|
|
Post by vegetal on Jan 25, 2017 3:48:01 GMT
So, I guess every CoaDE veteran noticed that the effective range graph takes into account 2 things: velocity and cone of fire.
Am I the only one that is bothered by this? I mean, I can design my armament pretty well with that knowledge in my mind, but I would rather have an indicator for firing cone diameter for a given range. Maybe even with a "time for impact" at each range. As it stands right now, the graph is based on these two variables, only one of them being stated clearly (velocity). Actual accuracy is totally unknown, and the formula that determines actual effective range seems quite arbitrary when mixing those two variables.
I mean, how do I set a threshold for which is more important in ranged combat? Let's hear your opinion guys
|
|
|
|
Post by caiaphas on Jan 25, 2017 4:00:01 GMT
So, I guess every CoaDE veteran noticed that the effective range graph takes into account 2 things: velocity and cone of fire. Am I the only one that is bothered by this? I mean, I can design my armament pretty well with that knowledge in my mind, but I would rather have an indicator for firing cone diameter for a given range. Maybe even with a "time for impact" at each range. As it stands right now, the graph is based on these two variables, only one of them being stated clearly (velocity). Actual accuracy is totally unknown, and the formula that determines actual effective range seems quite arbitrary when mixing those two variables. I mean, how do I set a threshold for which is more important in ranged combat? Let's hear your opinion guys For me, time-to-target (TTT) would be most important if I'm building a sandblaster, because I probably have the excess ammunition capacity to saturate everything in a circle a kilometer across. If I'm building a slow-firing coilgun throwing kilogram slugs, TTT is slightly less important (because I still need to deal with those jerks with high-gee acceleration) but cone diameter is a lot more important because of ammo conservation. |
|
|
|
Post by lieste on Jan 25, 2017 6:31:13 GMT
I tend to optimise for maximum range for the 1m^2 target for a given constraint (for example rail mass and shot weight for a given rail/armature material).
This can involve several iterations of length/width and a 'sweeping' of the power & bore radius to find the local maximum (which is usually at a fairly low power value - while high power does provide the ultimate velocity/range it requires very large rails and the bore required increases as well, which makes for limited return on the applied power).
With the optimal weapon at 1m^2, the values for 1000m^2 if not the *very* highest that the gun mass can provide are usually very close.
|
|
|
|
Post by vegetal on Jan 25, 2017 16:34:49 GMT
Yeah I know all that. Maybe I didn't state the point of this thread so clearly.
It's not a "how do you design your guns" thread, more like "how would you rather have the pertinent information presented to you" thread. Kind of a small gripe of mine.
Personally I would prefer having two separate stats: velocity and spread.
|
|
|
|
Post by lieste on Jan 25, 2017 17:11:02 GMT
You do. If the initial part of the line is straight you have a spread limited weapon. If not then the weapon in velocity/range limited.
By maximising the 1m^2 aspect I choose to focus on 'no' spread weapons, taking what velocity I can from the mass allowance.
I could equally choose to maximise either the 10m^2 value (moderate spread, moderate velocity) or the 1000m^2 value (velocity maximised, spread be whatever falls out).
If you can't tell whether the line has a break in it or not, then for all intents and purposes it is not spread limited.
|
|
|
|
Post by vegetal on Jan 25, 2017 17:24:04 GMT
But can you tell the exact size of the spread by looking at the graph?
|
|
|
|
Post by mrsandman on Jan 25, 2017 19:05:23 GMT
But can you tell the exact size of the spread by looking at the graph? Not from what I can see. I assume there's some math you could do to estimate it, but it doesn't show the numbers. |
|
|
|
Post by Easy on Jan 25, 2017 20:25:44 GMT
It sounds that you're hoping for the context of:
50% of projectiles will fall within 1m² at 4km
50% of projectiles will fall within 10m² at 12km
50% of projectiles will fall within 1000m² at 24km
I don't know what the exact calculation is, so I couldn't tell you.
|
|
|
|
Post by vegetal on Jan 25, 2017 21:06:20 GMT
That's my point, nobody knows. But that's due to the arbitrary nature of the calculation. I mean, I could theoretically build a gun capable of hitting a coin at 1000km with a projectile velocity of 1m/s. It would take more than a week, but it would hit, a coin doesn't accelerate on it's own.
So, who decides what the "effective" range is? "Effect" in this case depends on external factors, like target acceleration, so saying a specific gun has an effective range based on an unknown mix of velocity and spread, is completely arbitrary. It would make a lot more sense (at least to me) to separate the two variables and show them clearly to the player, instead of adopting a random metric.
|
|
|
|
Post by lieste on Jan 25, 2017 22:56:49 GMT
My 1.2Mm railgun nearly completely hits within the same side of a frontal aspect fleet carrier - that is that 3 sigma is noticeably less than 18m in 1200km. It is fairly 'overbuilt' and I may need to optimise it for mass and size somewhat I think and reduce the power delivered, but this is what "no spread" looks like*. So the lowest 1 sigma looks to be around 1/20,000th of a milliradian. It is limited to 1.2Mm by the time of flight of just under 9 seconds, and will (briefly) miss a target that significantly alters it's acceleration, or is sufficiently small that the forwardmost aimpoint is brought out of the target envelope by it's forward acceleration (most targets cannot do this, and misses are within the length but to the side when the direction of the burn is significantly altered).
This is not really a practical weapon, and almost all of my other weapons are less than 5% of the mass of this silliness.
*At 'drone' range the same is seen - nearly every shot fired strikes the target if it is not accelerating, but usually the first one or two are sufficient at ~17MJ per hit with sand, even if there is no "targeting" in place.
|
|
|
|
Post by vegetal on Jan 25, 2017 23:30:50 GMT
1200km in under 9 seconds... I can only imagine the size and price of this.
|
|
|
|
Post by bdcarrillo on Jan 26, 2017 16:31:23 GMT
That's my point, nobody knows. But that's due to the arbitrary nature of the calculation. I mean, I could theoretically build a gun capable of hitting a coin at 1000km with a projectile velocity of 1m/s. It would take more than a week, but it would hit, a coin doesn't accelerate on it's own. So, who decides what the "effective" range is? "Effect" in this case depends on external factors, like target acceleration, so saying a specific gun has an effective range based on an unknown mix of velocity and spread, is completely arbitrary. It would make a lot more sense (at least to me) to separate the two variables and show them clearly to the player, instead of adopting a random metric. I have a suggestion poll over in the suggestion board that directly addresses this issue. It's probably buried under a dozen material requests. childrenofadeadearth.boards.net/thread/630/engagement-range-slider-all-weapons |
|
