|
Post by inbrainsane on Dec 29, 2016 23:05:07 GMT
You may have noticed that the mass and cost of your laser turret seems to be strange and "jumpy". The reason is, that the required turret inner radius (tir) is calculated with the following formula from the aperture radius (ar): tir = 2*ar + (ar/8.24) Then it is rounded up to 3 valid digits, and so some overhead may come in. That overhead is automatically filled with reaction wheels. They add a huge amount of unnecessary mass. Lasers that snipe at 1Mm do not need to turn fast. So, what is the solution? The solution is picking values for the aperture radius that result in a precise match for the turret inner radius. This keeps rounding small and everyone happy. So, as a service to the public, follows a table with all significant local optima. No more fiddling. This is a complete list in a reasonable range that has all the minima for turret mass. Aperture Radius (m) | Turret Inner Radius (m) | 1.07 | 2.27 | 1.40 | 2.97 | 1.73 | 3.67 | 2.06 | 4.37 | 2.80 | 5.94 | 3.13 | 6.64 | 3.46 | 7.34 | 3.79 | 8.04 | 4.12 | 8.74 | 4.53 | 9.61 | 4.76 | 10.1 | 5.09 | 10.8 | 5.42 | 11.5 | 5.75 | 12.2 | 6.08 | 12.9 | 6.41 | 13.6 | 6.74 | 14.3 | 7.07 | 15.0 | 7.40 | 15.7 | 7.73 | 16.4 | 8.06 | 17.1 | 8.39 | 17.8 | 8.72 | 18.5 | 9.05 | 19.2 | 9.38 | 19.9 | 9.71 | 20.6 | 2.39 | 5.07 |
Two notes: - Beginning with (4.76,10.1) the tir is rounded to next 10cm. This brings greater waste for all sizes that follow.
- The pair (2.39, 5.07) is a singularity. Here, 5.07004854 is rounded down. As a result, when you want to build the lightest turret of all times, these are the dimensions!
|
|
|
Post by leerooooooy on Dec 30, 2016 11:45:09 GMT
qswitched could this be fixed with 4 digit accuracy?
|
|
|
Post by amimai on Dec 30, 2016 13:18:51 GMT
If I remember my tests correctly there is no real gain to laser efficiency beyond around 4m in any case...
|
|
khenderson
New Member
my god, it's full of missiles
Posts: 40
|
Post by khenderson on Dec 30, 2016 14:14:16 GMT
qswitched could this be fixed with 4 digit accuracy? While it rounds off to three digits on the display, it uses at least 5 in the actual calculation and user design file. As an example, try a laser with an 8.0m aperture and a turret inner radius of 16.971m.
|
|
|
Post by inbrainsane on Dec 30, 2016 14:34:39 GMT
qswitched could this be fixed with 4 digit accuracy? While it rounds off to three digits on the display, it uses at least 5 in the actual calculation and user design file. As an example, try a laser with an 8.0m aperture and a turret inner radius of 16.971m. You are right. But notice the "singularity" where it rounds down the needed turret size internally. Also I hope the formula is useful.
|
|
khenderson
New Member
my god, it's full of missiles
Posts: 40
|
Post by khenderson on Dec 30, 2016 14:43:19 GMT
While it rounds off to three digits on the display, it uses at least 5 in the actual calculation and user design file. As an example, try a laser with an 8.0m aperture and a turret inner radius of 16.971m. You are right. But notice the "singularity" where it rounds down the needed turret size internally. Also I hope the formula is useful. I did not mean to impugn your post in any way, I certainly appreciate the time you spent on it.
|
|
|
Post by apophys on Jul 12, 2017 3:29:35 GMT
argonbalt - since you're stickying useful threads, sticky this one. Been in my bookmarks for a while and is a regular reference.
|
|
|
Post by Rocket Witch on Jul 12, 2017 20:05:59 GMT
Huh, thanks for the bump apophys , I never saw this before. With the amount of threads that could get stickied on this basis, it may be better to compile a single 'resource sticky' that covers all the important threads. Some things are getting stickied where they (erroneously, at least by my interpretation of the forum descriptions) stand in General instead of being moved to Gameplay first, too. I would volunteer to write and maintain this but the compendium alone can already burn me out a little.
|
|
|
Post by bigbombr on Jul 12, 2017 21:50:32 GMT
Huh, thanks for the bump apophys , I never saw this before. With the amount of threads that could get stickied on this basis, it may be better to compile a single 'resource sticky' that covers all the important threads. Some things are getting stickied where they (erroneously, at least by my interpretation of the forum descriptions) stand in General instead of being moved to Gameplay first, too. I would volunteer to write and maintain this but the compendium alone can already burn me out a little. Perhaps all the stickied threads should get a page on the wiki. Blow some life into the place.
|
|
|
Post by vegemeister on Jul 13, 2017 16:11:15 GMT
You can type in the box and get more digits of precision than are displayed. So long as you do that, there doesn't seem to be any problem with controlling reaction wheel mass.
|
|
|
Post by boersgard on Aug 15, 2018 7:09:54 GMT
Perhaps I can get some input here:
I've been testing out various laser designs and a trend I'm noticing is that a few large and powerful lasers are very quickly 'sniped' by many low-power lasers even at ranges 200+km away. On top of that, a lot of small lasers working together seem to kill focused targets much much faster than a single large laser does.
So what are the tradeoffs involved and how should I be designing my lasers?
|
|
|
Post by bigbombr on Aug 15, 2018 7:35:05 GMT
Perhaps I can get some input here: I've been testing out various laser designs and a trend I'm noticing is that a few large and powerful lasers are very quickly 'sniped' by many low-power lasers even at ranges 200+km away. On top of that, a lot of small lasers working together seem to kill focused targets much much faster than a single large laser does. So what are the tradeoffs involved and how should I be designing my lasers? Several low power lasers burning through armor faster than a single powerful laser is because of the ablation cap, which is a simulation inaccuracy.
|
|