|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Mar 12, 2017 18:50:25 GMT
Just a thought about the Raider. Wouldn't it be sensible to add something like a reasonably powered Resistojet to counteract the spin caused by a high torque projectile? I mean, I like your current redesign, but still, it'd use that excess power.
|
|
|
|
Post by concretedonkey on Mar 12, 2017 18:53:52 GMT
Just a thought about the Raider. Wouldn't it be sensible to add something like a reasonably powered Resistojet to counteract the spin caused by a high torque projectile? I mean, I like your current redesign, but still, it'd use that excess power. Thing is that it no longer has the excess power really , I stripped the large reactor and placed a few small ones on its place. Also I already thought about it and it rotates amazingly fast for a ship - 3.88 seconds. I overpowered the engines. For some kind of reason however the AI doesn't do it immediately and first rolls to a specific angle and then turns. I have no idea why. |
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Mar 12, 2017 18:59:53 GMT
Just a thought about the Raider. Wouldn't it be sensible to add something like a reasonably powered Resistojet to counteract the spin caused by a high torque projectile? I mean, I like your current redesign, but still, it'd use that excess power. Thing is that it no longer has the excess power really , I stripped the large reactor and placed a few small ones on its place. Also I already thought about it and it rotates amazingly fast for a ship - 3.88 seconds. I overpowered the engines. For some kind of reason however the AI doesn't do it immediately and first rolls to a specific angle and then turns. I have no idea why. I got that you knocked down the power a lot, which is why I like the idea. And your tweaks did make the ship sensibly better. For some reason I just felt it'd be a sort of good idea to keep the power source as it was (maybe it was a balancing factor for the campaigns?). I also think the specific rolling can be fixed with a manual override reorient command, but that is pretty inconvenient, and still sometimes rolls, then turns, probably a bug, maybe. |
|
|
|
Post by concretedonkey on Mar 12, 2017 19:03:34 GMT
If it was on manual it would probably start immediately. My feeling is that the AI wants to turn on a specific heading , when the essential part is to stop showing its vulnerable side to the enemy and just turn towards them as fast as possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigbombr on Mar 12, 2017 19:13:06 GMT
RP-1 behaves like dodecane, so if you can synthesize decane you can probably synthesize dodecane/RP-1.
|
|
|
|
Post by Durandal on Mar 12, 2017 19:30:43 GMT
RP-1 behaves like dodecane, so if you can synthesize decane you can probably synthesize dodecane/RP-1. Good to know! |
|
|
|
Post by concretedonkey on Mar 14, 2017 5:21:47 GMT
Sorry for the lack of update yesterday. I've been reading and testing. I realised that because of the heavy armor there is a point where the effectiveness of the long engine bells and the higher exaust velocity of more effective fuel mixtures like the LOX/Methane is really counterproductive. So after encountering this useful spreadsheet and reading this I've gone full Hydrogenperoxide/RP1 for both offering me decent enough exaust velocity and very high density. For the devastator I've also found that several smaller fixed engines are giving me better performance because they are so much shorter and do not escalate the armor weight that much. The reduced turning speed did not turned out to be a problem for the moment but I experimented with RCS thrusters to boost it, sadly they turned out to make the missiles much less resistant ot laser fire. However it seemed to me that the RCS was behaving much better than before the patch so great work qswitched ! I'll try to wrap up the new missiles after work and I'll try to post them later today. |
|
|
|
Post by newageofpower on Mar 14, 2017 5:29:00 GMT
Yeah. RCS thrusters create big holes in the armor; I just mount them in the shadow of my warship (in the rear) but this leaves me with mediocre turn times.
Considering going to gimballed capital ship torches, but the sheer mass of not only the gimbal assembly but the extra armored surface area is... discouraging.
|
|
|
|
Post by concretedonkey on Mar 14, 2017 5:31:58 GMT
Yeah. RCS thrusters create big holes in the armor; I just mount them in the shadow of my warship (in the rear) but this leaves me with mediocre turn times. Considering going to gimballed capital ship torches, but the sheer mass of not only the gimbal assembly but the extra armored surface area is... discouraging. for capital ship RCS I usually go with large arrays of very small engines with 90 degree gimballs... The gimbals force the game not to make a hole in the armor and if the engines are small enough they survive just fine. But you need a lot of them. |
|
|
|
Post by newageofpower on Mar 14, 2017 5:38:23 GMT
for capital ship RCS I usually go with large arrays of very small engines with 90 degree gimballs... The gimbals force the game not to make a hole in the armor and if the engines are small enough they survive just fine. But you need a lot of them. Erm. I found that gimballed RCS thrusters make holes in the armor. Big ones. |
|
|
|
Post by concretedonkey on Mar 14, 2017 6:46:04 GMT
for capital ship RCS I usually go with large arrays of very small engines with 90 degree gimballs... The gimbals force the game not to make a hole in the armor and if the engines are small enough they survive just fine. But you need a lot of them. Erm. I found that gimballed RCS thrusters make holes in the armor. Big ones. that's strange then I have to investigate what makes it place the engine on top of the armor and what makes it go inside making a hole. This is ancient history now but you can clearly see that one of my drones had the engines outside and one has them inside. And I'm sure the small ones on my big ships have them on the outside as well, but I'm not at home and I can't make you a screenshot. |
|
|
|
Post by David367th on Mar 14, 2017 20:20:50 GMT
for capital ship RCS I usually go with large arrays of very small engines with 90 degree gimballs... The gimbals force the game not to make a hole in the armor and if the engines are small enough they survive just fine. But you need a lot of them. Erm. I found that gimballed RCS thrusters make holes in the armor. Big ones. It would be nice if engines stuck outside of the craft like turrets do and only leave holes where the turret is. Rather than having a massive hole for the entire engine. |
|
|
|
Post by Durandal on Mar 14, 2017 20:42:57 GMT
Erm. I found that gimballed RCS thrusters make holes in the armor. Big ones. It would be nice if engines stuck outside of the craft like turrets do and only leave holes where the turret is. Rather than having a massive hole for the entire engine. It would be interesting if engines could be mounted on extruded turrets like weapons could and didn't sperg out when tasked with RCS tasks. I haven't using proper RCS thrusters in a while though. Do the work better with the update? |
|
|
|
Post by concretedonkey on Mar 14, 2017 21:16:07 GMT
  Ok I'm late again and not ready again with the ship  . Guess too much tinkering with the missiles... I have two versions and can't decide between them I guess I'll just post them both. Version one is closer to the original in size. A bit more than twice the delta V. Savings were done mostly with the warhead and the H2O2/RP1 mix. It gives me almost the same density as pure hydrogen peroxide, with better exaust velocity. Version two is more optimal from my point of view but its more than twice the size of the original. More than 3 times the delta V of the original. Armor was switched to amorphous carbon since it gave me less mass with better performance. And I still consider it stock-y and realsitic enough. Also its on two layers with the upper covering around the front half of the missile. Both missiles use the same engines, stubby little ineffective ones that however have minimal size for the performance. Warhead was an W 59 equivalent , which was the lightest real 1MT nuke I could find. Tests were done against 10 laser frigates and were not particularly thrilling. AI sends 40 missiles , I zoom to the enemy fleet to prevent the ambush from a minimal distance bug, missiles cross the gap, usually the first dies around 5-10 km. A few more may die on the last dash and then we have a flash and then a lot of spinning frigates, a few dead, rarely more than a half of them. A shot from the approaching missiles Then frigates madly firing around at their fallen comrades : The stock devastators coudn't cross the gap even once. About the rcs here is a shot of one of my normal gunships with the rcs aiming thrusters : If I have to guess why they don't make a hole in the armor and are on top I think its because of the 90 degree gimball and the small size. Of the the two or both of them in combination. |
|
|
|
Post by David367th on Mar 14, 2017 21:38:29 GMT
It would be nice if engines stuck outside of the craft like turrets do and only leave holes where the turret is. Rather than having a massive hole for the entire engine. It would be interesting if engines could be mounted on extruded turrets like weapons could and didn't sperg out when tasked with RCS tasks. I haven't using proper RCS thrusters in a while though. Do the work better with the update? I don't believe they've changed in the update. |
|
. Guess too much tinkering with the missiles...
