Jump to content
lucagrabacr

Anyone knows how many layers of steel plate is required to resist L railgun?

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, lucagrabacr said:

All ammo kinds, how many layers of steel plate do I need so that the railgun doesn't penetrate inside and only destroys the armor plating?

 

From what I hear you need to make a steel or gold cube.  Good luck out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Revelcro said:

 

From what I hear you need to make a steel or gold cube.  Good luck out there.

And this has been brought to attention even for pvp types. We dont like borg cube meta either, but we understand we gotta give NQ time.  We want long term solutions not band aide fixes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems they were a bit too enthusiastic with the damage output for weapons.  They should probably scale back the damage 25% every few days until something resembling an actual operatic space battle takes place instead of a turkey shoot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Revelcro said:

It seems they were a bit too enthusiastic with the damage output for weapons.  They should probably scale back the damage 25% every few days until something resembling an actual operatic space battle takes place instead of a turkey shoot.

Scaling back damage a lot won't fix things.  It comes down to a group of issues. 

 

Detection range.

Lack of weapon variation, one size rules them all.

Accuracy at range is to high. 

 

I said this in a nother thread and I will say it here.  The fixes need to be across a couple of areas.

 

Tie detection distance to the cross section of the target vessel. 

 

Limit the size of weapons to the size of core.  No more large weapons on xs cores.  

 

Increase miss rate at long range.  

 

And if they need to reduce damage it should be by a factor of half at most.  

 

Combat is fast and should be over quick.  You either plan better or think faster.  Anyone who has flown in DCS or done small t1 frigate fights in Eve knows this.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, LouHodo said:

Limit the size of weapons to the size of core.  No more large weapons on xs cores.  

 

 

I strongly object to arbitrary limitations. If they don't want L weapons on XS cores, make them not fit in an XS build box. Don't just say "That thing that looks like it should work? It doesn't. Why? Becoz." There are enough levers to pull to avoid the sort of arbitrary restrictions and develop a variety of approaches... For example, you could make L Railguns not fit in an XS box, but L cannon might be left able to fit; it's L railguns that are the problem, after all, not L Cannon. 

13 hours ago, LouHodo said:

Combat is fast and should be over quick.  You either plan better or think faster.  Anyone who has flown in DCS or done small t1 frigate fights in Eve knows this.  

"See it. Kill it. Leave quickly." It's the fighter pilot's mantra now, and will probably remain so into the future.

 

Hopefully there will be room for (analogues of) Battleships and attack subs and ASW ships as well as torpedo boats. While the dynamic between small ships will be post-WW2 because of the accelerations involved, it'd be nice to have a WW2-style range of ship sizes rather than it being more an analogue of late C20th/early C21st naval conflict.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I figured with gold I'd need 4m thick (16 layers) and with steel 8m thick 32 (layers) of armor according to the health point of each material, not counting the resistance, on each side. But I thought it wouldn't be that bad, thanks though guess I'll really have to make it thick at least in vital areas

 

Edit: Unless the railgun projectile's width is more than 1 block (like 9 blocks) then I guess it would be 9 times less (4 instead of 32 layers)

 

Edit2: Nvm my initial calculation already assumed the railgun projectile's width is more than 1 block and 9 blocks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be nice to see armor strength and benefits no longer rely on the base weight of materials. It's such a poor design and hopefully one they will fix in time. The story background and nano-technology we have is meaningless when basic common sense of functional metals and alloys used to create actual armor should be in use over the current system. 

 

Applying some actual real physics calculations to handle hit potential of railguns would self correct the high hit chance at long range. 

 

Having a radar system that is specialized in detecting incoming shots and thus allowing for a simple quick vector change to mitigate the hit would be ideal. 

 

Railguns are not designed to hit moving targets, they are designed to hit stationary targets with precision, so it's already baffling how and why they are even capable of hitting any moving target (especially if the ship firing it is moving), as the calculations needed to do this at any range would be incredibly hard to do without some quantum computer targeting system making nano-second adjustments up to the moment of firing. 

 

How about point defense weapons, such as fast firing auto cannons to deal with incoming missile threats, or even useful vs close range fighters? 

 

I have a feeling that either their server tech will be able to handle some form of reasonable physics calculations needed to simulate a proper PvP environment, or they will need to find a method that is better balanced and makes sense. 

 

Having angled armor would greatly increase the chance of deflecting physical projectiles (especially railgun shots) but is currently not factored into the current iteration. You could give players the opportunity to create different types of armor, such as 1 that is more protective vs physical forms, or another type that is highly thermal resistant, or another that is more reflective to counter lasers, etc. 

 

I really hope NQ can move away from this current terrible materials system that we currently have, and create a common sense, quality armoring system with metals and alloys that make sense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Palad1n said:

It would be nice to see armor strength and benefits no longer rely on the base weight of materials. It's such a poor design and hopefully one they will fix in time. The story background and nano-technology we have is meaningless when basic common sense of functional metals and alloys used to create actual armor should be in use over the current system. 

 

Applying some actual real physics calculations to handle hit potential of railguns would self correct the high hit chance at long range. 

 

Having a radar system that is specialized in detecting incoming shots and thus allowing for a simple quick vector change to mitigate the hit would be ideal. 

 

Railguns are not designed to hit moving targets, they are designed to hit stationary targets with precision, so it's already baffling how and why they are even capable of hitting any moving target (especially if the ship firing it is moving), as the calculations needed to do this at any range would be incredibly hard to do without some quantum computer targeting system making nano-second adjustments up to the moment of firing.

 

I really hope NQ can move away from this current terrible materials system that we currently have, and create a common sense, quality armoring system with metals and alloys that make sense. 

Honesty as long as the relative velocities are the same you are stationary in space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, LouHodo said:

Limit the size of weapons to the size of core.  No more large weapons on xs cores.  

I don't agree with this.
 

The problem would be fixed by the scalable chance to hit with distance.
 

So lets say the XS has 40% chance to hit the M core.

And the M core has 20% chance to hit the XS core.

 

If the M core fits 10X more weapons it will be at advantage. By hits per second and armor to tank.

 

Most issues with meta would be fixed by:

1 - Radar lock range always above weapons max range.

2 - Optimal fire range not equal to Max weapon range.

3 - radar lock and chance to hit calculated on actual volume used, not core size.
2 - Allow players to choose non-cubic build zones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Palad1n said:

It would be nice to see armor strength and benefits no longer rely on the base weight of materials. It's such a poor design and hopefully one they will fix in time. The story background and nano-technology we have is meaningless when basic common sense of functional metals and alloys used to create actual armor should be in use over the current system. 

This. A thousand times. With the addition that there are science fiction options to add that can extend the properties of ships past what "real" materials could provide, while reataining some kind of "plausibility".

19 hours ago, Palad1n said:

Having a radar system that is specialized in detecting incoming shots and thus allowing for a simple quick vector change to mitigate the hit would be ideal. 

Given the current engagement ranges, a projectile detection system coupled to an evasion program controlling your thrusters could make all the solid weapons irrelevant and leave only lasers as viable space weapons. While you're probably right that it's realistic, I think its exclusion helps preserve variability between weapon types.

 

19 hours ago, Palad1n said:

Railguns are not designed to hit moving targets...

I don't think you can say that. They are designed to fling a projectile very, very fast with a very small deviation. Whether they're designed to hit static or moving targets is down to the actuators on their mount. It would certainly seem to be a consequence of the ranges that they're given that they're meant to operate at the longest ranges, but the difficulty of hitting moving targets is the same problem for all systems at a given range, though, if you're looking at it from a 'realism' point of view, the problem is orders of magnitude easier to solve for lasers.

 

For my money, the weapon range/hitting power heirarchy (in space) "should" be:

Lasers: Longest range (because the "to hit" resolution should take notional shot flight time into account, even if it's resolved instantly). Wimpiest. Still track easily as the projector is compact and light. One of the two standard choices.

Railguns: Secpmd Longest range (because its 'projectiles' are second fastest; say 0.1c). Hit like trains. Mitigated by the difficulty of hitting at long range and poor tracking because long and unwieldy. Heavy things.

Cannon: "The other standard". Ineffective at long range (because their projectiles take so long to get there anything moving will have gone), hit pretty hard, middling tracking since the barrels are still massy.

Rockets: Short range, hit hard, light.

 

I'm disregarding "guided missiles" because in any "realistic" setting, they'd be the shipkillers, and limited only by the economics needed to provide reloads. Though if and when element destruction is reintroduced, they'd probably stop being used by commerce raiders who're after the hauler's load and prize ships...

 

Railguns would still be the weapon of choice for disabling lumbering haulers and would be the go to for "capital ship" combat. Mounted on XS cores, they would effectively put a ceiling on the maneuverability of the construct, since there isn't that much room for engines.

 

Shooting anything other than lasers or railguns at a ship leaving at Max Speed would be a waste of ammo, since the rounds wouldn't be going fast enough. Hitting an oncoming ship at 30000kph would be possible, but any evasion  would make it suddenly start to tend towards impossible for non-lasers since the potential volume you have to aim at would be enourmous if the flight time of the shot was not very short indeed.

 

A point made in another thread that I agree with is that there is no need for arbitrary cutoffs like "range" if you define the physical parameters of the problem and the tools you're using to solve it, accurately. Arbitrarily decide the speed of a projectile, and it can, in space, hit at *any* range, if the target is completely stationary relative to the shooter or if they get lucky. The speed of the projectile determines how hard the target has to be evading to affect the chance to hit at a given range.

 

19 hours ago, Palad1n said:

How about point defense weapons, such as fast firing auto cannons to deal with incoming missile threats, or even useful vs close range fighters? 

PD is a good idea. Especially if there are going to be guided missiles introduced later.

 

19 hours ago, Palad1n said:

Having angled armor would greatly increase the chance of deflecting physical projectiles (especially railgun shots) but is currently not factored into the current iteration.

Determining the penetration of armour plate is a field that is, within the field, quite well understood, and the maths has been done, so this is something that would be relatively easy to add, I reckon, in terms of straight programming function. It's nowhere near as complex a computational problem as the presentation of a 3D world full of moving objects is, so maybe we could get that.

 

19 hours ago, Palad1n said:

You could give players the opportunity to create different types of armor, such as 1 that is more protective vs physical forms, or another type that is highly thermal resistant, or another that is more reflective to counter lasers, etc. 

I think that's what they intend with the resistance factors for armour: you can pick and choose how you layer the armour to protect against the largest threat you think you'll face. The numbers just aren't different enough yet, and people aren't building big enough ships to fully take advantage of the feature since there's only limited room for layers of voxels on the S and XS hulls that are currently common.

19 hours ago, Palad1n said:

I really hope NQ can move away from this current terrible materials system that we currently have, and create a common sense, quality armoring system with metals and alloys that make sense. 

Word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SpiceRub said:

What about increased resistance/hp values on thicker blocks of voxel

Thicker blocks have more HP simply by virtue of being thicker. For the calcs to take into account thickness in terms of "penetration" rather than ablative HP, you'd need to give the projectiles more details. Calibre, mass, actual notional velocity. But on the whole for a sci fi game with various different types of weapons interacting with armour, just having HP is probably all we need.

 

HP per kilo could be based on the Youngs modulus of the material, Kinetic resistance could be based on the hardness. Thermal resistance could be based on the specific heat capacity of a material, and/or its melting point, though I can't for the life of me think what sort of "thermal" attack a cannon shell can offer; the primary features of explosive rounds are fragmentation and blast, not heat; incendiaries are generally designed to set fire to flammable things, rather than defeat armour... And I have absolutely no idea what "Electromagnetic" (EM) and "Antimatter" damage are supposed to represent so don't really know what physical property would be a plausible basis for comparison with other damage types.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/20/2020 at 11:49 AM, Kezzle said:

I don't think you can say that. They are designed to fling a projectile very, very fast with a very small deviation. Whether they're designed to hit static or moving targets is down to the actuators on their mount. It would certainly seem to be a consequence of the ranges that they're given that they're meant to operate at the longest ranges, but the difficulty of hitting moving targets is the same problem for all systems at a given range, though, if you're looking at it from a 'realism' point of view, the problem is orders of magnitude easier to solve for lasers.

Ships in DU are bound by Newtonian physics. Meaning the cost of any change in velocity is decided by mass and speed. Top speed is also capped just below 30K since mass cannot travel faster then light speed (DU version).

 

So it would it not then make sense that weapons be bound by those same laws of physics?

 

So while a railgun projectile would maintain the kinetic energy while traveling in vacum, the energy required (cost) for firing a shot should be decided by projectile mass and exit speed (still limited to light speed since it has mass). Meaning the kinetic damage potential would then be 1/2 the product of the mass and the square of the speed (classical mechanics), but using heavier projectiles and/or firing at higher speeds would be more costly. There would also be a delay depending on the distance, projectile speed and velocity vector of target, in which the target could evade if it was doing any velocity changes. So firing on a target moving away at a speed equal of faster then the projectile for example, would be futile.

 

Laser on the other hand has no mass, and there is evidence of faster then light superluminal laser being possible. So for the sake of simplicity they could be instant in the game and still be plausible. But the inverse square law still applies, meaning that every time you double the distance you are left with 1/4 the energy. And with laser damage would be decided by reflectivity, meaning glossy bright materials would absorb less energy and take less damage. Gold would be a terrible choice since it has a relatively low melting temperature compared to other materials.

 

And the possible emergent game mechanics coming from using this realism, would be staggering. A laser would be easy to shield against with a thin layer of reflective material. But that reflective shell would easily be damaged by projectile weapons (if you are able to get in range) making lasers effective again etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, CptLoRes said:

Ships in DU are bound by Newtonian physics. Meaning the cost of any change in velocity is decided by mass and speed. Top speed is also capped just below 30K since mass cannot travel faster then light speed (DU version).

 

So it would it not then make sense that weapons be bound by those same laws of physics?

 

So while a railgun projectile would maintain the kinetic energy while traveling in vacum, the energy required (cost) for firing a shot should be decided by projectile mass and exit speed (still limited to light speed since it has mass). Meaning the kinetic damage potential would then be 1/2 the product of the mass and the square of the speed (classical mechanics), but using heavier projectiles and/or firing at higher speeds would be more costly. There would also be a delay depending on the distance, projectile speed and velocity vector of target, in which the target could evade if it was doing any velocity changes. So firing on a target moving away at a speed equal of faster then the projectile for example, would be futile.

 

Laser on the other hand has no mass, and there is evidence of faster then light superluminal laser being possible. So for the sake of simplicity they could be instant in the game and still be plausible. But the inverse square law still applies, meaning that every time you double the distance you are left with 1/4 the energy. And with laser damage would be decided by reflectivity, meaning glossy bright materials would absorb less energy and take less damage. Gold would be a terrible choice since it has a relatively low melting temperature compared to other materials.

 

And the possible emergent game mechanics coming from using this realism, would be staggering. A laser would be easy to shield against with a thin layer of reflective material. But that reflective shell would easily be damaged by projectile weapons (if you are able to get in range) making lasers effective again etc.

It would be eminently sensible for weapons to be bound by the same laws that constrain construct movement.

 

I think it''s a mistake (even if it's what NQ have said; they can easily change their minds) to think of 30Mm/hour (8000-odd m/) as the "speed of light". It's just "max speed": the maximum speed at which [whatever science fiction handwave technology (that doesn't need explaining) that Space Engines use to produce improbable delta-vee numbers] can propel an object. 8km/s really isn't very fast :)  

 

It's probably safe to assume that any variation in mass or velocity of railgun projectiles is accounted for in the stats of the weapons and/or ammo. Which of course are subject to modification by NQ as part of the overhaul, and perhaps when power systems are introduced, L (or even M) rails will need more power than an XS hull can realistically provide. Which would be fine. It might be possible to do, but mean the ship has next to no maneuvrability. Depends how the numbers are pitched, and, indeed, whether they affect existing combat elements at all. I believe they should. I'm ambivalent about whether the numbers should be pitched at the point of prohibition. It's also reasonably safe to think of railgun rounds as travelling at less than 8000m/s. But it's not inconceivable that they could go quicker. 8km/s is "only" Mach 25.

 

Projectile flight time should be a factor for all weapons other than lasers. Lasers should just hit what they're aimed at unless they're firing at distances larger than a small fraction of a light-second. 160kn is half a millilightsecond. No vector change available in the game (except Alt-F4 :) ) can move a target enough from its predicted location to make a difference in that time.

 

For projectiles, effectively, you're trying to guess where there will be something to hit, and send a projectile in a straight line to intercept that something at that point. The longer it takes for a projectile to reach the intended target point, the harder the intercept prediction is, since the target has more time to alter its vector and therefore change "where it's going to be". So railguns, which fire their projectile fastest, have the longest practical engagement range, and as things get closer, will be able to hit any target they can track more reliably than another system at the same range.

 

The thing with properly collimated lasers is that they are not subject to the inverse square law. That only applies to diverging energies, which a laser beam specifically isn't, or it would be thoroughly pointless for most any purpose, doubly (quadruply?) so as a weapon. In addition, a weapon-grade laser needs more than just a thin, light reflective layer to defeat it. No reflective material reflects 100% of the incident light, and if the light is meant to do instantaneous damage to heavy structural members and dense technological components made of exotic materials, including high temperature alloys like Inconel, the fraction of the energy that is not reflected, but instead absorbed, would vapourise the protective layer very quickly, leaving a hole for the rest of the 'bolt' to pass through. Gold would still be rubbish though, as you mention, because of its low MP.

 

What lasers can perhaps be is "very agile indeed". A collimator head has a lot less angular momentum to deal with for the aiming servos than a battleship-sized railgun, erm, rail... 14m long and packed with enough magnets to accelerate a penetrator slug to a decent fraction of c. In my view, they would make the best candidates for point defense weapons to hit small, fast-moving targets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with much of what you say, but inverse square still applies to collimated lasers since perfect collimation (is that a word?) is impossible. Instead you end up with a better (more focused) starting point, giving you longer range with inverse squared applied. And saying that the laser is so strong that it will burn through any reflective material at range is a catch 22. Since the same laser would then self destruct when going through the internal mirrors and optics. This is also why military laser technology is mostly about being able to cool down the weapon. Laser cutters work around this by having the focal point of the laser be at the point of contact. But that would obviously not work for long range.

 

And if 30K is not light speed, the question then would be why are projectile and rocket weapons capable of going faster but not ships? Or in other words, as longs as a ship keeps ejecting mass it will also keep accelerating. So 30K being light speed is the only thing that reasonably explains the max cap while still being plausible with the physics used by the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, CptLoRes said:

I agree with much of what you say, but inverse square still applies to collimated lasers since perfect collimation (is that a word?) is impossible. Instead you end up with a better (more focused) starting point, giving you longer range with inverse squared applied. And saying that the laser is so strong that it will burn through any reflective material at range is a catch 22. Since the same laser would then self destruct when going through the internal mirrors and optics. This is also why military laser technology is mostly about being able to cool down the weapon. Laser cutters work around this by having the focal point of the laser be at the point of contact. But that would obviously not work for long range.

 

And if 30K is not light speed, the question then would be why are projectile and rocket weapons capable of going faster but not ships? Or in other words, as longs as a ship keeps ejecting mass it will also keep accelerating. So 30K being light speed is the only thing that reasonably explains the max cap while still being plausible with the physics used by the game.

30k is just the cap do to server limitations. I've heard JC said they could raise it to 40k if they wanted, but arent sure if that's a good idea and didn't seem to want to test it. It's the players saying its light speed.  Nothing is gonna "make sense" in a real world sense 100%. If you can point me to a resource that is verified by a developer saying 30k is simulating light speed I'd like to see it. To my knowledge I dont think a dev has ever said that. So people making up stuff on how things should work based in "30k is light speed" seems kinda pointless to me.  Its literally just the sever limitations. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We all know it is a practical limitation (used to be 20K earlier) set for being able to handle crash detection, loading of incoming voxels etc. But DU is heavily based on RL physics, so they tend to try and explain behavior borrowing from RL concepts. And saying that 30K is light speed is a good physics based explanation to the server limitation, and it fits very well with the actual max speed being 29.999 instead of 30K blank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CptLoRes said:

We all know it is a practical limitation (used to be 20K earlier) set for being able to handle crash detection, loading of incoming voxels etc. But DU is heavily based on RL physics, so they tend to try and explain behavior borrowing from RL concepts. And saying that 30K is light speed is a good physics based explanation to the server limitation, and it fits very well with the actual max speed being 29.999 instead of 30K blank.

Yes but I've never heard the devs say 30k was akin to light speed. If I'm wrong show me the source.  I could give a flying fuck if a player wants to think it is, thats purely opinion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, CptLoRes said:

saying that 30K is light speed is a good physics based explanation to the server limitation, and it fits very well with the actual max speed being 29.999 instead of 30K blank.

No. No it's not. It's unnecessary. You can explain the speed limit for constructs by blaming it on the "restrictions" of the entirely fictional space drives that are used. That leaves c where it should be for every other system in the game. It means that "Radar" can actually be based on light speed EM radiation and we can work from there in EWar hypotheticals. It means that we can set aside any concerns about relativistic effects not being modelled.  It even gives a means by which people can exceed it if they want: rockets. They could, potentially, be the excuse to have a limited increase in max speed be possible, at the hellish cost in fuel and otherwise wasted mass that rockets impose, since rockets are purely newtonian and so can be expected to provide acceleration beyond max speed. The increase would be limited, and niche, because if you're going to those lengths a warp drive is probably more effective (it's a lot faster than any rocket could push you under current mechanics), but for sprinty interceptors it might have a place as an option.

 

Actually, that's proof that 30k isn't c, since you can watch something approaching at max speed on your radar. If it was some sort of superluminal subspace sensor then it would be called "sensors" not "radar". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, CptLoRes said:

I agree with much of what you say, but inverse square still applies to collimated lasers since perfect collimation (is that a word?) is impossible.

I didn't say "perfectly" I said "properly". It's entirely possible to conceive of a futuristic magic-nanotech produced laser which is collimated sufficiently well that any drop off at 160km is negligible. So perhaps my statement was hyperbolic, but it was practically true.

9 hours ago, CptLoRes said:

And saying that the laser is so strong that it will burn through any reflective material at range is a catch 22. Since the same laser would then self destruct when going through the internal mirrors and optics. This is also why military laser technology is mostly about being able to cool down the weapon.

You've just solved the problem you posed. Internal components of the laser can be cooled and made of large chunks of extremely tough materials. So, indeed, could anti-laser armour. But a mylar-thin reflective sheath isn't tough, doesn't have any cooling and would be worthless in defending against a weapon that can melt steel in a fraction of a second. Proper anti-laser armour wouldn't be particularly light and would require technical resource that can probably be sidestepped by just replacing its mass with more battle steel.

9 hours ago, CptLoRes said:

Or in other words, as longs as a ship keeps ejecting mass it will also keep accelerating.

First you're assuming that the space engines work exactly like rockets/ion engines and other reaction engines which we're currently able to build. In a sci fi setting, there is no need to make that assumption. They could (indeed, pretty much have to) work on an entirely different set of principles which break down, for some "science fiction" reason at 30k.

 

Second, as you approach c your rate of acceleration will decrease, even if your thrust is constant, because of relativity. Those relativistic effects are not seen in DU ships. Having max speed not equal c means you don't need to consider those effects since they will have no impact. We don't have access to in-game atomic clocks to measure the effects on a ship moving that slowly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Kezzle said:

I didn't say "perfectly" I said "properly". It's entirely possible to conceive of a futuristic magic-nanotech produced laser which is collimated sufficiently well that any drop off at 160km is negligible. So perhaps my statement was hyperbolic, but it was practically true.

 

I can buy that, with the relatively short distances in DU. I was just pointing out that inverse square still applies to collimated laser.

 

7 hours ago, Kezzle said:

You've just solved the problem you posed. Internal components of the laser can be cooled and made of large chunks of extremely tough materials. So, indeed, could anti-laser armour. But a mylar-thin reflective sheath isn't tough, doesn't have any cooling and would be worthless in defending against a weapon that can melt steel in a fraction of a second. Proper anti-laser armour wouldn't be particularly light and would require technical resource that can probably be sidestepped by just replacing its mass with more battle steel.

We could probably argue this in endless circles, but my point was that reflectivity (coupled with thermal mass) would be main attribute to how effective a laser shield is.

 

7 hours ago, Kezzle said:

First you're assuming that the space engines work exactly like rockets/ion engines and other reaction engines which we're currently able to build. In a sci fi setting, there is no need to make that assumption. They could (indeed, pretty much have to) work on an entirely different set of principles which break down, for some "science fiction" reason at 30k.

Now you are just replacing one plausible explanation with one less so. Why so much opposition against 30K being light speed?

 

7 hours ago, Kezzle said:

Second, as you approach c your rate of acceleration will decrease, even if your thrust is constant, because of relativity. Those relativistic effects are not seen in DU ships. Having max speed not equal c means you don't need to consider those effects since they will have no impact. We don't have access to in-game atomic clocks to measure the effects on a ship moving that slowly.

There are many ingame effects pointing towards relativity. As you get closer to 30K it gets harder and harder to turn your ship, and and 29.999 you can (to my knowledge) no longer make course changes without first slowing down. But regardless, we are losing track of the point of this discussion. Using Newtonian physics, why should particle weapons and in particular rockets have propulsion able to drive them faster then ships? Extreme acceleration sure, but max speed no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, JohnnyTazer said:

Yes but I've never heard the devs say 30k was akin to light speed. If I'm wrong show me the source.  I could give a flying fuck if a player wants to think it is, thats purely opinion. 

I have a vague recollection of JC mentioning this in a podcast or some interview,  but I am not sure and I am definitively not going to rewatch every DU video just to confirm. So I will settle with opinion. But still the opinion that makes most sense as a whole when you look at how other parts of the game mechanics work with Newtonian physics etc.

 

And regardless, the main point is that if ships are subjected to Newtonian physics in the game (with whatever ingame restrictions applied) then so should weapons. A space rocket is by definition just a small spaceship with no crew.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...