|
Post by shurugal on Dec 23, 2016 2:05:41 GMT
what one half constant? Joule == kgm2 / s2
|
|
|
Post by David367th on Dec 23, 2016 2:07:21 GMT
Joule = .5(kg*(m/s)2) OR kg m2/s2 either one works
So what I was doing wrong was getting Conservation of Energy mixed up? I was thinking muzzle energy was only factored in after the barrel, like the barrel created the energy not transferred it?
|
|
|
Post by lawson on Dec 23, 2016 2:11:27 GMT
I don't see how following shots change the power out. Since the loader and gun are separate systems, wouldn't the power be separate values? the problem isn't the amount of power that the load draws, the problem is the power needed to accelerate each shot. If you'll hang in with me on some math, i'll try to do this as painlessly as possible: 76.6km/s railgun firing 1g slug muzzle energy J (joules) = (kg * m 2) / s 2 (.001kg*76,600m 2) / 1s 2 = 5.868 MJ reload time of 10.8ms 92.593 rounds per second = 543.336 MJ / s convert to watts: 1 J = 1W * 1s, therefore the total power output of this weapon is 543.336 MW.Hmm, looks like this particular gun does not break physics. Looks fine to me except that the mass of the shell is 1.3g at the tip of the muzzle. Note, the 10.8ms firing delay was chosen to avoid melting my PC. The gun tops out at 2.97ms firing delay if you max out the loader, at which point it's solidly physics breaking. (btw, coil-guns are the best at breaking physics. Copper alloy coils regularly get >1000% efficiency)
|
|
khenderson
New Member
my god, it's full of missiles
Posts: 40
|
Post by khenderson on Dec 23, 2016 2:22:06 GMT
what one half constant? Joule == kgm 2 / s 2Okay, maybe I'm going senile, but you appear to have used mass*velocity^2, rather than 1/2*mass*velocity^2. I'm refering to this - (.001kg*76,600m2) / 1s2 = 5.868 MJ
|
|
|
Post by lieste on Dec 23, 2016 2:28:50 GMT
As near as i can tell, this was fixed several updates ago. I have yet to work the math on a gun and come up with a systems who's muzzle energy over time exceeded its input power. Not all of the railguns were flawed but one was, and it isn't afaik a thing that has yet been fixed (qswitched lists it as a todo item in the last patch notes)). 3mm railgun - efficiency of 298% - 300% (depending on whether the reload/cooldown are additive or greatest single). 11mm - 15% - 20% 8mm - 29% - 52% (A custom 8mm 100MW design - 25% - 38% (deliberately reduced rof to extend ammunition load, and because with a 90km + range to 1000m^2 targets there are a lot of rounds in flight even with the 12.6km/s velocity)). The ones that shatter physics were the coilguns, especially the payload launching ones. 8mm - 1,685% - 1,707% Flak - 35,000% -56,781% 286mm - 7,804% - 8,129% Flak - 7,408 - 9,461%
|
|
|
Post by shurugal on Dec 23, 2016 2:32:17 GMT
Joule = .5(kg*(m/s) 2) OR kg m 2/s 2 either one works So what I was doing wrong was getting Conservation of Energy mixed up? I was thinking muzzle energy was only factored in after the barrel, like the barrel created the energy not transferred it? ah, i see where i cocked it up. using 1 second for time unit kinda makes the square go away, even though 1 square second == 1000ms 2 == 1 million ms... i fucking hate math some days. anyway. every action has an equal and opposite reaction. For the bullet to have X joules of muzzle energy, the gun that accelerated it must expend the same energy (more actually, heat losses and whatnot, but we're talking ideal systems) the problem isn't the amount of power that the load draws, the problem is the power needed to accelerate each shot. If you'll hang in with me on some math, i'll try to do this as painlessly as possible: 76.6km/s railgun firing 1g slug muzzle energy J (joules) = (kg * m 2) / s 2 (.001kg*76,600m 2) / 1s 2 = 5.868 MJ reload time of 10.8ms 92.593 rounds per second = 543.336 MJ / s convert to watts: 1 J = 1W * 1s, therefore the total power output of this weapon is 543.336 MW.Hmm, looks like this particular gun does not break physics. Looks fine to me except that the mass of the shell is 1.3g at the tip of the muzzle. Note, the 10.8ms firing delay was chosen to avoid melting my PC. The gun tops out at 2.97ms firing delay if you max out the loader, at which point it's solidly physics breaking. (btw, coil-guns are the best at breaking physics. Copper alloy coils regularly get >1000% efficiency) 'doh. two cockups in one maths. ouch.
|
|
|
Post by shurugal on Dec 23, 2016 2:36:05 GMT
what one half constant? Joule == kgm 2 / s 2Okay, maybe I'm going senile, but you appear to have used mass*velocity^2, rather than 1/2*mass*velocity^2. I'm refering to this - (.001kg*76,600m2) / 1s2 = 5.868 MJ yeah, i cancelled my square wrong. forgot that 1 second doesn't square cleanly, so my numbers fudged,
|
|
|
Post by randomletters on Dec 23, 2016 10:11:51 GMT
Here's my submission for rediculous guns to beat amimai armor™. Depending on luck and closing velocity it takes 30-60 seconds to get a crew kill on the modified gunship I used as a target.
|
|
|
Post by amimai on Dec 23, 2016 10:29:49 GMT
Here's my submission for rediculous guns to beat amimai armor™. Depending on luck and closing velocity it takes 30-60 seconds to get a crew kill on the modified gunship I used as a target. 3GW, hell each shell is over 220MJ of kinetic energy (im not sure, but is looks like them guns still broken...)
|
|
|
Post by The Astronomer on Dec 23, 2016 10:34:09 GMT
Here's my submission for rediculous guns to beat amimai armor™. Depending on luck and closing velocity it takes 30-60 seconds to get a crew kill on the modified gunship I used as a target. We only need to zap these guns down with lasers, right?
|
|
|
Post by randomletters on Dec 23, 2016 10:55:24 GMT
Zap them with lasers or kill them with higher velocity and range 1 gram projectiles.
Unfortunately the AI seems to be determined to use it to snipe all the enemy weapons off of a ship so it's damned annoying to get a detailed analysis of what actually fails in the armor due to how spread out the shots impact.
|
|
|
Post by amimai on Dec 23, 2016 11:56:02 GMT
hmm did some more testing...
Kinetics: Composite has high bounce% its far more likely to come out of a fight without damage, on average it takes more damage from large numbers of low velocity hits then it does from smaller numbers of high velocity of high mass hits. ~40s 1g/3km/s x35drones ~60s 1g/80km/s x15 guns ~35s 25g/25km/s x15 guns
Wipple armour bounces significantly less shots, often eating all the shots that come in at even high angle impacts. its behaviour vs 1g/3km/s drone mounted is great, making it able to survive thousands of hits. comparative behaviour vs battleship mounted 1g/80km/s or 25g/25km/s is extremely poor even at the highest angles possible with sloped armour ~100s1g/3km/s x35drones ~20s 1g/80km/s x15 guns ~20s 25g/25km/s x15 guns
impact fuse 20kg NEFP bombs: penetration on both armours posible but significantly more likely on wipple
1km fuse 250kg NEFP bombs: penetration on composite total armour failure on wipple (ships end un in 2-3 seperate fragments after even a single missile hit)
Pure nuclear test: composite looses diamond top coating after 100Mt combined yield wipple armour looses layers of armour after 5Mt combined yield, high(400Mt+ combined yield) can cause wipple shield to fragment and penetrate through the hull
|
|
|
Post by newageofpower on Dec 23, 2016 14:25:33 GMT
amimai In my own testing, Whipple needs linearly more volume (distance between shield and main "belt" armor) to stop more energetic rounds. This is highly problematic as adding say 10m spaced armor can grow your cross section by 50% (or more!) on a smaller ship. Overall, diamond-topped flushform composite armor schema is a better way to resist high velocity kinetic fire... Except that, in my experience, diamond is mediocre vs (GW grade) heavy lasers, while something like carbon/gel/fiber composites doubles or even triples the burn time for less mass.
|
|
|
Post by David367th on Dec 23, 2016 15:03:27 GMT
amimai In my own testing, Whipple needs linearly more volume (distance between shield and main "belt" armor) to stop more energetic rounds. This is highly problematic as adding say 10m spaced armor can grow your cross section by 50% (or more!) on a smaller ship. Overall, diamond-topped flushform composite armor schema is a better way to resist high velocity kinetic fire... Except that, in my experience, diamond is mediocre vs (GW grade) heavy lasers, while something like carbon/gel/fiber composites doubles or even triples the burn time for less mass. With my own armor types you can have less volume using a second bumper. I found a scientific article somewhere and based some armor on it. Now these are kinetic-resistance only and I'm still debating where to put Aramid and Silica to defeat lasers and nuclear weapons respectively. - Healthy Layer of boron pressure wall, 10cm seems to work.
- 5mm Para-Aramid Fiber middle bumper with Meter space
- 1cm Para-Aramid Fiber outer bumper with 8cm space
The article I found was using Ceramic Oxide Composite -specifically Nextel-, but that stuff in CDE is expensive and dense so it's not as cost effective. However they did mention Kevlar a few times.
|
|
|
Post by lawson on Dec 23, 2016 15:45:05 GMT
amimai In my own testing, Whipple needs linearly more volume (distance between shield and main "belt" armor) to stop more energetic rounds. This is highly problematic as adding say 10m spaced armor can grow your cross section by 50% (or more!) on a smaller ship. Overall, diamond-topped flushform composite armor schema is a better way to resist high velocity kinetic fire... Except that, in my experience, diamond is mediocre vs (GW grade) heavy lasers, while something like carbon/gel/fiber composites doubles or even triples the burn time for less mass. I don't remember who found this first, but my go to anti-laser armor now is 3-30mm of rubber on top of diamond or amorphous carbon. The only problem is which armor layer to turn into a gap so you can add the ablative rubber coating?
|
|