@spefyjerbf Your... experience? With the Taylor solution? We're still talking about SP... right? Just give me a shout when you're nowhere near the polar regions yet the sun's already up at midnight...
Jokes aside, it's just that my ballparking about the in-game damage of a cruise missile compared to a 500lb bomb, and IIRC according to that function twice the explosives (and probably twice the energy released) would result in a blast wave with the radius of 2^(1/5) times of the original, and 1.8 is around 2^(1/5) times of 1.6, so I just decided to go full "**** this, I'll just use this equation here", so I have literally zero idea if that's how it works or not, it's just a random guesstimation based on a random guesstimation...
@Griffon1Crosswind Yeah, like who in the world still uses semi-active radar homing missiles after we got active radar homing ones? The problem is, only a Sidewinder visually resembles that abomination of a Guardian...
@rexzion Well there isn't one in either families so you can't use vanilla weapons to make them without adding another detacher into the mix and thus screwing over your ability to use ejector racks... Anyways, thanks for the upvote!
@EliteArsenals24 Actually IIRC that cannon-missile set was first made by some @riko guy in an anti-ship missile launcher sorta build... Then someone else made a British V-bomber with the same set...
@spefyjerbf Also, I've just built my first orbital strike uplink based on both this principle and something I scrounged up from @AtlasAviation's build. So now I can freely blow up everything from the other side of the mountain range...
"Slow, Heavy, and hard to move"
Tanks may be heavy, but IIRC most walkers can't sprint at 40mph for extended periods of time without destroying the entire road... And something tells me the ground pressure of tanks is already large enough to get them sinking into the mud, let alone something with similar mass but a much smaller contact area with the ground...Granted, this particular platform is more like a mini-mech designed to engage infantry (or perhaps a tankette designed to flank larger vehicles) instead of a front-line armored vehicle built to fight an enemy armored column head-on...
@spefyjerbf The point is that we aren't? Also, I'm pretty sure I'm not talking about the relationship between the energy and the blast radius... It's more like "in-game damage vs in-game setting". Be notified that the explosionScalar on cannons just means the "caliber" of the explosion (so a 50mm gun w/ the explosionScalar set to 5 is equivalent to a 250mm gun w/ the explosionScalar set to 1), and I'm pretty sure the in-game blast radius of the cruise missile and two 500lb bombs are different, but they do deal around the same damage when striking the carrier (aka the carrier sinks at the same rate). So...
Well, thanks for the upvote anyways. And I've been wondering about one thing in particular, how do we calculate the "local"(aka respective to your own aircraft) TargetHeading and TargetElevation, especially when you have a significant pitch and/or roll angle and yet you're trying to use an FT turret. Like when you have a turreted gun on a flying helo? Or a defensive gun on a WWI-WWII heavy fighter (or a turreted starship for that matter). Always wanted to build starships with side turrets (basically turrets w/ elevation and THEN traverse unlike the "standard" traverse-then-elevation turrets), but is always left wondering about how to actually control them. Or just any turret not mounted on the up-down axis for that matter.
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.
@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)
@TomekHellFire Update on the saucer! The engines currently broke the fourth commandment due to its still a prototype. They would not on the final model.
@spefyjerbf wierd things happen at high altitude with these, making them explode without any logical reason.
I'm SO writing that into the lore of my impulse flyer...
@spefyjerbf Not the shape; I'm pretty sure we've talked about the problem w/ RIDs and muzzle velocity - the higher the muzzle velocity, the lower chance for an RID, from my own experimentation. My basic approach can be summed up as "if RID still persists, add another zero after the muzzle velocity". The muzzle velocity on the Obitas is "only" 2E+4 for all drive units; the maximum speed for RID to not occur, as you've said, is around 12,000mph, or around 5364.48m/s (actually below orbital velocity), and the maximum speed for any meaningful flight control is 30,000mph, or around 13411.2m/s (around the escape velocity of the solar system), so I'm wondering if significant RIDs come from the plane/ship's velocities being a significant fraction of the propulsion beam? I'm not sure.
Also, for nostalgia, YOU are my nostalgia for this site - I think I've already said a while ago that I bookmarked your page on my browser since before the feathered wings of Vira and Canis ever caressed the interstellar void, before the vortex cannons on the Genesis ever fired in anger, and before the Windspeaker ever loosed her first arrow; I was there watching in awe when the Avenger took his first flight, when the Swarmrunner first sliced through the air with its many fins, and when the Gaia freighter lumbered through the colonial sky for the first time in recorded history. I'm only here because of your many magnificent builds. *Needle Scratch* TL;DR: the reason why I often bring up old builds of yours is because I was there watching your every build since somewhere around May 2016. And part of the reason why I'm on this site is because I wanted to learn how to become as creative and imaginative as you.
So, how's the plane? and more importantly, how are the gyros and the impulse drive?
@CenturiVonKikie
Remember the Centaurus Alpha?
I think I sorta cracked the code for wingless flight by using gyros in a different way than they're supposed to.
This saucer have no lifting surfaces. The fins are panels. The question is: should I keep the flight control codes for engines or should I go full gyro?
@spefyjerbf Thanks; what I'm trying to build is basically a mixture of 1950s / "tailfin era" automobile designs, a flying saucer, art deco aesthetics, and a Vol Noor...
@Yourcrush Er... This is still supposed to be a military aircraft first & foremost, so too many lights would most likely break the immersion... But I guess I'll see what I can do.
@spefyjerbf Your... experience? With the Taylor solution? We're still talking about SP... right? Just give me a shout when you're nowhere near the polar regions yet the sun's already up at midnight...
+1Jokes aside, it's just that my ballparking about the in-game damage of a cruise missile compared to a 500lb bomb, and IIRC according to that function twice the explosives (and probably twice the energy released) would result in a blast wave with the radius of 2^(1/5) times of the original, and 1.8 is around 2^(1/5) times of 1.6, so I just decided to go full "**** this, I'll just use this equation here", so I have literally zero idea if that's how it works or not, it's just a random guesstimation based on a random guesstimation...
@Griffon1Crosswind Yeah, like who in the world still uses semi-active radar homing missiles after we got active radar homing ones? The problem is, only a Sidewinder visually resembles that abomination of a Guardian...
+1@rexzion Well there isn't one in either families so you can't use vanilla weapons to make them without adding another detacher into the mix and thus screwing over your ability to use ejector racks... Anyways, thanks for the upvote!
+1Inspired by this, right?
+1May I ask... HOW? How does the mine work?
+1@EliteArsenals24 Actually IIRC that cannon-missile set was first made by some @riko guy in an anti-ship missile launcher sorta build... Then someone else made a British V-bomber with the same set...
+1@spefyjerbf Also, I've just built my first orbital strike uplink based on both this principle and something I scrounged up from @AtlasAviation's build. So now I can freely blow up everything from the other side of the mountain range...
+1@Yourcrush Thanks, and sorry again...
+1The beginning of the PROJECT division and your profile pic, I assume?
+1@AzureCorp Inhales TANKS FOR LIFE! TANKS FOREVER!! CRUSH UNBELIEVERS UNDER OUR ALMIGHTY TREADS!!!1!!1!
+1"Slow, Heavy, and hard to move"
+1Tanks may be heavy, but IIRC most walkers can't sprint at 40mph for extended periods of time without destroying the entire road... And something tells me the ground pressure of tanks is already large enough to get them sinking into the mud, let alone something with similar mass but a much smaller contact area with the ground...Granted, this particular platform is more like a mini-mech designed to engage infantry (or perhaps a tankette designed to flank larger vehicles) instead of a front-line armored vehicle built to fight an enemy armored column head-on...
HONSE
+1Given the gears, I assume a stealth fighter/bomber of sorts?
+1Wait, they slow down?
+1@Grob0s0VBRa Tank ya fer da up-voot!
+1@spefyjerbf The point is that we aren't? Also, I'm pretty sure I'm not talking about the relationship between the energy and the blast radius... It's more like "in-game damage vs in-game setting". Be notified that the explosionScalar on cannons just means the "caliber" of the explosion (so a 50mm gun w/ the
+1explosionScalarset to 5 is equivalent to a 250mm gun w/ theexplosionScalarset to 1), and I'm pretty sure the in-game blast radius of the cruise missile and two 500lb bombs are different, but they do deal around the same damage when striking the carrier (aka the carrier sinks at the same rate). So...Well, thanks for the upvote anyways. And I've been wondering about one thing in particular, how do we calculate the "local"(aka respective to your own aircraft)
TargetHeadingandTargetElevation, especially when you have a significant pitch and/or roll angle and yet you're trying to use an FT turret. Like when you have a turreted gun on a flying helo? Or a defensive gun on a WWI-WWII heavy fighter (or a turreted starship for that matter). Always wanted to build starships with side turrets (basically turrets w/ elevation and THEN traverse unlike the "standard" traverse-then-elevation turrets), but is always left wondering about how to actually control them. Or just any turret not mounted on the up-down axis for that matter.@Baldovino Thanks mate!
+1@ChrisChrisThePy Thanks! Although the question still remains the same: just how the
+1[redacted]does thatexplosionScalething work on bombs?@Yourcrush Thanks!
+1@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!
+1@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.@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
+1Ita sentouki... ka?
+1@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...
+1Holy...
+1@Grob0s0VBRa RED 'UNZ GO FASTA! BLACK 'UNZ BE DA 'ARDEST! WHITE 'UNZ BE DA KILLIEST! WAAAAAAAAAAAGGGHHH!!!
+1@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@LucasNicky But I still can, right? "no need" does not imply prohibition.
+1@TomekHellFire Thanks for the upvote!
+1@TomekHellFire IIRC there is trim... And also, Please go easy on the controls...
+1@TomekHellFire Update on the saucer! The engines currently broke the fourth commandment due to its still a prototype. They would not on the final model.
+1@Treadmill103 @YourCrush With new lights installed for shields.
+1... and congrats on copper.
+1@spefyjerbf
+1wierd things happen at high altitude with these,making them explode without any logical reason.I'm SO writing that into the lore of my impulse flyer...
:3
+1@Sadboye12 Glad you like it! Read my profile, there's my "Ten Commandments of Simpleplanes" that dictates mow much emphasis I put on functionality.
+1@spefyjerbf Also, what do you mean by "proper assumptions"?
+1@spefyjerbf Also, I never mind if someone rambled, esp. if they are sharing awesome new ideas.
+1@spefyjerbf The first six letters of the name, remove the "r". Yeah sorry for calling her "Corvidae-19"!
+1Also, thanks for the code.
@spefyjerbf Good luck on your work spefy! Best wishes, Tom.
+1@spefyjerbf Not the shape; I'm pretty sure we've talked about the problem w/ RIDs and muzzle velocity - the higher the muzzle velocity, the lower chance for an RID, from my own experimentation. My basic approach can be summed up as "if RID still persists, add another zero after the muzzle velocity". The muzzle velocity on the Obitas is "only" 2E+4 for all drive units; the maximum speed for RID to not occur, as you've said, is around 12,000mph, or around 5364.48m/s (actually below orbital velocity), and the maximum speed for any meaningful flight control is 30,000mph, or around 13411.2m/s (around the escape velocity of the solar system), so I'm wondering if significant RIDs come from the plane/ship's velocities being a significant fraction of the propulsion beam? I'm not sure.
+1Also, for nostalgia, YOU are my nostalgia for this site - I think I've already said a while ago that I bookmarked your page on my browser since before the feathered wings of Vira and Canis ever caressed the interstellar void, before the vortex cannons on the Genesis ever fired in anger, and before the Windspeaker ever loosed her first arrow; I was there watching in awe when the Avenger took his first flight, when the Swarmrunner first sliced through the air with its many fins, and when the Gaia freighter lumbered through the colonial sky for the first time in recorded history. I'm only here because of your many magnificent builds.
*Needle Scratch* TL;DR: the reason why I often bring up old builds of yours is because I was there watching your every build since somewhere around May 2016. And part of the reason why I'm on this site is because I wanted to learn how to become as creative and imaginative as you.
So, how's the plane? and more importantly, how are the gyros and the impulse drive?
@CenturiVonKikie
+1Remember the Centaurus Alpha?
I think I sorta cracked the code for wingless flight by using gyros in a different way than they're supposed to.
This saucer have no lifting surfaces. The fins are panels. The question is: should I keep the flight control codes for engines or should I go full gyro?
@Yourcrush Thanks again... How's the plane?
+1@Yourcrush Thanks!
+1@spefyjerbf Thanks; what I'm trying to build is basically a mixture of 1950s / "tailfin era" automobile designs, a flying saucer, art deco aesthetics, and a Vol Noor...
+1@Yourcrush Er... This is still supposed to be a military aircraft first & foremost, so too many lights would most likely break the immersion... But I guess I'll see what I can do.
+1