|
Post by cuddlefish on Dec 28, 2016 18:23:41 GMT
My issue with that is Physics Compliance... A quick calc shows ~3.8MJ/shell of muzzle energy, so about 2GW would be enough to make the gun compliant with conservation of energy. The resultant efficiency would be an optimistic 64%. The host ship already has a 1GW reactor, increasing to 2GW wouldn't be a big change. Well, to be fair, I think there's a hard-cap of 50% efficiency right off the bat because of equal and opposite reactions. But yeah, the accelerator efficiencies aren't the ONLY things rotten in the state of Denmark, the reactors are crazy if most likely in a less easily provable manner.
|
|
|
Post by amimai on Dec 28, 2016 19:43:11 GMT
A 1g shell accelerating out of a 1t barrel will produce 1/1,000,000 of its acceleration in recoil... magnetic accerators can get close to 100% efficiency quite easily.
|
|
|
Post by bigbombr on Dec 28, 2016 19:52:07 GMT
A 1g shell accelerating out of a 1t barrel will produce 1/1,000,000 of its acceleration in recoil... magnetic accerators can get close to 100% efficiency quite easily. Indeed, coilguns can get very efficient. Railguns on the other hand, tend to have efficiencies of 30+%, max.
|
|
|
Post by subunit on Dec 28, 2016 22:30:45 GMT
Maybe we might have some gimbal inaccuracies or other methods that make turrets less easy to aim. Turbopump vibrations or who knows what. Yup. Gunlaying at 1000s of km is not a trivial mechanical task. There's a pretty good summary on atomic rockets of many of the factors that could be modelled here: AFAIK we have sensor resolution and that's it. I really think we should have some more of these errors modelled. As it stands it's pretty funny that the hypothesis going in was that lasers are more or less garbage and now they're pretty much completely dominant.
|
|
|
Post by Dhan on Dec 28, 2016 23:06:43 GMT
No. What would dominate multiplayer is the player with the greatest amount of patience to be able to sit through 30 minute long engagements rendered at 1 fps.
In order to have a fun multiplayer experience you'd need a match type with certain limitations on ships and modules to ensure that matches don't end up being a massive shitfest. You'd also need to fix exploits and "gamey" tactics. Otherwise, what I said above would apply in competitive engagements; people would end up launching 100 thousand missiles while shooting their 100000% efficiency guns as the game grinds to a standstill.
Alternatively, you could leave it up to the players agree not to use ridiculous modules/tactics in order to have enjoyable multiplayer experiences
|
|
|
Post by David367th on Dec 28, 2016 23:11:49 GMT
This is how I see popular matches going. The option to limit players to Stock Ships or Stock Weapons will be probably used all the time. That saying, the fleet and arsenal of Stock Ships would need to be reworked to better optimize and bring more diversity to what's available.
|
|
|
Post by lieste on Dec 28, 2016 23:37:29 GMT
A 1g shell accelerating out of a 1t barrel will produce 1/1,000,000 of its acceleration in recoil... magnetic accerators can get close to 100% efficiency quite easily. Indeed, coilguns can get very efficient. Railguns on the other hand, tend to have efficiencies of 30+%, max. DTIC have papers discussing large payload railguns (11MJ muzzle velocity with what looked to be an APFSDS round) at 3.52kg 2.5km/s in 6m. The sabot (for efficient flight/penetration in dense atmosphere reduces the useful energy somewhar, but in vacuo discarding sabots are hard to do and unnecessary. Muzzle efficiency is given as 62-70% of input electrical work, with useful efficiency (sabot energy treated as "wasted") at 35-34% for penetrators of 1.98kg and 1.73kg respectively. Again I see no reason (or realistic method) to strip the armature from the projectile in our application, so there would be no loss from parasitic mass for pure kinetic impactors although it would still reduce the effective maximum payload mass for payload type launchers.
|
|
|
Post by nerd1000 on Jan 3, 2017 3:40:44 GMT
A quick calc shows ~3.8MJ/shell of muzzle energy, so about 2GW would be enough to make the gun compliant with conservation of energy. The resultant efficiency would be an optimistic 64%. The host ship already has a 1GW reactor, increasing to 2GW wouldn't be a big change. Well, to be fair, I think there's a hard-cap of 50% efficiency right off the bat because of equal and opposite reactions. But yeah, the accelerator efficiencies aren't the ONLY things rotten in the state of Denmark, the reactors are crazy if most likely in a less easily provable manner. Reactors are crazy because you can operate every component 1K below its melting point with no loss of strength, no safety margins are required and thermoelectrics are insanely efficient. If you cap your core temp at 1300K and choose a thermocouple that's only 5 percent efficient the doom lasers become a bit less viable.
|
|
|
Post by caiaphas on Jan 4, 2017 1:04:50 GMT
...you know, now that we're more or less collectively lowering our laser intensities to get around the way that the laser damage system works, you think it'd be possible to effectively armor against even a low-focus 10 GW DOOM LASER by sticking a thin layer of a material with a high critical intensity over the regular armor?
|
|
|
Post by David367th on Jan 4, 2017 1:37:23 GMT
...you know, now that we're more or less collectively lowering our laser intensities to get around the way that the laser damage system works, you think it'd be possible to effectively armor against even a low-focus 10 GW DOOM LASER by sticking a thin layer of a material with a high critical intensity over the regular armor?Yes, a few armor designs being shown recently are using a whipple shield that doubles as a laser absorber. One example is amimai's using a mix of nitrile rubber and diamond heatsink.newageofpower is right I cocked that one up bad. Don't remember where I heard about the rubber with heatsink design now...
|
|
|
Post by newageofpower on Jan 4, 2017 1:57:16 GMT
Yes, a few armor designs being shown recently are using a whipple shield that doubles as a laser absorber. One example is amimai's using a mix of nitrile rubber and diamond heatsink. I wouldn't count the outer layer as a Whipple shield when it masses more than the inner layer... Also, the Diamond hardtop isn't the heatsink, the Amorphous Carbon is. Which provides structural backing to the Diamond. It's also strictly inferior (in terms of both mass and volume) against lasers compared to a carbon/fiber/rubber/aerogel composite. It's just the best anti-sand armor created as of yet that has a decent laser resistance.
|
|