|
|
Post by caiaphas on Jan 17, 2017 17:41:24 GMT
...well, I guess it means that it's just that more vulnerable to sandblaster fire, if your radiators are that much larger. How wide are your ships? They're more tall than wide. They're so cheap because I armor them only with the ship itself. I standardized all my weapons, crew modules and power production to 1100K so I can have seamless radiators.
And besides, with 3x 1 GW lasers, I won't be getting hit in the first place. Huh. Well that's a sweet-looking ship. |
|
utilitas
Junior Member
I can do this all day.
Posts: 59
|
Post by utilitas on Jan 17, 2017 17:52:51 GMT
Huh. Well that's a sweet-looking ship. It is a more specialized version of the Pasedia which also uses the same standard. Not getting your energy production cut off is just a matter of turning your ship away (which is actually pretty hard because of the horrible combat navigation controls). Both also have a hemispherical armor coverage (so 50% radial on most armor). Why spend money and weight on armor that won't protect you from that direction anyway? What would make the design even better is radial construction of spacers and/or asymmetric armor. Just form a wedge shape in the broadside direction and only leave some recesses for weapons (or just mount them at a degree, which would be another nice feature) and glancing will take care of the rest. |
|
|
|
Post by vegemeister on Jan 17, 2017 18:39:47 GMT
Same should apply to conventional guns, as well as a varied barrel thickness. As far as I am aware, and this may be completely innaccurate as it could just be a graphical model thing, but conventional gun barrels are just straight cylinders of X material. Ideally, they should taper down to a smaller thickness, although that might need some more complex equations. You don't need your gun barrel to withstand the same pressures at the base as at its exhaust. Either way, I have something to contribute. This nuclear payload is a few centimeters smaller than the current smallest payload, so I guess it'd count (nearly 2,5 cm). It does, however, come at a cost. But it allows for even smaller bullets/missiles (missiles which, by the way, will be wider anyway due to the control module being too big. I tried.) Some fiddling around could probably make it even smaller. NuclearPayloadModule 'Nut' >3cm 96.8 t Boosted Fission Nuke
UsesCustomName true
CoreComposition Pu-239
ReflectorComposition Vanadium Chromium Steel
SlowExplosive
CombustionReaction Silicon Thermite
DelayComposition Boron
DelayCompositionMassFraction 0
FastExplosive Octogen
CoreMass_kg 0.01
Enrichment_Percent 0.97
HollowCoreRadius_m 0.011
InnerExplosiveWidth_m 0.014
FusionBoost Deuterium Tritium
FusionFuelDensity_kg__m3 110
Detonator
HardRange_km 0
ActivationRange_km 0.2
MinimumRange_km 0
OverrideTimer_s 0
TargetsShips true
TargetsShots true
[tr]
[td style="border:1px solid #bbb;padding: 5px;"]'Nut' 2.58cm 96.8t[/td]
[td style="border:1px solid #bbb;padding: 5px;"]@utilitas[/td]
[td style="border:1px solid #bbb;padding: 5px;"]96.8 t[/td]
[td style="border:1px solid #bbb;padding: 5px;"]60.2 c[/td]
[td style="border:1px solid #bbb;padding: 5px;"]455 g[/td]
[td style="border:1px solid #bbb;padding: 5px;"][a href="http://i.imgur.com/loiP9BP.png"]http://i.imgur.com/loiP9BP.png[/a][/td]
[td style="border:1px solid #bbb;padding: 5px;"]http://pastebin.com/r4wnvrC2[/td]
[/tr]Remember that silicon thermite and nanothermite are currently bugged, so any nukes using them are unphysical. The smallest atomic bomb I've been able to find is the W54, at 13.6 cm radius and 23 kg mass. If you've built something smaller than that, it just might run on magic. I've had pretty good luck with Nitroglycerin/Calcium, but based on the results, and the fact that I can't find any reference to that combination through Google, I suspect that may be unphysical as well. Also I don't think it should be possible to make a bomb with Pu-240 at all, due to predetonation. |
|
utilitas
Junior Member
I can do this all day.
Posts: 59
|
Post by utilitas on Jan 17, 2017 19:02:58 GMT
Remember that silicon thermite and nanothermite are currently bugged, so any nukes using them are unphysical. The smallest atomic bomb I've been able to find is the W54, at 13.6 cm radius and 23 kg mass. If you've built something smaller than that, it just might run on magic. I've had pretty good luck with Nitroglycerin/Calcium, but based on the results, and the fact that I can't find any reference to that combination through Google, I suspect that may be unphysical as well. Also I don't think it should be possible to make a bomb with Pu-240 at all, due to predetonation.
Then it'll be just like fusion boosting bug all over again. I've also used nitroglycerin/tetrafluorohydrazine, but you can always just use nitroglycerin/boron, which is entirely physical. Silicon thermite/lithium just seems silly though. Also, using highly enriched U-235 or plain U-233 looks like it should work just fine for micronukes, although it needs the fusion boosting which might still invalidate it. This is basically the same, except without the silicon thermite and therefore considerably bigger. |
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Jan 17, 2017 19:32:27 GMT
wait silicon thermite (and nanothermite) is bugged?!?!
|
|
|
|
Post by bluuetechnic on Jan 17, 2017 20:39:05 GMT
Hah. I remember a couple months back when I went everywhere trying as hard as I could to get people to make companies like this. If you look a few pages back, you'll find an old thread called ARC or AEON or something. It was the first like it here, and my last thread before school completely took over my life. Anyways, glad to see people doing this now, and I look forwards to at least a partial return. I'm working on a full game pack featuring people's companies. I can remember AEON now. Thanks! Yay, thanks! I probably won't be updating it as much now, but I'll try to make some more things for this! |
|
|
|
Post by tessfield on Jan 17, 2017 22:54:32 GMT
One thing I've found regarding radial/partial armors is that we should always use radial/partial armors. Best results are when you have a small boron 1cm at the middle of your ship for the crew and rest of modules, then a 50m lithium pillar at each end. You add 10m of graphogel with both radial and start/end so its basically just a cuboid in front of your crew compartments, 1cm of aluminum or whatever radial only, from end to end, where you mount your weapons (preferably near the tips) since those are what are targeted by things, then apply as much armor as you like in the form of more cuboids. Probably another 10m graphogel and some Osmium. Basically you're rarely going to be attacked from two angles at once (although that's mostly an AI/UI issue I suppose, since it's not uncoordinatable), and on 1 v 1 fights you only need to armor where you're getting shot. Crew is not as easily redundatable (created a verb) as weapons, so you protect them behind a lot of volume, you put the engines behind that, and then hold many cheap guns at the ends. Missile and drones can be added inside the armor or not, if you're confident you can launch them before combat. That's my philosophy on armor anyway, thought I'd share my own 20 mc since we were talking about ships all of a sudden  I thought I'd posted it on the designs thread, but can't find it; I call this ship/armor scheme "Patchwork", because it looks shoddy as hell compared to the nice and smooth ships we have now xD Oh, qswitched, radial or partial armor counts towards surface calculations as if it was full armor. This makes this kind of armor less efficient than it would be in reality, because it makes engagements init a lot sooner, we're talking about 20km 3 ships where most of the volume/surface is in the center, pointing straight at you, with two thin arms at each end. Ahhhh, I so wish we could design ships freely... It'd be awesome to model something in Blender and have it work in the game. Aaaanyway, I'll go through SSOS posts this weekend, but catching up on forum stuff in the meantime. |
|
|
|
Post by bluuetechnic on Jan 17, 2017 23:08:19 GMT
Oh yeah, partial armor! That was one of my very first ideas on this forum. I didn't experiment with it too much because I focused more on module design, but I was definitely a proponent of using it, because most of the time it's objectively more efficient. I would be interested to actually see your armor layout if you're willing. Going back to one of those threads, called 'alternative armor layout concepts', I rediscovered erin 's really cool sketches, which made me wish for more freeform design even more  Edit: Here's an example of some of her designs. there are even more in the original thread.  |
|
|
|
Post by vegemeister on Jan 18, 2017 1:27:24 GMT
wait silicon thermite (and nanothermite) is bugged?!?! Detonation velocity is zero. |
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Jan 18, 2017 4:39:56 GMT
wait silicon thermite (and nanothermite) is bugged?!?! Detonation velocity is zero. its not an explosive, its an incendiary weapon that carries oxidizer with it, wait now I want incendiary shells for my coilguns |
|
|
|
Post by vegemeister on Jan 20, 2017 21:04:41 GMT
Detonation velocity is zero. its not an explosive, its an incendiary weapon that carries oxidizer with it, wait now I want incendiary shells for my coilguns Explosive lenses bend shockwaves the same way regular lenses bend light. When a wave crosses a boundary between materials that propagate the wave at different speeds, it changes direction. The greater the relative difference in speeds, the greater the change in direction. A material that propagates a shockwave with "zero" velocity is like a transparent material with infinite index of refraction. It can be used to make zero-thickness lenses. Or rather, in the equations that define the shape of a lens, as the detonation velocity goes to zero, so does the thickness of the lens. From what I've read, some modern bombs use lenses made of materials that aren't explosive but do propagate a shockwave. Once you have a converging shock, you can use it to trigger a layer of high-energy explosive around the pit. |
|
utilitas
Junior Member
I can do this all day.
Posts: 59
|
Post by utilitas on Jan 21, 2017 8:05:07 GMT
One thing I've found regarding radial/partial armors is that we should always use radial/partial armors. Best results are when you have a small boron 1cm at the middle of your ship for the crew and rest of modules, then a 50m lithium pillar at each end. You add 10m of graphogel with both radial and start/end so its basically just a cuboid in front of your crew compartments, 1cm of aluminum or whatever radial only, from end to end, where you mount your weapons (preferably near the tips) since those are what are targeted by things, then apply as much armor as you like in the form of more cuboids. Probably another 10m graphogel and some Osmium. Basically you're rarely going to be attacked from two angles at once (although that's mostly an AI/UI issue I suppose, since it's not uncoordinatable), and on 1 v 1 fights you only need to armor where you're getting shot. Crew is not as easily redundatable (created a verb) as weapons, so you protect them behind a lot of volume, you put the engines behind that, and then hold many cheap guns at the ends. Missile and drones can be added inside the armor or not, if you're confident you can launch them before combat. That's my philosophy on armor anyway, thought I'd share my own 20 mc since we were talking about ships all of a sudden I thought I'd posted it on the designs thread, but can't find it; I call this ship/armor scheme "Patchwork", because it looks shoddy as hell compared to the nice and smooth ships we have now xD Oh, qswitched , radial or partial armor counts towards surface calculations as if it was full armor. This makes this kind of armor less efficient than it would be in reality, because it makes engagements init a lot sooner, we're talking about 20km 3 ships where most of the volume/surface is in the center, pointing straight at you, with two thin arms at each end. Ahhhh, I so wish we could design ships freely... It'd be awesome to model something in Blender and have it work in the game. Aaaanyway, I'll go through SSOS posts this weekend, but catching up on forum stuff in the meantime. Speaking of more ship construction freedom... I get that the big ol' tube is the absolute most combat-effective design, but not all ships are going to be combat-only. Why can't we have some modest degree of radial construction for civilian ships, and especially stations, which aren't going to be moving around too much anyway? Such civilian vehicles would also tend to have more regards towards a higher quality of life, one that isn't the spartan zero-G knock-em-about of warships. Habitation rings, viewing ports and hydroponic domes should be the name of the game for orbital stations and even some larger passenger ships, not something that looks like a dilapidated Saturn V with all its staging rings removed. Hell, even something like the ISS would look better. I'd be inclined that good looking cruise liners would attract considerably more customers than something that looks like three different cold-war era submarines stapled together. |
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Jan 21, 2017 19:55:10 GMT
and now for something completly different, I have found that bigger turrets are more power effecient and smaller turrets are more mass effecient
|
|
|
|
Post by carrier0 on Jan 22, 2017 8:02:01 GMT
Has anyone managed to get more than 10Mt out of their nuke assembly? Real life example Tsar-bomb was around 57Mt and it originally ought to be a 100Mt+ device.
|
|
|
|
Post by caiaphas on Jan 22, 2017 8:02:50 GMT
Has anyone managed to get more than 10Mt out of their nuke assembly? Real life example Tsar-bomb was around 57Mt and it originally ought to be a 100Mt+ device. Not since the update. Best I've personally gotten was 10.2 Mt out of a plutonium boosted fission nuke. |
|
