|
Post by kerikbalm on Oct 12, 2023 10:53:36 GMT
Hello all, I bought this game on sale a while back, and finally started getting into it. I come over from KSP, so getting used to the orbital mechanics was rather quick
My experience so far:
Started the campaign, relied heavily on missiles.
Then came vesta overkill.
Vesta overkill with stock modules took me a while to get past (I gave up trying to dodge drone intercepts, and made focused on many small ships with limited dV, forward firing autofire railguns set to ignore range, and thick frontal armor - they wiped out all missile and drone waves with no losses, but took ~50% casualties when trading fire with the main enemy fleet)
I've since been stomping on the AI in ship to ship engagements with 1Mm Ti:sapphire lasers when appropriate, not like that one where you destroy a methane depot in low neptunian orbit - just stripped the armor from the stock privateer), getting better and better. I've been incrementally replacing stock modules with custom ones. So far I've got various sizes and powers of UV lasers (Nd:YAG and Ti:Sapphire, Nd being the budget option) all around 4% efficiency. I recently started making a slightly less efficient laser that operates at higher temperatures and lower powers (found out about this ablation cap: 250MW with a 10m lens is overkill, which was already quite a step down from the 500-1000MW lasers with 20m lenses)
Made lighter radiators
Made a high temperature reactor- 2500K I think, >30MW, about 10 tons (much better power to mass rato than stock, with higher temperature) - can only seem to make small moderate power reactors, not 500-1000 MW ones, so I just spam 10 ton, 30 MW reactors.
Made some lighter propellent tanks/ones of different sizes
Haven't touched propulsion much, made some more powerful MPDs, I can't seem to scale them up much, but I have a bit (helos keep crew requirements from ballooning) - can't seem to find a way to reduce exhaust velocity to get more thrust while maintaining efficiency - still, what I have now is workable to allow my "laserstars" to dodge incoming fire while disabling ships at 1000 km away. I plan to take a look at improving NTRs next
Haven't done anything with chemical guns, drones, missiles.
I have made a 20 km/s 1 gm railgun, thought about adding them as secondary weapons to my laserships for dealing with ships that have some radiators or weapons that my lasers can't hit (on the other side of the target) - as my lasers don't seem to produce any "hard kills" Although rapid fire small projectile railguns seem rather limited at producing hard kills too. Tried making them fire a larger projectile (2 gm, wow) at the same velocity - meh
Tried to improve the sniper coilgun's velocity (I figured it's 27gm projectile would get through armor better) - haven't produced anything appealing.
I haven't done much with armor. Read about Whipple shields and graphite aerogel and spall liners. I often ignore armor, but when I do use it, it's a few mm of Aluminum or diamond, 50-100cm of graphite aerogel, some cm* of Reinforced CC, and a couple mm of spidersilk. * my pre-module unlock vesta overkill ships had a much thicker RCC layer on the front
|
|
|
Post by sage on Oct 16, 2023 2:24:11 GMT
I have some notes that you can use suggestions, "[Blog] Sage's final notes". they may be able to help you.
|
|
|
Post by kerikbalm on Oct 20, 2023 20:57:10 GMT
I have some notes that you can use suggestions, "[Blog] Sage's final notes". they may be able to help you. Link? Anyway, I now have an 8.9 ton 602 MW U233 reactor running at 2500K (and a 1 GW version, but the power-mass ratio isn't as good as the 600MW version). I'll probably try to make one that runs even hotter (2700?) I've improved my MPDs a bit, still have to figure out how to optimize them for what I want - don't want to use a bunch of tiny ones each with 0.2 crew required, still just using Xenon, haven't looked into the pros/cons of other propellents. I made a 35km/s railgun that is pretty accurate, looked at the "fury" railgun from one of the designs on the 750 ton challenge thread, made my own version of it (dropping hafnia caps, bc I read they were unrealistic in their energy density, so I use the next best material) - but I found it's dispersion to be too high, I preferred my 35 km/s design Still haven't done much with coilgun's, they seem pretty lackluster to me. Finished the campaign - there was just no challenge in the last mission when I used such powerful reactors, lasers, and railguns, demolished the enemy without losing a single module (the armor got some scratches because I was dodging with MPDs and not NTRs). Will look into some mods soon
|
|
|
Post by sage on Oct 22, 2023 5:11:38 GMT
I have some notes that you can use suggestions, "[Blog] Sage's final notes". they may be able to help you. Link? Anyway, I now have an 8.9 ton 602 MW U233 reactor running at 2500K (and a 1 GW version, but the power-mass ratio isn't as good as the 600MW version). I'll probably try to make one that runs even hotter (2700?) I've improved my MPDs a bit, still have to figure out how to optimize them for what I want - don't want to use a bunch of tiny ones each with 0.2 crew required, still just using Xenon, haven't looked into the pros/cons of other propellents. I made a 35km/s railgun that is pretty accurate, looked at the "fury" railgun from one of the designs on the 750 ton challenge thread, made my own version of it (dropping hafnia caps, bc I read they were unrealistic in their energy density, so I use the next best material) - but I found it's dispersion to be too high, I preferred my 35 km/s design Still haven't done much with coilgun's, they seem pretty lackluster to me. Finished the campaign - there was just no challenge in the last mission when I used such powerful reactors, lasers, and railguns, demolished the enemy without losing a single module (the armor got some scratches because I was dodging with MPDs and not NTRs). Will look into some mods soon [Blog] Sage's final notesSee my notes for a Laser Pump efficiency. There is a table their Laser pump efficiency produced though ever combination of Gas Composition for the Arc Lamp and Gain Medium. Which would have been my May 25,2023 post. It after all my work on Attack Vector tactical in Children of a Dead Earth. Note the ones in Bold. But here is a short recap. The biggest thing that limits your Laser Efficiency is it pumping efficiency. There are 5 combinations for more than 30% pumping efficiency. They are: Gain Medium: Alexandrite Gas Composition for the Arc Lamp: Liquid Holmium Efficiency pumping:42.3% Gain Medium: Ruby Gas Composition for the Arc Lamp: Liquid Holmium Efficiency pumping: 44.7% Gain Medium: Ce:LLF Gas Composition for the Arc Lamp: Liquid Bismuth Efficiency pumping: 33.6% Gain Medium: Ce:LLF Gas Composition for the Arc Lamp: Molten Gold Efficiency pumping: 54.3% Gain Medium: Ce:LLF Gas Composition for the Arc Lamp: Molten Tin Efficiency pumping: 49.3% Note: that I found the Ce:LLF laser to be unrealistic as the 308mm wavelength would destroy the CCD chips used to sense and keep track of the target, as well as destroy the ability to know if you are hitting them with your laser. Based on all you have told me so far; I would take it that you are Xenon-Titanium Sapphire laser with around 6% pumping efficiency. Note even running your 602 MW U233 reactor at 2500K, you would still have large heat radiators. Based on the temp I would take it that they are build out of Titanium Carbide, Silicon Carbide, or Amorphous Carbon.
|
|
|
Post by kerikbalm on Oct 23, 2023 19:50:14 GMT
So far, I am not using mods...
Why would the Ce:LLF be unrealistic, but frequency quadrupled Ti: sapphire is fine? Why would the sensor need to be built into the weapon optics? What is the CCD sensor? It seems to me a second optic system would easily detect the light hitting the target.
Your linked post is a little hard to follow because it is going back and forth between different games.
As for the radiator size, yes, of course, there's not really any way to avoid having large radiators. Still, I upped the temp to 2700, about doubled the reactor mass, and power reduced to 420 MW (this was after I improved the 2500k reactor to be 8.6 tons producing 665MW)
For fun, I have been trying to improve the stock gunship by keeping the same layout, but replacing stock modules with my own - it's externally nearly identical and I didn't touch the reactor radiators. The stock gunship produced 120mw, with those same radiators and my 2500k reactor, it's 1.2 GW, with the same radiators...
I did have to add more radiators for the laser. Unmodified, the low radiator temperature of the lasers makes it a pain to cool them.
I could really use a heat-pump part
Also I note that one can make some rather high power rail and coilgun's, at far below 50% efficiency - no way is all that waste heat going only into the expelled projectiles. It seems to me that those weapon systems should require radiators too
|
|
|
Post by yehang79 on Oct 25, 2023 12:00:06 GMT
To be honest, this is not a scientific game at all. You can tell from the fuel tank's dry to mass ratio of up to 20
There were many unfixed bugs in module design sections that allows you to create MPD with efficiency of 209%, and super long ultra mega 200m long radiators that wont shatter under 2g acceleration
Stock modules are actually very realistic
|
|
|
Post by sage on Oct 29, 2023 0:39:31 GMT
So far, I am not using mods... Why would the Ce:LLF be unrealistic, but frequency quadrupled Ti: sapphire is fine? Why would the sensor need to be built into the weapon optics? What is the CCD sensor? It seems to me a second optic system would easily detect the light hitting the target. The answer is that any Ultraviolet light can damage any CCD chip no matter what produces that frequency. Quadrupled Ti: sapphire that produces Ultraviolet light will and can damage a CCD chip, no differently than a Ce:LLF laser. Note CCD sensors use Charge-Coupled Devices (why they are called CCD) as their integrated circuit. They take an incoming photon or light and change it into an electrical signal that is used to produce digital images. One that both humans and computers can both do an analysis with. And has been the main standard in the space telescopes that we have been using. Now onto why you would build the Sensors into the laser, and that because you would already have a large mirror that is needed for the laser to be more powerful. You may from time to time changed the size of the laser and noted that the intensity at range goes up. That because the diffraction limited effects sending light as much as receiving it. I used to have nonfunctional laser as stand-ins for space telescopes on my warship, that would be used to spot enemy ships in a realistic battle. But noted that in order to get around the diffraction limit my sensors would have to be as big as my laser. So, I then came up with the ideal of using the laser as both an offensive weapons system and also as a sensor. Much like a radio transmitter and receiver, you can NOT do both at the same time. You cannot receive when you are transmitting, and you cannot transmit in order to receive. Now you would need a second laser-optic system in order for you to spot if you are hitting your target with your laser. If it uses an Ultraviolet light laser it would destroy the CCD chips that see the light over a period of time.
|
|
|
Post by sage on Oct 29, 2023 0:46:31 GMT
Your linked post is a little hard to follow because it is going back and forth between different games. This is me double checking how realistic both games are, by putting trying to build the ships from AV:T. From my nots you should have seen that there is no comb of Gain Medium and Wavelength that would give us 2400nm and 1200nm. And that the intensity of laser in AV:T is weak. Which is why they have to use so much power and need large heat radiators that have to be retracted during combat. They have to use Heat sinks then.
|
|
|
Post by kerikbalm on Nov 1, 2023 15:52:11 GMT
To be honest, this is not a scientific game at all. You can tell from the fuel tank's dry to mass ratio of up to 20 There were many unfixed bugs in module design sections that allows you to create MPD with efficiency of 209%, and super long ultra mega 200m long radiators that wont shatter under 2g acceleration Stock modules are actually very realistic What is unrealistic about a 20:1 wet to dry mass ratio for a propellent tank? The STS external tank had a 28.68:1 wt:dry ratio. Also, bugs and limitations of the modelling don't make it unscientific overall, it's only edge cases. I haven't seen any other game trying to be so scientific So far, I am not using mods... Why would the Ce:LLF be unrealistic, but frequency quadrupled Ti: sapphire is fine? Why would the sensor need to be built into the weapon optics? What is the CCD sensor? It seems to me a second optic system would easily detect the light hitting the target. The answer is that any Ultraviolet light can damage any CCD chip no matter what produces that frequency. Quadrupled Ti: sapphire that produces Ultraviolet light will and can damage a CCD chip, no differently than a Ce:LLF laser. Note CCD sensors use Charge-Coupled Devices (why they are called CCD) as their integrated circuit. They take an incoming photon or light and change it into an electrical signal that is used to produce digital images. One that both humans and computers can both do an analysis with. And has been the main standard in the space telescopes that we have been using. Now onto why you would build the Sensors into the laser, and that because you would already have a large mirror that is needed for the laser to be more powerful. You may from time to time changed the size of the laser and noted that the intensity at range goes up. That because the diffraction limited effects sending light as much as receiving it. I used to have nonfunctional laser as stand-ins for space telescopes on my warship, that would be used to spot enemy ships in a realistic battle. But noted that in order to get around the diffraction limit my sensors would have to be as big as my laser. So, I then came up with the ideal of using the laser as both an offensive weapons system and also as a sensor. Much like a radio transmitter and receiver, you can NOT do both at the same time. You cannot receive when you are transmitting, and you cannot transmit in order to receive. Now you would need a second laser-optic system in order for you to spot if you are hitting your target with your laser. If it uses an Ultraviolet light laser it would destroy the CCD chips that see the light over a period of time. A quick Google suggests that CCD devices are routinely used to detect UV light. I have also noted the lack of any sort of sensors and communication/datalink equipment as a limitation of this game. I think lasers would be widely used just to blind enemy sensors. I am not convinced that using the laser optics as sensor optics would be the way things would work IRL. IRL, you're going to want to image IR, and maybe low frequency visible light (for those radiators glowing in visible, and engagement near enough to a star), not UV. This does mean that laser spit size will be below sensor resolution. You'd just need resolution good enough to hit the target, but laser spot size needs to be small enough that the intensity is high enough to melt/vaporize, or just blind the target (depending on what effect one is going for). I definitely think that you'd want sensor optics to be independent of laser optics (could also have some filters, letting IR light in, but opaque to UV light, to prevent/delay permenant damage to sensors from enemy UVlasers Your UV light hitting the enemy should convert readily enough to an IR signal that your IR sensor can detect (through heating the target)
|
|
|
Post by sage on Nov 6, 2023 1:10:39 GMT
The answer is that any Ultraviolet light can damage any CCD chip no matter what produces that frequency. Quadrupled Ti: sapphire that produces Ultraviolet light will and can damage a CCD chip, no differently than a Ce:LLF laser. Note CCD sensors use Charge-Coupled Devices (why they are called CCD) as their integrated circuit. They take an incoming photon or light and change it into an electrical signal that is used to produce digital images. One that both humans and computers can both do an analysis with. And has been the main standard in the space telescopes that we have been using. Now onto why you would build the Sensors into the laser, and that because you would already have a large mirror that is needed for the laser to be more powerful. You may from time to time changed the size of the laser and noted that the intensity at range goes up. That because the diffraction limited effects sending light as much as receiving it. I used to have nonfunctional laser as stand-ins for space telescopes on my warship, that would be used to spot enemy ships in a realistic battle. But noted that in order to get around the diffraction limit my sensors would have to be as big as my laser. So, I then came up with the ideal of using the laser as both an offensive weapons system and also as a sensor. Much like a radio transmitter and receiver, you can NOT do both at the same time. You cannot receive when you are transmitting, and you cannot transmit in order to receive. Now you would need a second laser-optic system in order for you to spot if you are hitting your target with your laser. If it uses an Ultraviolet light laser it would destroy the CCD chips that see the light over a period of time. A quick Google suggests that CCD devices are routinely used to detect UV light. I have also noted the lack of any sort of sensors and communication/datalink equipment as a limitation of this game. I think lasers would be widely used just to blind enemy sensors. I am not convinced that using the laser optics as sensor optics would be the way things would work IRL. IRL, you're going to want to image IR, and maybe low frequency visible light (for those radiators glowing in visible, and engagement near enough to a star), not UV. This does mean that laser spit size will be below sensor resolution. You'd just need resolution good enough to hit the target, but laser spot size needs to be small enough that the intensity is high enough to melt/vaporize, or just blind the target (depending on what effect one is going for). I definitely think that you'd want sensor optics to be independent of laser optics (could also have some filters, letting IR light in, but opaque to UV light, to prevent/delay permenant damage to sensors from enemy UVlasers Your UV light hitting the enemy should convert readily enough to an IR signal that your IR sensor can detect (through heating the target) Here are some sites that list problems with CCD chips and UV light. Low Quantum efficiencyUV light damages (ablates)And yes, there are other chips, and way around the problem, but a number of sites that I came across point out this problem, while I was looking into how far our sensor can see. Now you are right, there are no sensors in the game that we can model. Which is why I had to use non-functioning laser as stand-in for space telescopes. The Blog for this game's answer to the problem of sensors, is there is a large network of them that send data to your ship. The answer in Attack Vector Tactical was that there were a lot of sensors across the hull of your ship that make it impossible for a blinding shot unless you used nukes. I found both of these answers to be wrong due to the diffraction-limit and how it effects telescopes.
|
|
|
Post by kerikbalm on Nov 6, 2023 20:36:07 GMT
Agree on the wrong-ness.
Remote targeting data will reduce your accuracy, possibly be vulnerable to jamming, and have some signal delay problems
Right now, with redundant laser turrets, you could say the turrets without the laser coming out are acting as sensors. With an of 3.0 or higher for the laser, the sensor could have roughly 1/3 the radius for resolution to equal spot size until you get into one being an IR sensor, and the other being near UV.
Anywho, using up to 1 GW reactors at 2645L now, and having fun making "mk2 variants of the stock vessels with improved modules.
Crazy how I can replace the drone RTGs been with a 30 MW reactor, for the same mass, same radiator area, and far fewer credits.
Also noticed missile launchers can have 15 Mm engagement range, tried using that to get my lasers even more range, but with my setups, I find 3-4Mm to be about the limit to what I can tolerate before their damage is too low/slow.
Oddly, I found that using ignore range would get them to fire, but they seemed to ignore assigned target priorities. I broke down and edited the limits file.
I also found that enemy laser ships, even with 13mw green lasers would prevent me from getting 100% unscathed capital ships (even if I engage them from 1Mm, and blast their turrets off really fast) So I converted them to drones (800 ton drones, whatever), and now their spent dV doesn't even count for the records, which made getting gold on some missions quite easy.
It's definitely clubbing baby seal territory now when I can use ships with modules that I designed
|
|
|
Post by yehang79 on Nov 9, 2023 2:39:38 GMT
To be honest, this is not a scientific game at all. You can tell from the fuel tank's dry to mass ratio of up to 20 There were many unfixed bugs in module design sections that allows you to create MPD with efficiency of 209%, and super long ultra mega 200m long radiators that wont shatter under 2g acceleration Stock modules are actually very realistic What is unrealistic about a 20:1 wet to dry mass ratio for a propellent tank? The STS external tank had a 28.68:1 wt:dry ratio. Also, bugs and limitations of the modelling don't make it unscientific overall, it's only edge cases. I haven't seen any other game trying to be so scientific The answer is that any Ultraviolet light can damage any CCD chip no matter what produces that frequency. Quadrupled Ti: sapphire that produces Ultraviolet light will and can damage a CCD chip, no differently than a Ce:LLF laser. Note CCD sensors use Charge-Coupled Devices (why they are called CCD) as their integrated circuit. They take an incoming photon or light and change it into an electrical signal that is used to produce digital images. One that both humans and computers can both do an analysis with. And has been the main standard in the space telescopes that we have been using. Now onto why you would build the Sensors into the laser, and that because you would already have a large mirror that is needed for the laser to be more powerful. You may from time to time changed the size of the laser and noted that the intensity at range goes up. That because the diffraction limited effects sending light as much as receiving it. I used to have nonfunctional laser as stand-ins for space telescopes on my warship, that would be used to spot enemy ships in a realistic battle. But noted that in order to get around the diffraction limit my sensors would have to be as big as my laser. So, I then came up with the ideal of using the laser as both an offensive weapons system and also as a sensor. Much like a radio transmitter and receiver, you can NOT do both at the same time. You cannot receive when you are transmitting, and you cannot transmit in order to receive. Now you would need a second laser-optic system in order for you to spot if you are hitting your target with your laser. If it uses an Ultraviolet light laser it would destroy the CCD chips that see the light over a period of time. A quick Google suggests that CCD devices are routinely used to detect UV light. I have also noted the lack of any sort of sensors and communication/datalink equipment as a limitation of this game. I think lasers would be widely used just to blind enemy sensors. I am not convinced that using the laser optics as sensor optics would be the way things would work IRL. IRL, you're going to want to image IR, and maybe low frequency visible light (for those radiators glowing in visible, and engagement near enough to a star), not UV. This does mean that laser spit size will be below sensor resolution. You'd just need resolution good enough to hit the target, but laser spot size needs to be small enough that the intensity is high enough to melt/vaporize, or just blind the target (depending on what effect one is going for). I definitely think that you'd want sensor optics to be independent of laser optics (could also have some filters, letting IR light in, but opaque to UV light, to prevent/delay permenant damage to sensors from enemy UVlasers Your UV light hitting the enemy should convert readily enough to an IR signal that your IR sensor can detect (through heating the target) Indeed, in reality, there may be fuel tanks with a mass ratio exceeding 20. The consequence of it is that the tank has a thickness of only 40 centimeters, and there is almost no effective anti wave board. At the same time, extremely accurate force analysis is also required during use. Such a thickness like this not only increases the evaporation rate of fuel, but also makes it impossible to inject propellant or reusing the tank. By the way, how and where to place coolant pipes would also be a hard challenge. Therefore, in reality, the mass ratio of rockets rarely exceeds 12. In this game, having a hydrogen tank with mass ratio up to 100 was just so easy. All these modeling problems wasn't just edge cases. Almost all equations in this game are totally fictional or wrong. Stock 33mm battery on stinger drones have a muzzle speed of 2.3kms with only 10g explosives, which in reality could only accelerate projectile to 414m/s. Electromagnetic weapons may reach an efficiency up to 70%, not considering skin effects, ablation or any other problems. In reality, railgun was barely possible to shoot anything lighter than 1kg without damaging itself. Also, the accuracy for weapons were dark magic that I don't even know how to explain. 3mm coilgun in this game have an MOA like 0.3*10^-6, that means 3mm coilgun could shoot a 1m^2 target with 400000 kilometers of distance between them. The best sniper rifle in real life have an accuracy of 0.5MOA. I don't understand laser science, but calculating laser damage with brightness on different distance just seems very strange. Where are my plasma shockwave and light pressures? Missile remote control modules only weights 500g with communications, infrared radar, and datalink operating systems was just a tremendous joke. Voyager 2 fit in all functions remote control modules can, and it weights 729kg. Radiators don't shatter under 2g acceleration, and could withstand 2500K heat while not melting armors around it. Water and sodium already vaporizes under these heat and pressure, and probably could blow radiators up in real situations. Ammunition loaders were totally dark magic that literally have nothing similar with loaders in real life. It works like a portal. Realistic space-based infrared warning systems limit the false alarm rate and sensitivity greatly in order to achieve effective results, and can only detect tail flames at the e4w/sr level at their strongest. It is even more difficult to consider expansion ratio and surface regeneration cooling. The author has no concept of these things, and simply saying 'engines would cause infrared radiations' to ignore all the issues. In reality, fission bombs detonated in space release a large amount of soft X-rays, gamma and alpha rays, as well as some neutron streams. Among them, soft X-rays will be intercepted by the hull, causing a large amount of energy to heat the surface, turning it into plasma and expanding to generate overpressure, thereby destroying the hull. However, in the game, nuclear bombs only calculate impulse and thermal radiation, while neutrons and overpressure are not calculated. To sum up, cde was just a game and hardly got anything similar to real life situations(except for orbital mechanisms). It was simply a game for fun
|
|
|
Post by kerikbalm on Nov 10, 2023 10:02:51 GMT
Indeed, in reality, there may be fuel tanks with a mass ratio exceeding 20. The consequence of it is that the tank has a thickness of only 40 centimeters, and there is almost no effective anti wave board. At the same time, extremely accurate force analysis is also required during use. Such a thickness like this not only increases the evaporation rate of fuel, but also makes it impossible to inject propellant or reusing the tank. By the way, how and where to place coolant pipes would also be a hard challenge. Therefore, in reality, the mass ratio of rockets rarely exceeds 12. In this game, having a hydrogen tank with mass ratio up to 100 was just so easy. The STS ET has anti-slosh baffles, and of course has the fuel pipes for injecting fuel, and was fueled on the launch pad. Also worth noting, the ET had a lot of insulation that wouldn't be needed for an exo-atmospheric craft (vacuum is a great insulator, with a sunshade and limited contact with the rest of the structure, it could easily be kept quite cool). It also had to withstand an acceleration of 4 G's, and was a major structural element. You are also conflating rocket mass ratio, with tank mass ratio. Indeed, I don't find anything exceeding 12:1 by much, but I'm loking at stats for entire rocket systems (centaur stage, SpaceX Starship, etc), with engines, RCS, guidance, insulation etc. All these modeling problems wasn't just edge cases. Almost all equations in this game are totally fictional or wrong. Stock 33mm battery on stinger drones have a muzzle speed of 2.3kms with only 10g explosives, which in reality could only accelerate projectile to 414m/s. Electromagnetic weapons may reach an efficiency up to 70%, not considering skin effects, ablation or any other problems. In reality, railgun was barely possible to shoot anything lighter than 1kg without damaging itself. Also, the accuracy for weapons were dark magic that I don't even know how to explain. 3mm coilgun in this game have an MOA like 0.3*10^-6, that means 3mm coilgun could shoot a 1m^2 target with 400000 kilometers of distance between them. The best sniper rifle in real life have an accuracy of 0.5MOA. I don't understand laser science, but calculating laser damage with brightness on different distance just seems very strange. Where are my plasma shockwave and light pressures? FYI, IRL, the best rifles have MOAs of under 0.25. I haven't looked into the muzzle velocity of the stock projectile cannons, but I'll make a general comment: It is a simulation, like any simulation, it is not perfect, it simplifies things, and sometimes these omissions can result in inaccurate results. It doesn't take structural integrit into consideration: some parts should have a maximum acceleration before failure: you should require heavier radiators on a ship that will accelerate at 2 Gs than one that accelerates at 10 milli-Gs. Ignoring boundary conditions means that you can get away with being 1K below the melting point, when in reality a boundary layer would likely be melting away constantly. The same goes for skin effects that should obliterate railgun projectiles long before they get to 50 km/sec, let alone 100. Side note: I find the stock modules much more realistic than highly "optimized" user modules. Sensors and communication equipment are handwaved away completely, dropped from the simulation. Missile remote control modules only weights 500g with communications, infrared radar, and datalink operating systems was just a tremendous joke. Voyager 2 fit in all functions remote control modules can, and it weights 729kg. Voyager 2 had all that and more, and operates much farther away (fyi, no such thing as infrared radar). IRL, a sidewinder missile has a more advanced seeker (imaging seeker allowing the missile's computer to discriminate based on target shape, dual IR UV seeker, which in theory easily allows discrimination between flares and the actual aircraft's heat signature) than the missiles we have . Here we have another over-simplification. A short range missile launched in the tactial combat screen (as on "micro missile" active defense systems, for example) shouldn't need the same control and guidance system as an interplanetary missile launched from martian orbit at a target around Saturn (or whatever example you wish). It doesn't simulate heat leakage from one component of the ship to another (there's radiatior interraddiance, but no problem keeping a 2600K radiator right next to ship skin that will melt at under 1000K To sum up, cde was just a game and hardly got anything similar to real life situations(except for orbital mechanisms). It was simply a game for fun Yes, and no. It is a game, a simulation game. The simulation is obviously a simplication of reality, and in many cases deviates from reality quite a bit. It has some very unrealistic elements, but overall, it is more realistic than any other space combat simulator out there, by a lot. The highly "optimized" user designs explout these deviations from reality, and the gameplay meta ends up being still quite unrealistic (stilll far more realistic than anything else out there). That's not enough for me to label it "not scientific" "at all". It has the concepts of exhaust velocity, related to temperature, melting points limiting exxhaust velocity of thermal engines, regenerative cooling, black body radiation, thermoelectric generators, efficiency relating to delta-Temperature, thermal lensing, wavelength and diffraction limiting laser focus, etc These are all scientificly valid concepts that it uses/teaches. It is not completely "scientific", but its also not completely unscientific/ not scientific "at all". Its a game, that goes farther towards "realism"/being "scientific" than any other that I am aware of. It of course falls short of complete realism, by quite a bit in some areas. I am aware of this
|
|
|
Post by yehang79 on Nov 10, 2023 10:08:31 GMT
agreed. this game was pretty realistic, but eventually its a game btw i think i've gone too far on voyager2's remote systems, but cramming in all those functions in 400g pod was just incredible. update: I dont think cde was a fully realistic game. It tried to be though. There were many small simulation errors in module design or ship design parts, some of them are fatal and others were okay. The problem is, the whole game was based on a bunch of simulates that combines to create the core of this game. But, instead of having problems on certain part, cde(without bugs) obtains small errors in every section of its simulations, which is hard to remove due to small scratches in finite element emulations.. All these small errors make this game not as realistic as it seems to be--nearly all equations in cde have small problems, which leads to huge mistakes. For example, i decide to design a working ship in this game. I have to create modules of propellant tanks that i have to plug on my ship. Let's assume that for every tank i made it 10t lighter, and i need 10 tanks. In the end, we obtained an error of 100t for propellant subsystem. If there were 5 different subsystems on this ship, then we would have a deviation of 0.5kt(at maximum), which leads to a completely different result comparing to the real situations. Fixing these small fractures wasn't hard. With internet, its easy to goolge a working interior ballistic emulator equations for chemical cannons. Instead of using experiences of predecessors, author deduced his own equation for cannon ballistics, from scratch. It is a heroic and courageous act, i strongly admire his works. The problem for hits interior equation is :it is totally wrong. Without years of tests and researches, it would be hard for a someone to beat efforts made by a large number of scientific researchers over decades. After all, i think this game was just a 'popular science game' designed for space lovers, having their brains enlightened in related fields. If this is a game that was designed from the beginning to try best being authentic, it could have done a better job on emulating physics from what it is now.
|
|
|
Post by camulus on Dec 27, 2023 3:57:42 GMT
Hello everyone how are you doing. Just started the game and love most of it. Have some issues with the missiles though and wanted to know if there was a patch or a mod that will fix the missile guidance issue. Missiles are guided. Once a target is detected and a firing solution is acquired the missiles should track and unless the enemy somehow out maneuvers the DV those missiles should track until the target is destroyed. So if a Drone fleet on the Vesta overkill mission (as a random non specific example) changed course slightly, my missiles should continue to track those targets specifically. That way when I launch missiles to intercept drones I should not have tp readjust their trajectory manually every 60 seconds. I understand that there are gates in a game to make certain things harder but dodging missiles in space is not easy at all. Especially a 2 MT nuke lol. Please lets make an AI for allied missiles that tracks enemy targets or direct me to where there is one.
|
|