|
Post by deltav on Mar 15, 2017 13:22:27 GMT
kuriosly Nice job Drones in COADE are designed for one or two attacks/ operations, (not six months plus like our warships), basically disposable craft and can't even be retrieved.This is why to me, this discrepancy in crew between crewed ships and drones makes sense. So this group of guys, could they keep that fleet of Unmanned Drone Carriers operating for 6 months? Nope. But they could for one fight/ battle. If the enemy faints and escapes out to light lagging distance from the control ship, well, not good for the control ship. They don't even have the manpower to repair anything that breaks, or even to retrieve the Drones. To really see these factors come into play in COADE we need more permanence of bases/facilities and world which I hear KSP and some others have incorporated. Eventually I think it will happen, but KSP took something like 6 years to get where it is now. COADE has only been out for 6 or 7 months. From the Crew-MaxTM report... "A pack of drones launched from the same launcher (even at different times) all count crew wise as if they are just one of the individual drones in the swarm. The Gun Monkeys (Gunners), Tweeners (Missile guys), or Glow-Sticks (Nuke Techs) that would have been on your Drone if it was a regular ship, are instead counted as Nose Pickers (Drone techs), and put on your main ship."
Edit: PS. Trying to figure out your crew based on only the numbers. Am I right?
Brass 7 CO (Captain), XO(First Officer), Bread Burner (Cook), Pecker Checker (Doctor), Yoyo (Yeoman), 2 Chops (Logistics Officers)
Ops 8 3 Commos(Comm Officers), 3 Ping Jockeys (Sensor Specialists), 2 Turd Chasers (1 Water and Waste Technician/ 1 Air Circulation Technician)
Snipes 11 Cheng (Chief Engineer), Nuke (Nuclear Reactor Engineer), 6 Glow-Sticks (Nuclear Reactor Technician), 3 Pit Bilges (Radiator Technicians)
Weps 13 Wheel(Pilot), SWO (EW Officer), Tweener (Missle Tech), Spacedale (Pilot), 9 Nose Pickers (Technicians/Mechanics).
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Mar 15, 2017 12:28:48 GMT
Presumably highly educated and capable people are always in demand and always have options. They will have friends, family or at the very least some upstart politician who wants to get attention and praise by fighting to help these imprisoned miners. Of course there would always be exceptions. But mostly this would be the case. Just my two cents. Good to see you again Delta v~ For point 3 , yea there maybe people that want go to asteroid. But you still can't setup a economy system (because the asteroid mining companies really doesn't need any manpower on asteroid as the crew can repair and control the mining base at the asteroid 's orbit with the aid of robot droneS) , and you can't build a colony without a economy system on the asteroid. No economy , so no need to discuss point 3 Good to see you too buddy! If you are saying that some particular production facility such as mining colony or something similar would not necessarily need people to live there as a community, I agree. Completely possible to have them set up by technicians who then leave a skeleton crew (or even 1 guy) to maintain and run it kind of like "Moon". Or maybe it is completely automated, and people visit only every 6 months or something similar. www.imdb.com/title/tt1182345/If you are saying there is no reason for people to ever settle on the outer planets/solar system just to mine asteroids, maybe. But historically mining towns/ transport hubs became boom towns or even cities over time. With Space Islands (O'neill Cylinders), people can live comfortably, almost as if they were on Earth, literally anywhere, no planet needed. And they are much nicer than living under a dome, at least they can be. So there is lots there to make a full life in the Outer Solar System, not just mining outposts. The point of settling asteroids is to get the juice/money to reach out further to the much juicer moons of the Gas giants.
The real "civilization" with children and families might very well be there, but there is no reason a network of O'neill Cylinders in Asteroids or free floating can't also be the place civilization and complex economies can be set up as well.Whether you agree or not... For me the conversation and the mutual growing that occurs is the point. Thanks for replying. PS Check out The original Gundam, or some other shows that feature O'neill Cylinders to get an idea of just how Earth-like they can be, and you can put them anywhere, and they are doable with current 2017 tech. You don't need planets to make cities full of people. But guess what? You need the materials that are already in Space, like asteroids to build them!
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Mar 15, 2017 9:13:37 GMT
Since 1.1, are Cannons esp relevant again?
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Mar 15, 2017 9:12:27 GMT
- Lasers have range and are quite simply unfair against stock designs which can have all of their turrets burned off at long range even at a few dozen MW. But if you armor against lasers, it takes the bite out, also lasers tend to not be able to kill capital ships. I will ignore 100 GW user designs for now.
- Laser is amazing point defense, unless the munitions are armored against laser.
- The poor Stinger drone and other cannon armed drones tend to have their ammunition in the nose attached to the weapon. Overheat that area, and boom, no more drone. Armor the cannon, move the ammunition rearward and suddenly cannon drones can endure the light.
- Coilguns are notable due to their ability to fire very heavy projectiles which cannot be reliably armored against. If it hits, the heavy coilgun can kill. Also it is the best platform to fire micromissiles and flak/nukes.
- Railguns sandblast very well even at hundred kilowatt power levels but don't necessarily kill that fast unless it is against stock ships who put their heavy coilgun abeam their reactor. Good for point defense since most munitions cannot tolerate the sandblaster
- Cannons are mostly for when you don't feel like using a railgun or want to keep power in the low kilowatts.
Overall coilgun is most versatile in terms of options, but you're a fool for not having a laser on your capital ship.
So it sounds like this is the meta current 1.1-3/15/2017 (minus the changes in power levels of railguns/coilguns).
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Mar 15, 2017 8:59:25 GMT
Hey buddy! So I started mixing and matching them using Risistojets and Nuclear Rockets together using the same propellant.Engines of all types (except MPDs, they need 1 "Flange-Head" {engine tech} per 1.33 MPDs [The Designer figure seems to be wrong]) need 1 "Flange-Head" per 5 engines. Nuclear Reactors of all types need 1 "Nuke" (Nuke Engineer) per 5 Nuclear engines, (and some "Glow-Sticks" [Nuke Techs] too, but not relevant here). So say I have 1 thermoelectric Reactor (for power) on my Ship, and really need 5 Nuclear Engines to get the thrust I want. That would waste a "Nuke" because I will end up having 1 Nuke troubleshooting 5 reactors, and the other Nuke only having 1 to troubleshoot (6 nuclear reactors total). So instead I'll have 4 Nuclear Engines, and 1 Resistojet in the middle, plus keep my 1 thermoelectric reactor for power It doesn't give me as much thrust as the nuclear engine would, but almost as much, and now I only need 1 "Nuke" and 1 "Flange-Head", giving me an extra weapons crew member that can run 5 fixed mounts, or 2.5 Turrets, or whatever, etc.Hi What fuel r u using ? And have you ever gotten faster than 6.42km/s exuast velocity from a resistojet ? Thats seems to be the absolute limit, limited by the melting point of the coils, which I use the highest-melting-point-material In the game, some tungsten alloy with a 4100ish melting point (kelvin) Well I'm pretty unlearned in engine design currently, I'm much better in lasers and some other isolated modules. The highest I've gotten with a Resistojet is 3.42 km/s @ 3.49 MN @ 500 MW with Methane. I've also tried my hands at MPD design, with mixed success. I've spent the last week or so working on definitive crew evaluations and counts per module for every single crew position so my head is still crew obsessed. Love to see what is being developed here though. Jolly good! Carry on.
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Mar 15, 2017 8:48:44 GMT
Member created videos are great. Let's make them and put them here. Thanks jasonvance for teaching me how to make them. How do you make em ? Can you teach me how to record my game video and post it like that? To record video download OBS (Open Broadcaster Software). I use it to stream mostly but it is also a pretty good video screen capture and it is free, google should find it, and youtube has a ton of tutorials on how to set it up / use it (though the interface is really user friendly). Also it has editing software included, but I prefer another free program I found online. It takes a bit of tinkering, and audio makes a ton of difference I think, so have to find/make the audio, but that's not too hard.
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Mar 15, 2017 8:37:35 GMT
Do any of you guys have multiple propulsion sytems in your ships ? what sytems ? what fuels ? any of your ships have all 3 sytems (though that would seem to run the crew requirements pretty high) ? Hey buddy! So I started mixing and matching them using Risistojets and Nuclear Rockets together using the same propellant.
Engines of all types (except MPDs, they need 1 "Flange-Head" {engine tech} per 1.33 MPDs [The Designer figure seems to be wrong]) need 1 "Flange-Head" per 5 engines. Nuclear Reactors of all types need 1 "Nuke" (Nuke Engineer) per 5 Nuclear engines, (and some "Glow-Sticks" [Nuke Techs] too, but not relevant here). So say I have 1 thermoelectric Reactor (for power) on my Ship, and really need 5 Nuclear Engines to get the thrust I want. That would waste a "Nuke" because I will end up having 1 Nuke troubleshooting 5 reactors, and the other Nuke only having 1 to troubleshoot (6 nuclear reactors total). So instead I'll have 4 Nuclear Engines, and 1 Resistojet in the middle, plus keep my 1 thermoelectric reactor for power . It doesn't give me as much thrust as the nuclear engine would, but almost as much, and now I only need 1 "Nuke"
and 1 "Flange-Head", giving me an extra weapons crew member that can run 5 fixed mounts, or 2.5 Turrets, or whatever, etc.
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Mar 15, 2017 6:51:55 GMT
argonbalt Very good points but it still can't convince me completely (only convinced point 1). I will focus on point 2 and 3. First , on point 2 , you mention that the population on asteroid can left , but what if the launch port is also controlled by the upper class? So actually these workers are not workers , they are SLAVES!! But yea the well-educated population can stage a good rebellion plan , but maybe with a small chance to success. Also , how can you make sure that the rebellion force wouldn't become tyranny later on? Then on point 3 , you mention that the boss have to stay on the asteroid to monitor the entire mining operation, but i don't think so , because there are historical examples that can support my point. In 17 to 19 century , to European colonial empire sent message to its colony by pigeon or boat , which take days if not months to do so , but they still can ship large quantity of resource like mineral and wood back the the homeland. And where is the rulers (or the boss in my case) ? They spend all days in their luxury palaces (or luxury houses in my case) a few thousand of mile away from their colonies! So the boss of asteroid mining company can control their operations with ease , as long as they treat the technicians well. Thanks for the response I see your point, I just want add to the conversation... About point 2.... Historically people being able to easily pick up and go somewhere else is the exception not the rule.In hunter gatherer days, people had to stay near the migrating herds they hunted, or wild crops they picked at certain times of year. They moved, but in a confined way based on survival needs, not on whims or personal feelings or restlessness. After the agricultural revolution, people had to stay near and protect their land. After the industrial revolution, people had to stay near the factories that they worked at and where they got their goods from. Even today, most people (even in the US) live within 18 miles of the mother and/or where they grew up. www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/12/24/upshot/24up-family.html?_r=0Most people once they get through with that young adult, just starting off phase of life at say 25 or so, don't like to move more than absolutely necessary. Most will even put up with harsh conditions rather than move away once they have "settled down". So young people maybe just getting out of college, many will jump at the chance to go and set up a new colony, esp if they can live according to some lifestyle or aesthetic that is not accepted where they grew up/ or live now.But once they are there, esp if they met a mate and marry and have been there for a few years, they won't be so quick to leave unless they have to. About point 3.... Humans are not a drag on an economy, people ARE the economy. Without people who have demands, there is no need for any supply. You can't have an economy of robots, because robots don't want or demand. People who move to an asteroid mining colony to set it up, in a computer and robot assisted world, will be technical people, thinkers.They will have valuable skills that will be in demand, and so if they are not needed after the job, they will move on. Also, we are assuming a world with cheap and accessible communication. If word got out that engineers and technicians were being held prisoner once their contract was up, (or if a whole team of highly trained technicians suddenly disappeared after going to work at a new asteroid mining colony), how many more people would sign up for future asteroid colonies? Presumably highly educated and capable people are always in demand and always have options. They will have friends, family or at the very least some upstart politician who wants to get attention and praise by fighting to help these imprisoned miners. Of course there would always be exceptions. But mostly this would be the case. Just my two cents.
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Mar 15, 2017 6:05:04 GMT
Member created videos are great. Let's make them and put them here. Thanks jasonvance for teaching me how to make them. Edited: For suggestions to improve future videos please PM me. Been adding videos to just this post until more people add videos to the thread. Edit: No storyline at all in this one, just a quick video trying to make ships that dodge laterally per bigbombr 's idea. One was really dodging all over the place. Edit: Here is another one testing laser vs laser sniping. RFP (Space Pakistanis) vs USTA (Space Russians) Content: Battle test of RCS Gunship Prototype from FRP vs USTA Total War 1-1/2.It is a stock gunship Crew-Maxed and RCS maneuvered instead of gimballed. RCS ships turn faster, but burn through more delta-V. Also they can't roll, which means no hiding damaged sides, etc. Shows that in battle. Can RCS thrusters and Crew-Maxing an otherwise stock design be enough to win out vs. 2 USTA Gunships? [/b]Edit: Space Pakistan vs Space Russia again. Testing the battle power given by Crew-Maxing and RCS Thrusters. Edit: This video is a RCS thruster test, and tries them out on 6 ships. Features music based on RFP national origins of Pakistan/India/Indonesia/Philippines. Edit: Here another one testing how hard it is to kill fixed laser mounts w/ kinetics. I envision Nippon as being well... Nippon, and Liberty Exchange as basically being Space Americans who choose an anarchist libertarian (corporate) government instead of a Republic. After all the US had at least 1 skyhook, but we see no trace of a US faction, so I think LE must be it. Edit #2: This is a Gunships vs Laser Frigates AI vs AI battle with my idea of how the ship to ship comm traffic would sound like as they coordinate their attacks and civilians plead for help in the coldness of space in their respective languages.
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Mar 15, 2017 4:42:26 GMT
childrenofadeadearth.boards.net/post/15343/thread
Crew requirements updated with exact figures for every rating at the link above posted for your viewing pleasure. So you're asking yourself, "How does this help me?" Well I'll tell you. "You can get the maximum work out of the fewest crew, using Crew-MaxTM!" -DeltaV
Crew-MaxTM property of DeltaV Research Corporation.
Here are two stock ships altered using the data from this crew research. The only custom parts are a nuclear reactor larger than 60MW, and a 90 rating crew module. The designs have been minimally altered only to reflect the Crew-MaxTM method. In the case of the Fleet Carrier, our method almost doubled armament from 16 total guns, to 27 without more crew, or losing acceleration nor deltav. For the Gunship, our method took total armament from 27 guns, lasers and launchers, to 45 guns, lasers and launchers. while actually reducing crew, and not losing any acceleration nor deltav. The designs are completely unchanged except to follow the Crew-Max method.
Property of DeltaV Research Corporation. Not for general release. Misuse of this report will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Now please gentlemen and ladies, the bidding starts at 1 billion gazillion currency units....To follow is a list of the big guidelines to get the most out of your crew, and also two examples using two well known warships, Crew Maximized using the data from this research. Crew is based on minimum needed for 6 month submarine deployments. Lots of components don't need any crew for ex: fuel tanks, ammo storage, payloads, RTGs, spacers, armor, etc so keep that in mind too. Practical advice to minimize your crew while maxing what you can get out of them... 1. Keep crew as close as possible to multiples of ≈27 (27, 54, 81, 108, etc) without going over. 1-4 "extra" crew is added at just a bit above each multiple. 2. As mass goes up, Warships at 8 kt, 10 kt, 12 kt, 15 kt add 2-3 "extra" crew, so get as close as possible without going over to maximize ship/crew ratio. 3. Each Crew Module adds 2 "extra" crew, so larger and fewer crew modules is better than smaller and more numerous.4. Have fewer larger reactors power/mass wise, not more numerous smaller ones, as large reactors do not require more crew than small ones. 5. To minimize Crew, keep almost all modules that need crew to run them to multiples of 5 only (See link at top for exceptions). Most modules need 1 rating for each 5 module. 6. A swarm of Drones do save on crew compared to that same exact total armament mounted on 1 ship, but it's no free lunch! You still need crew for drones. A swarm of drones count crew wise (regarding drone techs, which is the most crew intensive part of drone crewing) as if there was just one drone total per launcher per type no matter how large the swarm.Ever noticed how drones launched at once must all move as if they are one ship, and cannot independently maneuver? I had no idea what that meant but now we know. To try and clarify... A pack of drones launched from the same launcher (even at different times) all count crew wise as if they are just one of the individual drones in the swarm. The Gun Monkeys (Gunners), Tweeners (Missile guys), or Glow-Sticks (Nuke Techs) that would have been on your Drone if is was a regular ship, are instead counted as Nose Pickers (Drone techs), and put on your main ship. So to minimize crew, keep drones as simple as possible from as few (multiples of 2) launchers as possible.7. MPDs, Nuclear Reactors, Launchers and (in many cases drones) are the most crew intensive modules in COADE, so to minimize crew keep that in mind.8. Many of the crew requirements listed in the designer (looking at you MPDs) are not exactly correct so watch those crew numbers and know exactly what crew each change in your ship is adding or taking away. 9. Use Chemical Engines or Risistojets over Nuclear Engines and MPDs for min crew size, or at least use Risistojets and Nuclear Engines in combination to keep total # of nuclear reactors and engines as close to multiples of 5 without going over. 10. RTGs need no crew vs very crew intensive Nuclear Reactors, so for some applications, give it a go.11. The more classes of the same weapon type and types of total weapons, the more crew, so keep the total types/classes of weapons to a minimum to minimize crew.12. Use as few launchers for decoys/missiles/drones as possible, but always in multiples of 2.
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Mar 6, 2017 4:17:30 GMT
Don't get distracted by the word "thermonuclear". Neutron bombs don't kill with heat as much as with radiation. Look it was just a passing comment. Just was saying that if the boarding robots opened the airlocks and tossed in a couple neutron grenades, they could take out the crew but leave the computers and equipment intact. the W66 (a neutron bomb) had a yield of "The W66 was a low yield (details not declassified, but reportedly a few kilotons)" Wikipedia, a russian missile which according to wikipedia was a ERW had a yield of 10Kt, the W70 Neutron bomb haad a varible yield of 1-100Kt although ERW is only effictive at lower yields, the W79 a neutron bomb had a yield of 0.1 to 1.1Kt and they were 200 pounds in mass, 112cm long and 20.3cm wide EDIT: Compared to the W54 (smallest production nuke) the W79 has a massive yield, the W54 manages 10T of TNT at a minimum and 0.25Kt at a max, so 100T is the minium for IRL neutron bombs, more then the mini nukes we use for NEFP EDIT2: mukes -> nukes Okay gosh lol.
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Mar 6, 2017 4:11:03 GMT
The incoming laser intensity at the aperture (big mirror) is much, much less than outgoing laser intensity at the same aperture. They are both proportionally more concentrated at the smaller focusing mirror (thanks for pointing out its location, deltav ). The outgoing beam is still much, much stronger at that location. For there to be any damage to any component, such as the focusing mirror, the combined intensity of incoming and outgoing beams would have to be greater than a certain number, " Lasing Damage Threshold." For Aluminum the threshold is 1.27 GW/m 2. For silver that is 4.46 GW/m 2. For titanium dioxide that is 129 TW/m 2. This is accounted for when producing the outgoing beam. This does not appear to be accounted for when receiving an incoming beam. Thus, the bug. But we are not hitting the working optics of the laser with our counter lasers. We are aiming at the "back" of the prefocusing laser, which is not designed and cannot be designed to be optimal for reflecting a laser beam. Here's a pic of a real laser to get an idea. We are aiming for that chunk of metal right in the center with our counter lasers. Even if we were aiming directly for the optics, (the shiny golden plate at the back in the pic)... While the power of the outgoing beam is spread out over the entire focusing and refocusing beam, our counter lasers are focusing on a tiny point, stressing the material far beyond its capacities. So the laser resistance of the optics doesn't come into play. The part we are targeting is neither mirrored nor armored, and probably cannot be.
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Mar 6, 2017 3:58:21 GMT
DeltaV are you on the discord server? I will honestly and patiently go through this with you in person, instead of clogging up this fan art thread. Lasers are very complicated and you seem to be missing the point of what i am saying here, i would gladly clarify it in person because i honestly think that is the only way you will understand my point. Your condescending tone is a bit disappointing as well. I've shown you that real laser turrets must use 4-5 mirrors just like my design. I've shown you that your turret redesign cannot rotate or track targets and therefore is not a turret. I've shown you that multiple mirrors in general are an important part of laser design and do not appreciably reduce efficiency. Therefore I've proven my drawing is accurate and similar to real world designs and in contradiction to your statements attacking me personally as "not knowing what I am talking about". My designs is both reasonable and probable. So the burden of proof is on you. All you have to do is show me a laser turret that looks like your design. The turret must be mounted separately from the laser, and the turret can only have two mirrors like your design. Please share when you find one. Peace I'm out.
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Mar 6, 2017 3:36:17 GMT
Well i have reviewed your long article and i can say i do not really see the connection as a source, mainly because the article does not really give any in depth mirror alignment diagrams. Further more as far as i can tell all of the lasers featured in game use a Optical pumping elliptoid chamber beamer Your sited article further states that an important break through in laser development is the development of Chemical-pumping charged beamers All of the weapons in the article as far as i can see use this method, this is like apples to oranges for laser use. So no this is not really relevant to the lasers we have in the game, i suggest you take a second and read en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_pumping as you will see how vastly different these systems are. It gives enough to see that the beam control and turret control requires multiple mirrors, more than two. From the link, here is the beam control and the turret. In the turret there are at least 4 mirrors besides the pre focusing and focusing mirrors. In the beam control you can see there are at least 9 mirrors. Note that we have not even discussed the laser yet, just the turrets and the beam control. As far the way the laser is pumped, that does not affect turret design. Chemical lasers, arc pumped laser, diode lasers, no matter the way the beam is generated, the beam control and turrets will not differ based on the way the beam is generated, although whether the laser is pulsed or steady state could be relevant, as well as the wavelength of the laser beam. I want to repeat again that we are not talking about the laser, but only the way the beam is controlled and fed to the turret.
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Mar 6, 2017 3:02:45 GMT
deltav "low yield thermonuclear weapon" is where you went wrong, Neutron Bombs were made to kill Soviet Armoured Tank Divisions, by cooking the crew, however tanks are armoured (go figure) so the radiation pulse was not as effective as thought, also if you have LoS to the bomb exploding you get cooked in a different way. A small nuclear blast will wipe out the crew module also the Li-6 radiation shields everyone uses are perfect for stopping that kind of stuff Don't get distracted by the word "thermonuclear". Neutron bombs don't kill with heat as much as with radiation. Look it was just a passing comment. Just was saying that if the boarding robots opened the airlocks and tossed in a couple neutron grenades, they could take out the crew but leave the computers and equipment intact.
|
|