Hell, does the creation of that auto-lock missile count as some occult ritual or what? First you need some bombs or rockets (rocket pods also work if you don't want your plane to be more volatile than it already is) with ActivationGroup set to error and name set to the same as the missile, then you need a fire-an-forget (aka Interceptor,Inferno, or Cleaver) missile with the lockTime of 0, the function have to be set to AirToGround for it to attack ground targets, and you need the missile to be attached to the plane AFTER the aforementioned ordnance... And if you want the same capability but for air targets, you need a cannon set to AirToAir and the missile set to AirToAir as well and everything else following the same structure...
More like supplementing your idea about the bridge: the entire point about having a bridge/mast is to reduce interference from your own ship, so you still need a few elongated parts pointing away from the ship... Although the "bridge" should simply be considered another part of the hull as a raised platform to mount weapons and equipments with. And perhaps with a small area for assisting navigation, but even that is a pretty big "perhaps". Space battle should be less like Trafalgar and AT LEAST be more Tsushima or Jutland (with missiles thrown into the mix of course), so acquiring target information using the Mk. I eyeballs is out of the question since the very start. Having some generic idea on what's close to you might still help with navigation/maneuvering though, so I guess I could leave a small space for the helm or so...
No, read again on my shield comments. This ship have two sniper railguns, four plasma cannons, two particle cannons, all in spinal mounts (and with calibers well within the METERS range), and the only thing you're defending yourself from is missiles?
And finally, it's not that smooth shapes generate likes, it's more like "having a working aesthetics and not just throw greebles randomly across the hull". Try to sketch down a generic idea first and foremost before building might help a bit.
Well you're welcome! And I have to say those are some huge-ass engines... Is this ship a sniper cruiser of some kind? I mean, there are only two turrets (and they are the PDCs) and everything else are in spinal mounts... The fission torps still lacked the "oomph" of a fission weapon. Perhaps setting the explosive power to something like 20 or more would make it feel like you're actually firing a nuke? And now missiles can have their function set to MultiRole like cannons do, so why not simply put all missiles to multi-role?
Now for some commentary on your nerd editorial:
- As for the bridge, I would say that something similar to what we have on real-life navy ships would work well enough - I mean, you need to shove those bulky long-range scanners somewhere, and putting the sensors on a mast or two does reduce interference from your own ship and reduce sensor blind-angles (good luck using a bow-mounted sensor to scan what's behind you, it's not as if subs don't have a baffle problem and you can't really put a towed array anywhere near the exhaust plume)... That said, the "bridge" would be heavily armored/shielded, have few windows (but quite a few cameras), and most likely NOT have any key personnel on it: important people stay in the heavily armored CIC. And the bridge should never stay on some long-ass struts - literally nobody in this world ever considered it a good idea to put that on an actual naval ship - the thingy on top of the mast is the gun director and/or the radar antennae, aka the sensor suite.
- The point about energy shielding is for when the enemies stopped using missiles and/or decided to simply saturate the point-defense systems: shooting down one missile is a thing, shooting down two dozen with different flight paths and origins is another; and just how well does the PDC grid fair against, say, a full railgun salvo? or a laser barrage for that matter. PDCs are still important, though, for every projectile downed means less energy spent on maintaining that shield, and less impact to the hull integrity in general.
- As for shapes, yup, bricks w/ guns are the best choice. I mean, it does fill the three dimensions the fullest, and more space means more systems and protection, so why bother streamlining it like that? Granted, you still need to consider the firing arcs of your weapons (so things like superfiring turrets would be nice), and some nice angling does reduce your radar signature or help defend against enemy fire, but the general idea would still be "fill out the dimensions" and "if it looks like something from Star Wars, it's probably a bad design". Hell, forget the Providence, just who the f*ck thought the Nebulon-B is a viable design by any means? A well placed shot to that long-ass shaft and the ship snaps in half.
@WNP78 Huh, so the rate(targetDistance) is no longer bugged, good. And that the old projectileLifetime is now completely useless, I assume?
Also, can we get FT-capable setting on missile speed (aka maxSpeed setting) and the like?
@NumbersNumbersTheMan The entire problem, I assume, is that the target is moving and the fuse is set to detonate at the point the plane was when the shells fired instead of where the plane is when the shell passes by the plane... Because even with the Snowflake code the shells still pass by the plane (even the slowest vanilla bushplane, that is) and harmlessly detonate 50 feet (if not 100 or more) behind it...
There's one slight problem: the shells detonated nowhere near the enemy plane, so unless we can get a direct hit it's not really working... Is it due to lag?
@Treadmill103 New update: the mortar will be replaced by a 5" railgun with a muzzle velocity of mach 10 - because hitting anything other than a ground emplacement with a mortar is hard, and you don't really need to use a 16" gun to fire a tactical nuke with the yield of 30 tons anyways. Plus, now we can get more rounds inside that thing and that I have a cyberpunk-looking 120mm railgun since quite a while (as in 2.5 years) ago.
@spefyjerbf What I'm thinking is that a searing reentry would damage the weapons, so they need to be stowed, but I sorta like the Vol Noor's outline, so...
Also, I'm starting to wonder whether I should keep the gauss mortar or should I simply use a bomb bay and stuff it with missiles that functions both as atmospheric cruise missiles and space torpedoes. The latter one is more sane of a solution (and shows off more coding), of course, but there's a je ne sais quoi about snapping a capital ship in half with an unguided TACTICAL NUKE... (yes I'm thinking about star-age dive bombers)
@Ferrolon Used to. Loved the aesthetics of the Tyrant-class gunship (yeah I call them gunships as for me battleships need to have multiple turrets, so Overlord and Megalodon counts but Tyrant does not). And I might make a build inspired by it one day.
@spefyjerbf Not necessarily extra parts, given this thing had four drive units by itself... That said, I'll add more levels in between for the next update to get six forward levels and a reverse. And that you only need one cannon for each level, but a baseline "Nelan" impulse thruster requires three parts (a fuselage and two gatling guns, my own designs actually use four gatling guns for each level), so cannons are much more part efficient. The reason why I don't use cannons? First, because the drive designs were there with me since two years ago so the tech is mature; and second, cannons cannot be used if you're using missiles as well: instant relock missiles like the IMPULSE and the IMPULSE PRIME would stop functioning the second you switch to a cannon-based thruster, and frantically switching between rail repeaters and thrusters is not quite my idea of fun either. The capacity to shoot on the move with a cannon-thruster means a gun-based approach, but that also meant you now need separate AGs for each and every type of weapon.
@spefyjerbf Now with throttable impulse drives! Three forward thrust levels and a reverse!
That said, the impulse cores on this craft are accumulative (Throttle > 0 on the first one, Throttle > 0.5 on the second, Throttle=1 on the third), but IIRC that won't do on a cannon-based approach, so the codes actually need to be exclusive instead of accumulative.
@spefyjerbf
Something like this? "The control softwares, originally designed by Nelan Drive Yard to control their distortion impulse drives - a design abandoned by SPE Corp after the Grounding but refined by Nelan Drive Yards, is modified to control the SPE Corp pulsed atomic thrusters."
Also, let's just say that trig thrust is a shoddy design for anything remotely related to orbital travel.
@ChrisChrisThePy LOL...Yup, the best description is "Magic" and "do some trial-and-error and figure out a good number for your build"
@BagelPlane Thanks!
@ChrisChrisThePy Thanks! Although the question still remains the same: just how the
+1[redacted]does thatexplosionScalething work on bombs?@AWESOMENESS360 Thanks!
@Yourcrush Thanks!
+1Hell, does the creation of that auto-lock missile count as some occult ritual or what? First you need some bombs or rockets (rocket pods also work if you don't want your plane to be more volatile than it already is) with
+4ActivationGroupset toerrorand name set to the same as the missile, then you need a fire-an-forget (aka Interceptor,Inferno, or Cleaver) missile with thelockTimeof0, thefunctionhave to be set toAirToGroundfor it to attack ground targets, and you need the missile to be attached to the plane AFTER the aforementioned ordnance... And if you want the same capability but for air targets, you need a cannon set toAirToAirand the missile set toAirToAiras well and everything else following the same structure...@vcharng Ok now for the real question: how does that AA rocket work? Like, how do es the system calculate its lead?
@Gluck Also, a prototype starfighter of my own design. I will (at least try to) finish it when I got more free time. Hope you like it!
+1Other than the fact that I'm REALLY not willing to bail out of this thing, nice design!
@Gluck
+1More like supplementing your idea about the bridge: the entire point about having a bridge/mast is to reduce interference from your own ship, so you still need a few elongated parts pointing away from the ship... Although the "bridge" should simply be considered another part of the hull as a raised platform to mount weapons and equipments with. And perhaps with a small area for assisting navigation, but even that is a pretty big "perhaps". Space battle should be less like Trafalgar and AT LEAST be more Tsushima or Jutland (with missiles thrown into the mix of course), so acquiring target information using the Mk. I eyeballs is out of the question since the very start. Having some generic idea on what's close to you might still help with navigation/maneuvering though, so I guess I could leave a small space for the helm or so...
No, read again on my shield comments. This ship have two sniper railguns, four plasma cannons, two particle cannons, all in spinal mounts (and with calibers well within the METERS range), and the only thing you're defending yourself from is missiles?
And finally, it's not that smooth shapes generate likes, it's more like "having a working aesthetics and not just throw greebles randomly across the hull". Try to sketch down a generic idea first and foremost before building might help a bit.
Well you're welcome! And I have to say those are some huge-ass engines... Is this ship a sniper cruiser of some kind? I mean, there are only two turrets (and they are the PDCs) and everything else are in spinal mounts... The fission torps still lacked the "oomph" of a fission weapon. Perhaps setting the explosive power to something like 20 or more would make it feel like you're actually firing a nuke? And now missiles can have their function set to
MultiRolelike cannons do, so why not simply put all missiles to multi-role?Now for some commentary on your nerd editorial:
+1- As for the bridge, I would say that something similar to what we have on real-life navy ships would work well enough - I mean, you need to shove those bulky long-range scanners somewhere, and putting the sensors on a mast or two does reduce interference from your own ship and reduce sensor blind-angles (good luck using a bow-mounted sensor to scan what's behind you, it's not as if subs don't have a baffle problem and you can't really put a towed array anywhere near the exhaust plume)... That said, the "bridge" would be heavily armored/shielded, have few windows (but quite a few cameras), and most likely NOT have any key personnel on it: important people stay in the heavily armored CIC. And the bridge should never stay on some long-ass struts - literally nobody in this world ever considered it a good idea to put that on an actual naval ship - the thingy on top of the mast is the gun director and/or the radar antennae, aka the sensor suite.
- The point about energy shielding is for when the enemies stopped using missiles and/or decided to simply saturate the point-defense systems: shooting down one missile is a thing, shooting down two dozen with different flight paths and origins is another; and just how well does the PDC grid fair against, say, a full railgun salvo? or a laser barrage for that matter. PDCs are still important, though, for every projectile downed means less energy spent on maintaining that shield, and less impact to the hull integrity in general.
- As for shapes, yup, bricks w/ guns are the best choice. I mean, it does fill the three dimensions the fullest, and more space means more systems and protection, so why bother streamlining it like that? Granted, you still need to consider the firing arcs of your weapons (so things like superfiring turrets would be nice), and some nice angling does reduce your radar signature or help defend against enemy fire, but the general idea would still be "fill out the dimensions" and "if it looks like something from Star Wars, it's probably a bad design". Hell, forget the Providence, just who the f
*ck thought the Nebulon-B is a viable design by any means? A well placed shot to that long-ass shaft and the ship snaps in half.Congrats on Gold!
@Treadmill103 Hell, for a sec I thought it's your design! @GCPrototypes really did good on this one.
+1I look across the raging war, and see the steady beating of my heart
+1Hey! Welcome back Neko!
And the code given by WNP78 worked better at shooting down planes.
@WNP78 Huh, so the rate(targetDistance) is no longer bugged, good. And that the old
projectileLifetimeis now completely useless, I assume?Also, can we get FT-capable setting on missile speed (aka
maxSpeedsetting) and the like?That's a lot of parts...
@NumbersNumbersTheMan The entire problem, I assume, is that the target is moving and the fuse is set to detonate at the point the plane was when the shells fired instead of where the plane is when the shell passes by the plane... Because even with the Snowflake code the shells still pass by the plane (even the slowest vanilla bushplane, that is) and harmlessly detonate 50 feet (if not 100 or more) behind it...
There's one slight problem: the shells detonated nowhere near the enemy plane, so unless we can get a direct hit it's not really working... Is it due to lag?
Wait, REW?! You're back? I thought I sorta recognize the name, so that's whom! Welcome back!
+3TF am I looking at...
Corvega?
+3I knew it! I knew something like that would happen! Good job!
Beautiful...
NOT 'NUFF DAKKA YA GROT! PUT MORE DAKKA ON 'DIS 'TING!
+2Ita sentouki... ka?
+1@KnightOfRen How else are you gonna tag a replica of a fictional design?
Holy... Finally...
7.5lbs/ft^2...
@EchoWhiskey11 The thing is, the cannon looks way too large to be a 150mm... and that the in-game stats showed that it's a 250mm gun...
+1That's a 150mm gun?
Holy...
+1@Grob0s0VBRa RED 'UNZ GO FASTA! BLACK 'UNZ BE DA 'ARDEST! WHITE 'UNZ BE DA KILLIEST! WAAAAAAAAAAAGGGHHH!!!
+1Wait, is that a... my god. Some one call in the bomb squad, we have unexploded ordnance in the local scrapyar- *Radio Static*
+3@Treadmill103 New update: the mortar will be replaced by a 5" railgun with a muzzle velocity of mach 10 - because hitting anything other than a ground emplacement with a mortar is hard, and you don't really need to use a 16" gun to fire a tactical nuke with the yield of 30 tons anyways. Plus, now we can get more rounds inside that thing and that I have a cyberpunk-looking 120mm railgun since quite a while (as in 2.5 years) ago.
+2Nice to see you again, Kako!
+2@spefyjerbf What I'm thinking is that a searing reentry would damage the weapons, so they need to be stowed, but I sorta like the Vol Noor's outline, so...
+1Also, I'm starting to wonder whether I should keep the gauss mortar or should I simply use a bomb bay and stuff it with missiles that functions both as atmospheric cruise missiles and space torpedoes. The latter one is more sane of a solution (and shows off more coding), of course, but there's a je ne sais quoi about snapping a capital ship in half with an unguided TACTICAL NUKE... (yes I'm thinking about star-age dive bombers)
@Treadmill103 @YourCrush @Spefyjerbf One quick question: should the front railguns be retracted into the hull when they are deactivated?
+1@Yourcrush Thanks!
+1@Ferrolon Used to. Loved the aesthetics of the Tyrant-class gunship (yeah I call them gunships as for me battleships need to have multiple turrets, so Overlord and Megalodon counts but Tyrant does not). And I might make a build inspired by it one day.
@spefyjerbf But IIRC you still need to manuver in space to actually fight... How I wish that we can get longer radar ranges in SP...
@spefyjerbf Not necessarily extra parts, given this thing had four drive units by itself... That said, I'll add more levels in between for the next update to get six forward levels and a reverse. And that you only need one cannon for each level, but a baseline "Nelan" impulse thruster requires three parts (a fuselage and two gatling guns, my own designs actually use four gatling guns for each level), so cannons are much more part efficient. The reason why I don't use cannons? First, because the drive designs were there with me since two years ago so the tech is mature; and second, cannons cannot be used if you're using missiles as well: instant relock missiles like the IMPULSE and the IMPULSE PRIME would stop functioning the second you switch to a cannon-based thruster, and frantically switching between rail repeaters and thrusters is not quite my idea of fun either. The capacity to shoot on the move with a cannon-thruster means a gun-based approach, but that also meant you now need separate AGs for each and every type of weapon.
So, another one have found the "spef" method independently. Good.
@WrongFlyer Thanks!
@Treadmill103 @YourCrush @TomekHellFire Now with dogfighting abilities! Note: use slow motion, and be easy on the controls.
+2@spefyjerbf Now with throttable impulse drives! Three forward thrust levels and a reverse!
That said, the impulse cores on this craft are accumulative (Throttle > 0 on the first one, Throttle > 0.5 on the second, Throttle=1 on the third), but IIRC that won't do on a cannon-based approach, so the codes actually need to be exclusive instead of accumulative.
First!
@spefyjerbf
Something like this?
"The control softwares, originally designed by Nelan Drive Yard to control their distortion impulse drives - a design abandoned by SPE Corp after the Grounding but refined by Nelan Drive Yards, is modified to control the SPE Corp pulsed atomic thrusters."
Also, let's just say that trig thrust is a shoddy design for anything remotely related to orbital travel.
@spefyjerbf Cannons... So a pulsed atomic drive! Looking forward to it.