|
|
Post by jasonvance on Dec 24, 2016 4:22:33 GMT
I find Zerg tactics work great against stock ships, but min-maxed player designs... Well when you bring a death laser into anything almost nothing beats it other than another death laser. The drones aren't really all that good, but if you're looking for a drone to spam at 70ms a piece that's your drone. With the changes to turret inaccuracy over range it is now actually possible to cost effectively overwhelm 1,000km laser drones with missiles as long as you put a reasonable sized aramid fiber radiation shield for internal armoring in the nose. You could "cheat" and exploit the broken % armoring that is in game atm and put a 10 meter aramid fiber nose cone on the front 18% of your missile for no added mass... But even without exploiting the horrible armor bug a 10cm x 10cm aramid fiber nose cone radiation shield with an additional 2.5mm aramid fiber full armor outer layer you can hold back 1,000km laser spam for a reasonable enough amount of time to get enough explosives through now. The real problem comes down to the system lag generated by having enough missiles in the sky to counter 800 laser doom fleets (20 laser x 40 drones) crashes pretty much everyone's computer. |
|
|
|
Post by David367th on Dec 24, 2016 4:33:08 GMT
Well when you bring a death laser into anything almost nothing beats it other than another death laser. The drones aren't really all that good, but if you're looking for a drone to spam at 70ms a piece that's your drone. With the changes to turret inaccuracy over range it is now actually possible to cost effectively overwhelm 1,000km laser drones with missiles as long as you put a reasonable sized aramid fiber radiation shield for internal armoring in the nose. You could "cheat" and exploit the broken % armoring that is in game atm and put a 10 meter aramid fiber nose cone on the front 18% of your missile for no added mass... But even without exploiting the horrible armor bug a 10cm x 10cm aramid fiber nose cone radiation shield with an additional 2.5mm aramid fiber full armor outer layer you can hold back 1,000km laser spam for a reasonable enough amount of time to get enough explosives through now. The real problem comes down to the system lag generated by having enough missiles in the sky to counter 800 laser doom fleets (20 laser x 40 drones) crashes pretty much everyone's computer. Yeah looks like with 1Mm Death lasers I finally have a reason to get a dual chipset x99 mother board and rock two of those god tier Xeon processors. I don't really feel like trying to sit through a slide show just to get a lucky hit on a 5m ball. |
|
|
|
Post by bigbombr on Dec 24, 2016 9:32:41 GMT
You can't use less than 2 grams for a firearm, and a rail gun or coil guns minimum power is 1kW. Plus it's not just going to be 2kg for 1000 rounds, because you have to take in consideration the container the ammunition is in. I'm thinking you could do a separate ammunition storage made out of lithium to save on weight since an attached ammo bay seems to use what ever material the barrel is made out of, if not probably the standard aluminum. I figured out I was wrong pretty quick and edited the post. Graphite airogel makes for a lighter (but even more fragile) ammo bin than lithium. |
|
|
|
Post by David367th on Dec 24, 2016 14:30:10 GMT
You can't use less than 2 grams for a firearm, and a rail gun or coil guns minimum power is 1kW. Plus it's not just going to be 2kg for 1000 rounds, because you have to take in consideration the container the ammunition is in. I'm thinking you could do a separate ammunition storage made out of lithium to save on weight since an attached ammo bay seems to use what ever material the barrel is made out of, if not probably the standard aluminum. I figured out I was wrong pretty quick and edited the post. Graphite airogel makes for a lighter (but even more fragile) ammo bin than lithium. If you do payloads yeah, but I think you're still forced to use 1g armature and 1g propellant. |
|
|
|
Post by apophys on Dec 24, 2016 22:26:47 GMT
Massive reactor update! *pokes tessfield * Full imgur album, if anyone cares to do size comparisons or something: imgur.com/a/EMER7 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2016 0:08:26 GMT
After buy the game, i put the community design in the game, and make a little progress with MPD.
Lithium as injector can reduce some mass and cost.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kitten on Dec 26, 2016 16:40:28 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by jasonvance on Dec 29, 2016 6:23:18 GMT
I made a few improvements to the ~10MW reactors as a result of min-maxing around the reactor part. They are currently set to a nice middle ground between min-maxed for mass and cost but could be pushed further in either direction by adding / subtracting from the thermocoupler and redoing the turbopumps.   |
|
|
|
Post by inbrainsane on Dec 29, 2016 6:26:32 GMT
After playing around with lasers, let me share my 8GW models. Scaling down in power from here should be quite easy and reduce price and increase Efficiency. I went with Nd:YAG+Krypton. It seems to be better. The cheap ones use minimum arc lamp radius. For the regular ones I tried to find another local Optimum. Considering that the mass and price of the laser does not really have an impact (Power Generator and Radiator are much more important), it might be worth to run with the slightly better regular ones. Or go cheap, I dont know. All modules are not armored. Do not forget to add some. Focus Area is calculated from Intensity and Output Power. The new 10GW Reactors from apophys (see a few posts above) come in handy together with those. |
|
|
|
Post by jasonvance on Dec 29, 2016 6:54:30 GMT
After playing around with lasers, let me share my 8GW models. Scaling down in power from here should be quite easy and reduce price and increase Efficiency. I went with Nd:YAG+Krypton. It seems to be better. The cheap ones use minimum arc lamp radius. For the regular ones I tried to find another local Optimum. Considering that the mass and price of the laser does not really have an impact (Power Generator and Radiator are much more important), it might be worth to run with the slightly better regular ones. Or go cheap, I dont know. All modules are not armored. Do not forget to add some. Focus Area is calculated from Intensity and Output Power. The new 10GW Reactors from apophys (see a few posts above) come in handy together with those. You should try messing around with Titanium Sapphire / xenon arc lamp a bit. They can get 198nm wave length with frequency quad. The on paper efficiency is a bit lower than ND:YAG krypton; but due to the shorter wavelength it maintains over distance much better. In my experience they yield the highest intensity at 1,000km for the lowest cost and mass. Another thing is larger apertures tend to be the way to go for efficiency as size is not really that much of a factor when engaging from 1,000km and it will allow you to greatly decrease the costs / mass in reactors / radiators (or add a bunch more lasers that can all run together for the same cost / mass greatly increasing the ships dps). Example 25MW laser with 111MW/m^2 at 1,000KM: (320 of these could be run off the same amount of reactors to power a single 8GW laser)  |
|
|
|
Post by inbrainsane on Dec 29, 2016 12:41:29 GMT
jasonvance You have two points here. - Ti:Sapphire + Xenon: I played around with them and found that the drop in efficiency is not worth it. However, converting a design is easy.
- Smaller vs. bigger: A smaller design has more weight and cost per MW power. That is a slight case for bigger modules. Current damage model favors few smaller lasers quite massively over one bigger module with total power equal to the sum of total power of the smaller ones. That is a major case for smaller modules. Scaling down is quite easy.
So my table is not meant as the optimal configuration. It is just a set of standards. Adjusting/Recalibrating for smaller size or for different medium should be easy and can be done by the user.
|
|
|
|
Post by someusername6 on Dec 29, 2016 13:52:42 GMT
Another point to consider with respect to laser design is the operating temperature -- you can do the "cold" ones with a silver cavity wall, operating under the silver melting point, or "hot" ones with molybdenium. Hot lasers are less efficient, but also require much smaller radiators -- which might be relevant on high powered lasers.
|
|
|
|
Post by David367th on Dec 29, 2016 15:21:38 GMT
jasonvance You have two points here. - Ti:Sapphire + Xenon: I played around with them and found that the drop in efficiency is not worth it. However, converting a design is easy.
- Smaller vs. bigger: A smaller design has more weight and cost per MW power. That is a slight case for bigger modules. Current damage model favors few smaller lasers quite massively over one bigger module with total power equal to the sum of total power of the smaller ones. That is a major case for smaller modules. Scaling down is quite easy.
So my table is not meant as the optimal configuration. It is just a set of standards. Adjusting/Recalibrating for smaller size or for different medium should be easy and can be done by the user.
Last I recalled Ti:Saph has usually 1% greater efficiency. Also you really should be using Frequency Quadrupling, it's free intensity or smaller apertures. EDIT: The efficiency usually has to do with power in, not just a general improvement, my bad. |
|
|
|
Post by caiaphas on Dec 30, 2016 9:39:58 GMT
I was trying to find a decent lightweight reactor in the one megawatt range for a drone I was designing and couldn't really find any that I liked, so I hashed one together. Hopefully someone else has a use for it.   If anyone wants a go at optimizing it, I know for a fact that you can squeeze another 500 kW out of it even without fiddling with the composition, and the reactor should be able to fit a few tens of grams more fuel. |
|
|
|
Post by jasonvance on Dec 30, 2016 10:38:41 GMT
I was trying to find a decent lightweight reactor in the one megawatt range for a drone I was designing and couldn't really find any that I liked, so I hashed one together. Hopefully someone else has a use for it. If anyone wants a go at optimizing it, I know for a fact that you can squeeze another 500 kW out of it even without fiddling with the composition, and the reactor should be able to fit a few tens of grams more fuel. It still needs a bit more optimizing but this is an improvement on your current design:  |
|
: 