Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ank]

It turns decently, but pretty slowly, not able to hit fighters.
But it uses only 8 of the smallest engines.
I wanted to add extra armour to the arms, but wanted a light version first to see how it handles.
The armour is heavy aluminium btw, makes it easier to see than iron.

It's powered by 2 second level reactors.

Now the arms mainly look cool, I bet it would turn faster if I got rid of them... but then i would loose cool points... tough decision.

Making a roll version is doable(and i probably will), but won't that make it weaker as a defence turret? it will have a much harder time tracking a target, won't it?

And yes, they are dirt cheap, I started from a new save, and got it built in 30 min. this includes mining for the drill etc.
And size is totally variable, just add more guns in a checker pattern, and longer arms.

EDIT: and oh yeah, I accidentally place the engines so it would just spin around on the first try, got to 20 m/s of rotation pretty quickly.
It was hilarious!

And also, with two arms shot off, this thing will still turn around in any direction(providing i still have one horizontal and one vertical arm left)(albeit in a circular motion)

[GlyphGryph]

It will definitely be more difficulty (skill-wise), but for a capable pilot the difference should be minimal.

Are you sure it would turn faster without the arms? I thought those lever arms were multiplying your force here? The longer the arms, the quicker it should turn, right? (at least, up until a point)

Definitely try the same engines but without the arms and let us know the difference.

[ank]

It will definitely be more difficulty (skill-wise), but for a capable pilot the difference should be minimal.

Are you sure it would turn faster without the arms? I thought those lever arms were multiplying your force here? The longer the arms, the quicker it should turn, right? (at least, up until a point)

Definitely try the same engines but without the arms and let us know the difference.

Yup, i will try to test this.
The point is, without the arms, I shave off about 1/4 - 1/3 of the mass.

And also, because the mass of the arms are away from the centre, they need more force to rotate.

First test will be with arms, but engines closer to the centre.

Second test will be without the arms at all.

[andrea]

that is a nice satellite, ank, but you will want to have at least some light armor on the back. or the stronger cables ( the ones that use uranium too).

while we are on topic of levered engines, did anyone find any flaw in my math/physics a few posts ago?
I'd really like to start working on some numbers.
mostly because my new colony ship is going to be VERY heavy. so I need all the advantage I can get.

just the engine plate weighs 140 tons, and it only has 4 engines out of a maximum of 9!

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

ponium case with medium titanium inner tunnel walls, it can mount from 1 to 9 engines without needing changes to the engine room nor the power source. it is powered by a single powerful nuclear power source.

this thing will be as big as a small asteroid.

@glyphgryph
on that design, arms slow it down. if you read my post earlier, this falls in the case in which moment of inertia of the body is very low compared to that of arms and engines.

[GlyphGryph]

The arms are also quite small targets. If the point of this is to be cheap and quick to produce, it might be worth creating a version that has no armor on the arms at all.

Heheh... I'm sort of imagining a carrier dumping out a whole ton of these for a sort of cheap "cloud ship" to instantly reinforce an area before departing itself (since the carrier would be far more valuable).

[ank]

Useful and silly reasons for the arms:

1: If your engines are not placed completely in line with your centre of mass, having the engines closer to the centre will make the deviation larger, and therefore waster more thrust(I think.... maybe)

2: providing some diagonal cover to the reactors.



Also, I mentioned the lever principle earlier, where it does apply, but I don't think it applies to this design. Levers work like a gear. they can make a small rock lift a large rock, but the small rock has to fall further.
In closing, there is no magical way to get more energy into an object.

Mind you, I don't understand the math behind rotation... yet!

[Girlinhat]

Actually, the fighters will probably be more expensive than the carrier.  After all, a non-combat carrier can be open-frame aluminum, unarmed or barely-armed, with a titanium casing around the drive engines and minimal maneuvering engines.  Fighters have costly guns and armor.

[Korbac]

The carrier will have to be rather large, though. And if the fighters are 'part' of it until launched, it will need significant straight - line engine power. Also, I'd cover my carrier in PD / Assault Cannons - if it gets blown up then the fighters maybe exposed before they can be manned.

[Koliup]

The point is that a spaceship is not a skateboard.  Skateboards rely on principles like gravity and friction while a ship relies much more simply on thrust and mass.  You can try and make comparisons, but in the end you're using two completely different sets of forces to achieve movement.

Actually the principles are quite the same. They both rely on 'shifting' movement. Where a skateboard does so by utilizing gravity and ball bearings, a space ship does so by thrusting.
Imagine you've a two limbed fish. It has two fins on their side of its body. It can flap either fin at once, to make a small turn in its chosen direction, or flap them both(holding down X and Y to power both thrusters in a ship, or using your legs with a skateboard). The fish can move in what is a forward like direction by alternatively flapping its fins, generating 'thrust' on either side, but increasing 'forward' momentum. Tic-Tacing is like turning, and using the momentum generated by gravity to make an arc, then shifting to extend the arc in the opposite direction. You can do this in 3d with space ship thrusters. It's hilariously complicated, in my opinion. But oh well.

[GlyphGryph]

Psh, armor. You know what. Forget the armor. Forget the arms.

Lets just focus on making the cheapest quickly rotating mobile guns we can. Attack via landmines!

Cheap enough we can launch more than we have pilots. One of them gets destroyed? No worries, just bail out and hop in another one.

Even if they get "destroyed", we can easily salvage the pieces after the battle and slap them back together, I imagine.

[Girlinhat]

I'd personally look into very small, quick ships.  No armor, just translation engines and a spinal gun.  Their defense is being small, quick, and outside the range of the enemy.

[andrea]

the spinal cannon alone means that the ship is at least medium sized that thing is big.

[Girlinhat]

I'm not talking about your cheat guns.  I'm talking about "anything large and fixed-mounted along the center of the ship".  For small fighters, that may be a Light Assault.

[werty892]

A heavy assault would be better. 1 more block, so no big deal, and moar damage.

[Comp112]

Just started playing this, following the thread for a bit. Been mining a bunch of stuff, but have yet to start a ship. The wiki isn't all to helpful to be honest, would any of you mind sharing some tips?

I was thinking of building my ship out of aluminum, is that feasible?