|
Post by deltav on Jan 26, 2017 7:46:02 GMT
I just made a railgun that shoots 113 km/s that can hit capital ships at about 1000-800 km, and missiles at about 200-100 km. The numbers look less, but in war games the ranges are higher. Of course it costs 1.82 Gc, weighs 80kt, and uses 1Gw of power. What is the longest range anyone has gotten with a gun of any type?
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Jan 26, 2017 4:09:04 GMT
This isn't a new argument. Everyone who discusses realistic space battle has the same arguments. They usually split into laser, missile and guns camps. forums.spacebattles.com/threads/realistic-space-combat-lasers-vs-missiles-vs-railguns.276030/Personally I think they all have their place. Lasers, missiles and guns all have disadvantages and advantages. I think the game has it just right regarding lasers. Lasers are basically just a really bright focused light that damages by heating things up. If you have strong enough "sunblock" you can really weaken it at least until you can destroy the laser with some other weapon no? Drones are basically Missiles with guns or lasers instead of warheads. +Missiles can go anywhere a ship can go, and they can hit targets that are out of line of sight. +Space dust and other phenomenon which cause refraction don't affect them. +They don't lose power no matter how far they are from the ship that launched them (but they can run out of DeltaV). -But they can miss and they can be fooled with decoys. +Guns over all are cheaper per shot than missiles, and can pack as much of a punch, can even shoot warheads as a projectile, etc. +Guns also are not affected by space weather. +Guns don't lose power the further they are from the ship either. +Guns can't be fooled with decoys in theory. -Guns can miss +Lasers can't run out of ammo. +Lasers in theory can't miss. -Lasers get weaker the further they are from the ship that shot them. -Lasers can be weakened by space weather or space dust etc. -Lasers rely on heat, and heat can be diffused.
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Jan 26, 2017 3:21:31 GMT
darkwarriorj I don't think you got my whole point and why I was writing and that could be my fault. In spirit I agree with almost everything you wrote in "rebuttal", but you might not see that I glossed over details and 100% facts to get to the main point. No one has time to read term papers on here right? My point was about TW laser arrays and their power requirements. But since you brought it up... 1. The designs you posted of nuclear rockets predisposes that there are no other reactors on the craft. If there are already other nuclear reactors on the vessel, it makes more sense to run propellent through the waste heat of the reactors used to generate power, and use that to provide thrust, saving strain on the radiators and wasting less heat/energy overall. That was my point. But allowing one to use the reactors sometimes just for thrust, and in other designs just for power would make design in the game much more complex. That was my point. See what I am saying? 2. About the Nuclear subs, its 13-25 years, not 45. The entire lifespan of the craft itself is 50 years or so, but not the nuclear power plant itself. That is much shorter. For reference look at this relatively recent article saying how "one day" we may have nuclear subs that can go 25 years without refueling. newatlas.com/go/7292/3. They don't replace the whole reactor, they upgrade, refuel it, etc. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refueling_and_overhaul4. I never was saying Space ships wouldn't need radiators. I was simply saying that it's a waste of energy to not use the opportunity of the exhaust to radiate heat and having more reactors than you need.
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Jan 26, 2017 2:44:07 GMT
apophys read some of this link on Space reactors and tell me what you think. The optimum temperature of a space reactor is just like on earth. Too hot and it melts down. Naval reactors and Space reactors have very similar requirements. They both run hotter, not because of where they are, but because they use a different kind of Nuclear Fuel, and this allows them to be smaller than they would otherwise be making them lighter. Besides that, the fact that they are in space is not as relevant as one might think (as far as I've read so far). Reactors must be kept at a steady temp no matter at space or on the ground or at sea. They require constant monitering, and refueling every decade or so. Keeping one or two up is a lot of work. Keeping 60 or more running is crazy. This was my only point. That running TWs of Nuclear reactors in space is a bit silly. Fun great fun. But nothing approaching anything like "realistic space combat". www.esa.int/gsp/ACT/doc/POW/GSP-RPT-NPS-0411%20Final%20Report%20SURE%20s.pdfwww.world-nuclear.org/information-library/non-power-nuclear-applications/transport/nuclear-reactors-for-space.aspx
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Jan 26, 2017 2:24:26 GMT
Based on naval reactors, the reactors we use in game in terms of power output per ton are right on the money with current 2016 tech and one of the most realistic parts in game. Unlike coilguns, railguns, and so on, we have tons of data avalable on naval reactors, which are pretty much exactly what would be used in space. What's not realistic is the way 100% of the MWs of a reactor is available for power... Let me explain. If we look at the newest class of carriers, they have two 41B Reactors which produce 1650 MW each and weigh about 1650 tons. Of that only about 400 MWs are so is usable for electricity. The rest goes to running the propulsion system which heats up water much in the same way as our nuclear rockets heat up propellent. So realistically how much of this power is really available to power devices on these space ships? Isn't most of it needed to heat up propellent? And what would it be like trying to maintain 40 60Mw reactors in space? That part is kind of unrealistic to me. Also where are the meltdowns? If you radiators blow up, shouldn't the ship literally melt to slag from the runaway nuclear reactions? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_naval_reactors www.navycs.com/blogs/2014/12/18/a-new-beefed-up-enginewww.unitjuggler.com/convert-power-from-MW-to-TW.html?val=1650www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Nuclear/US_Naval_Reactors.htmNaval reactors do not have to worry about pushing reactor output to 2400+ K, because of the extremely convenient coolant that they sail in. So they can use a more efficient dT. Naval reactors don't use thermocouples to extract power from heat, but turbines. In a standard nuclear submarine, the driveshaft of the turbine is in fact mechanically connected to the propellers. Some ships produce all their useful energy in the form of electricity, then use that to drive propellers. Not sure how that compares in terms of weight and cost, but it is relevant. Naval reactors use pressurized water. We use liquid metal. Also relevant. Not all of the output of a reactor we have is available for electricity. In our 2400 K tungsten-osmium examples, the efficiency of converting heat to electricity is only 16.4%. Your Wikipedia link: "Reactor sizes range up to ~500 MWt (about 165 MWe) in the larger submarines and surface ships." That is 33% efficient (due to the better dT that I mentioned). Strapping a bunch of reactors together only causes issues with maintenance (modeled in our crew requirement per reactor). The CVN-65 Enterprise had 8 reactors. As a comparison of performance, we have ~1010 MWe (6210 MWt) reactors in ~10.4 tons (done by me; see the standards thread). That is 100 times better than the reactor you mention (and I suspect you meant MWt instead of MWe, which would make it ~300 times better). Part of the difference must be in safety margins, but still. On your last link, I see a bunch of reactor data that is consistently much worse than the one you mention: S6G: 165 MWt and 1680 tons. S8G: 220 MWt and 2750 tons. S5W: 78 MWt and 650 tons. 630A: 66 MWt and 312 tons. (Weirdly, the civilian one has the best heat output to mass.) Not to give you a hard time, but think about this for a sec. 1. The fact that Nuclear Aircraft carriers run in water only means they don't need cooling towers (like land based reactors), or radiators (like space based ones), besides that, there is no difference between the type reactor you would put in spaceship, and the type you would put in a sea ship. Did you notice the ship reactors in game use the exact same type of U as naval reactors? Not a coincidence. Naval reactors run hotter and therefore can be smaller, at the cost of some safety that is mitigated by being in water, in this case space. 2. You chose to focus on the Enterprise, the FIRST nuclear aircraft carrier. I get your point. But I think you missed MY point. The point of bringing up naval reactors was to show the closest equivalent to space reactors we have today, and how they perform. Surely space reactors in the very near future would be very similar if not identical. The point was to show that the idea of TW star destroyer laser arrays is kind of silly. The cost in terms of power would be ridiculous at least to me. I also wanted to be fair and show that the most modern naval reactors come close to the game reactor specs. The most up to date carriers have 2 reactors which provide about 1650 Mw of power each and weigh about 1650 tons. 3. Yes I agree that too many reactors is a bad thing. Better to have a couple big ones instead of a bunch of small ones.
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Jan 26, 2017 2:15:50 GMT
deltav The power that is used for propulsion is provided by the core built into the NTR. We have separate reactors just for ship power. Damn space ninjas.... Fine fine, but it doesn't make any sense. I think it's something added to make the game simpler. In real life think about how much care it takes to build and maintain a nuclear reactor. Having one or two is enough work. Now you are telling me you need one INSIDE each Nuclear Rocket Engine? And you need extra nuclear reactors to power your ship as well? Doesn't make any sense. Just think about it. Why are we wasting huge amounts of real estate on the ship on huge radiators when the engine exhaust can be used to both radiatate heat and provide propulsion? I'm calling a mulligan.
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Jan 25, 2017 21:58:06 GMT
Remember that the main reasons lasers are so dominant right now is that we built ridiculous nuclear reactors, which may not function IRL. The way I see it, we should verify reactor functionality before coming back to lasers. Reactors are definitely not realistic because of material strengths reducing significantly at higher temperatures (I want this to be modeled). The problem can probably be solved by bracing with structural material like diamond, but any solution is necessarily heavier and more expensive than our current reactors. Probably within an order of magnitude, though. Based on naval reactors, the reactors we use in game in terms of power output per ton are right on the money with current 2016 tech and one of the most realistic parts in game. Unlike coilguns, railguns, and so on, we have tons of data avalable on naval reactors, which are pretty much exactly what would be used in space. What's not realistic is the way 100% of the MWs of a reactor is available for power... Let me explain. If we look at the newest class of carriers, they have two 41B Reactors which produce 1650 MW each and weigh about 1650 tons. Of that only about 400 MWs are so is usable for electricity. The rest goes to running the propulsion system which heats up water much in the same way as our nuclear rockets heat up propellent. So realistically how much of this power is really available to power devices on these space ships? Isn't most of it needed to heat up propellent? And what would it be like trying to maintain 40 60Mw reactors in space? That part is kind of unrealistic to me. Also where are the meltdowns? If you radiators blow up, shouldn't the ship literally melt to slag from the runaway nuclear reactions? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_naval_reactors www.navycs.com/blogs/2014/12/18/a-new-beefed-up-enginewww.unitjuggler.com/convert-power-from-MW-to-TW.html?val=1650www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Nuclear/US_Naval_Reactors.htm
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Jan 25, 2017 21:41:42 GMT
Think so? I have no idea... If we assume that all of that energy is transferred to the material in reality, then yes of course the game must be wrong. But if in real life most of the energy of lasers is wasted in heat that is radiated away? The energy should be applied so instantaneously that blackbody radiation should play no part in this laser's function. Think about that for a sec. Laser damage primarily through heating up the atoms of the material they are focused on. So how is it that that heat will only be radiated to that one area and not act as heat normally does? A laser isn't magic, it's science. Some of the energy must be radiated away right? And when things get hot they vaporize or they melt or whatever, and just like sweating, when matter changes states, that cools things down a bit. Plus since Laser is made of light, or light like waves, some of it can be reflected. I'm not making any definitive statement here, I'm just saying that the idea that all of the energy in a laser beam will convert into energy given into the material doesn't make any sense. If that were true for starters, how is the beam even able to be built up inside the laser? If materials inside the laser can be made to reflect and deliver the beam, then the materials of ship hulls, some have mentioned nitrile rubber or some such, could obviously have a similar although reduced effect.
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Jan 25, 2017 8:42:10 GMT
I was arguing that the game has an inaccurate representation of laser damage. Think so? I have no idea... If we assume that all of that energy is transferred to the material in reality, then yes of course the game must be wrong. But if in real life most of the energy of lasers is wasted in heat that is radiated away? Then perhaps not. It's clear that Qswitched thinks not much of lasers as a main ship to ship weapon, but I'm not sure why. I wish (s)he had more time to participate on this blog. Qswitched... "Lasers fill a very specific niche in space warfare, and that is of precision destruction of weakly armored systems at long distances. Lasers are very good at melting down exposed enemy weapons, knocking out their rocket exhaust nozzles, and most importantly, killing drones. While missiles have very few weak points, and can shrug off laser damage with thick plating, drones have exposed weapons and radiators, which makes them very vulnerable to lasers. In terms of actually destroying enemy capital ships, however, lasers can cut into the enemy bulkhead all day with basically zero effect (I measured the ablation of a monolithic armor plate at one point, and found that the ablation was happening at micrometers per second)." childrenofadeadearth.wordpress.com/2016/04/29/misconceptions-about-space-warfare/
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Jan 25, 2017 5:16:04 GMT
I thought it would be useful for folks to have a concise colour list in regards to tracer types. All tests were done on a 33mm turreted machine gun, not sure if variance in payload or heat effects the tracer. Metals: Aluminium-Purple Beryllium-Light Red/White Pinkish Bismuth-Yellow/White Cadmium-Yellow Calcium-Orange Cobalt-Orange Copper-Yellow Gold-Yellow Iridium-Yellow Iron-Orange Lead-Yellow Magnesium-Orange Molybdenum- Bright Yellow/Greenish Yellow Nickel-Yellow Potassium-Yellow Silver-Green Tantalum-Yellow/Orange Tin-Yellow Titanium-Orange/Red Tungsten-Orange Zinc-Yellow/Orange Non-Metals: Amorphous Carbon-Red Diamond-Red Graphite-Red Pyroletic Carbon-Red Silicon-Red Sulfur -Orange Ceramics: Aluminium Nitride-Orange Aluminium Oxide-Red Aluminium Oxynitride-Red Beryllium Oxide-Light Red/Pink Boron Carbide-Red Boron Nitride-Orange Borosilicate Glass- Red Fused Quarts-Red Hafnia-Light Purple Hafnium Carbide-Purple Saphire-Orange/Red Silicone Carbide-Orange/Red Silicone Dioxide-Red Silicone Nitride-Orange Tantalum Carbide-Orange/Red Tantalum Hafnium Carbide-Light Orange/Pink? Titanium Carbide-Red Titanium Diboride-Red Titanium Dioxide-Red Titanium Nitride-Orange Tungsten Carbide-Light Orange Zinc Oxide-Red Fusile: Boron-Red Lithium-Light Red/ Pink Lithium6-Light Red Pink Other Materials: Barium Nitrate-Red Barium Oxide-Orange/Red Cadmium Selenide-Yellow/Orange Calcite-Light Red Copper (2) Chloride-Bright Yellow/Greenish Yellow Gallium Nitride-Light Purple Haematite-Orangy Red Indium Antimonide-Yellow/Orange Indium Gallium Arsenide-Yellow/Orange Lead Sulphide-Yellow Mica-Orange Strontium Nitrate-Red Tenorite-Light Yellow Tetrofluorohydrazine-Orange The list should now be complete let me know if i missed anything, the only major issue is the lack of a nice blue tracer, this could be solved by adjusting copper's colours to blue, seeing as copper is commonly used to create blue pyrotechnics. It is actually odd, we have more pink than blue at the moment. This is gold. This is the whole point of this forum to me. Sharing the research we make ingame saves everyone a ton of time, and enriches all of our ingame experiences.
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Jan 25, 2017 5:12:42 GMT
If there was multiplayer, it would probably use stock ships only, at least as first.
Any thoughts on this list? Any mistakes in it?
Anyone found that the listing changes if AI behavior is modified such as launching all missiles/ drones at once?
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Jan 25, 2017 5:06:54 GMT
Sounds like good things to add to the suggestion threads.
1. Multiple barrels per turret. 2. Barrel armor adds to barrel strength/ thickness.
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Jan 25, 2017 3:38:17 GMT
For the future I hope Qswitched will add a way to import and export designs. Short of multiplayer this is the only way to battle designs against each other.
It should be easy enough to create a "locked" exported design so that the details of the modules are hidden shouldn't it?
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Jan 25, 2017 3:27:07 GMT
Caiaphas Point well made, and thanks for the pics. I love it! And by the way, give it a try vs Rangers for cost. They are the ultimate stock Coilgun/Railgun armed ship, not the Gunship. 2 35 mc Raiders can kill a Gunship. Check out the Ships head to head thread. childrenofadeadearth.boards.net/thread/710/stock-ships-headStock Ships are ranked head to head in battle along with their armaments and cost.
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Jan 25, 2017 2:46:43 GMT
About reactors... In real life the best of the best costs. Yes it's possible to make a Lambogini, but most people can't afford it. The most optimized reactors, lasers, etc would be very expensive in real life. Same with tech in COADE methinks. COADE is supposed to be realistic Space Combat using only present or near present tech. The stock reactors in COADE are clearly based on Navel designs. They even use U-235 like Naval Reactors instead of U-238 like land based reactors due to the greater heat output of U-235 at the cost of safety. The largest (and newest) naval Nuclear reactors 2016 are 41B Reactors and produce about 1650 MW. The newest class of Aircraft carriers is supposed to carry 2. Thats 3210 MW. That's about 0.00321 TW I can't find the exact weight of the 41B reactor, but similar reactors weigh about 1650 tons. So that's about a ton per megawatt at current tech. If that's true then the stock reactors are perfectly inline with the current tech 2016. (Stock reactors are at the best about 1 MW per ton or less.) Today only the richest of the richest countries can afford nuclear aircraft carriers. If that's all true, then 1TW super lasers are fun and great, but aren't likely to be used significantly in space warfare. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_naval_reactorswww.navycs.com/blogs/2014/12/18/a-new-beefed-up-enginewww.unitjuggler.com/convert-power-from-MW-to-TW.html?val=1650www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Nuclear/US_Naval_Reactors.htmThat's the reason I think Qswtiched didn't make any TW lasers are anything simliar. Fun but unlikely in a realistic depiction of space warfare. It's kind of like the Death Star.
|
|