having a lot of fun designing explosive tipped bullets, with Tungsten penetrator rods etc.
|
|
|
Post by sage on May 13, 2022 5:34:50 GMT
Happy to see that you are still here. But I have a question after about the rounds that you are using in your test. Are you using the projectile function, where you set the mass, or are you using a payload that uses kinetic kill penetrator, using a Radiation shield that you turned into a round, like a THMV drone? The reason why I am asking is that it could explain the odd results you were getting. The game models our ships a mesh. Points that relate to other points. How these points affect each other is affected thought material properties. When we use the mass setting, the game only applies a force or energy to a point on the mesh that is hit by our rounds. Modeling the deformation on our ships, thought changes in the mesh from the applied forces. But when we use akinetic kill penetrator, the games models it as two mesh hitting each other. Much like two ships ramming into each other. Both mesh deform form hitting each other based on velocity and direction of each respected mesh. I use the projectile function in the gun design, setting the mass and calibre there. I do make equivalent radiation shield objects purely to make sure I can set the correct mass for the caliber using the length = 1.5x calibres formula for consistency between weapons, but I do not use the payload function. I like colourful tracers. Like I said before I decided on dimensions roughly analagous to pistol bullets as I dislike the idea of firing super thin discs face on. A long time ago I did design some payload projectile railguns but it became apparent that there is a bug in the way impacts are calculated which makes them ridiculously overpowered, with small calibre projectiles seemingly able to slice through substantial armour far too easily. Also the simulation treats payloads like space craft so once you get a few hundred rounds on the way it slows to a crawl. It was a bit dissapointing because I was having a lot of fun designing explosive tipped bullets, with Tungsten penetrator rods etc. All right then with that checked off, let move to your testing question. What should be done is that the testing should be limited to the first four round, as their speeds are around 34 km/s. If the energy or mass is what is affecting thickness of the armor, then we should see a difference. As speed would be just about the same for the first four rounds. If it does not, then the game has a hard limit in it code that we are hitting. If we see a difference, then we need to make two rounds that weight the same to test to see if it is the mass or energy that makes the difference. Let set the armor thickness to 2.19mm as that is what we found so far and test these weapons against it.
|
|
|
Post by annaphylaxis on May 14, 2022 6:09:35 GMT
Heh so my smallest Molten Gold arclamp pumped Ce:LLF laser is 15 MW, puts down 34.8 MW/m² @ 1000km
So that would be 56,682.3 kj/m² divided by 34800 kj/(s*m²) gives me about 1.63 seconds to melt through the armour So, I know this is like, a month and a half old, and this may be a stupid suggestion, but would adding ice to the armor increase the melting resistance?
|
|
|
Post by sage on May 14, 2022 22:02:26 GMT
Heh so my smallest Molten Gold arclamp pumped Ce:LLF laser is 15 MW, puts down 34.8 MW/m² @ 1000km
So that would be 56,682.3 kj/m² divided by 34800 kj/(s*m²) gives me about 1.63 seconds to melt through the armour So, I know this is like, a month and a half old, and this may be a stupid suggestion, but would adding ice to the armor increase the melting resistance? You mean adding a layer of ice over the Reinforced Carbon-Carbon or as a replacement? Because adding anything over the armor, add another layer, which always increase how long it take to melt thought. Now if the cost in mass and MC is worth it, then you need to find Specific Thermal, and ask what the Specific Thermal per unit of mass and Mc is. Then it comes down to worth or not you can afforce the increase in mass or MC.
|
|
|
Post by annaphylaxis on May 15, 2022 6:26:13 GMT
So, I know this is like, a month and a half old, and this may be a stupid suggestion, but would adding ice to the armor increase the melting resistance? You mean adding a layer of ice over the Reinforced Carbon-Carbon or as a replacement? Because adding anything over the armor, add another layer, which always increase how long it take to melt thought. Now if the cost in mass and MC is worth it, then you need to find Specific Thermal, and ask what the Specific Thermal per unit of mass and Mc is. Then it comes down to worth or not you can afforce the increase in mass or MC. Well, I don't really have a chance to test, because I can't manage to beat Retaking Ceres (I swear, its like there's a silicon lottery just for being able to beat that mission, because I try what everyone else says, to the letter, and still can't).
|
|
|
Post by sage on May 16, 2022 1:53:22 GMT
You mean adding a layer of ice over the Reinforced Carbon-Carbon or as a replacement? Because adding anything over the armor, add another layer, which always increase how long it take to melt thought. Now if the cost in mass and MC is worth it, then you need to find Specific Thermal, and ask what the Specific Thermal per unit of mass and Mc is. Then it comes down to worth or not you can afforce the increase in mass or MC. Well, I don't really have a chance to test, because I can't manage to beat Retaking Ceres (I swear, its like there's a silicon lottery just for being able to beat that mission, because I try what everyone else says, to the letter, and still can't). On the main menu, hit the button called "infolinks". Then hit the label called concepts, and the then one called "unlocking content and mods". There should be a button to unlock both the ship design and module design button there. It there for engineers who wanted to start ship design but didn't want to play thought the whole game. If you are having problems with playing thought the missions in the game, go to YouTube and find a channel called "ReadySetRudy". It has a guide for every mission for Children of a Dead Earth, and some guide for making your ships. The only problem is the guides come from 2016.
|
|
Echo
Full Member
Posts: 141
|
Post by Echo on May 21, 2022 9:30:55 GMT
If you need to watch something, then you might as well watch what currently is the only recorded Retaking Ceres run done with Hard Campaign, AI replacement and other mods that made this mission harder (like giving the enemy upgraded Violent lasers that allows Laser Frigates to simultaneously shoot 4-5 Autofire RGs instead of just 1): www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6rzsBwQOIk
|
|
|
Post by sage on May 26, 2022 0:45:37 GMT
If you need to watch something, then you might as well watch what currently is the only recorded Retaking Ceres run done with Hard Campaign, AI replacement and other mods that made this mission harder (like giving the enemy upgraded Violent lasers that allows Laser Frigates to simultaneously shoot 4-5 Autofire RGs instead of just 1): www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6rzsBwQOIkWhile I don't mind having other youtuber video as guides, especially ones where they are fighting better AI on a harder campaign. I will point out that the person in this video is only show a recording of their game play, and is not telling the view what they were think or trying to teach them how to play the game.
|
|