Print

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

[tryrar]

@Sean Mythril Penetrator, I recall. Also, the MCP undershirt (which I am still putting off to write up, eugh, and will probably ask Pyro to confirm prototyping for the sake of impartial decision).

@tryrar I remember that the prices were lower, weren't they? Also, what is the effective range of those missiles? (Checking to confirm the avoidance of 1/8th kiloton blast)

I'm too lazy to dig through the hep thread, but I had a post confirming prices at 4 for the launcher and 2 per missile(though RC said we could go 3 per two missiles, but that might be a little unwieldy). This was a case where not having fractional tokens really sucks, since it appears consensus was missile should cost more than one token, but might be less than two. As for range, the idea was max range at 5-10 km, but I think that was the one thing that never actually got tested. Might have to bug PW about it

[Radio Controlled]

@Sean Mythril Penetrator, I recall. Also, the MCP undershirt (which I am still putting off to write up, eugh, and will probably ask Pyro to confirm prototyping for the sake of impartial decision).

@tryrar I remember that the prices were lower, weren't they? Also, what is the effective range of those missiles? (Checking to confirm the avoidance of 1/8th kiloton blast)

@Radio Controlled You're making me look up the logs of our heated debates, and the power calculations. The battery clip/power of shot weren't that nice and rounded, I remember that vividly.

I may have quoted the wrong list, but I think that ought to be the correct (and already approved) list.

[Nikitian]

@tryrar Now that we talked about it, I've remembered and found it.

Looking over my design, I have spotted some areas I could improve it and reduce costs at the same time. By going with a half-meter to 3/4ths a meter long missile instead of the huge 1.5 meter design I originally had, I think the missiles can be made cheaper while significantly reducing the bulk of the launcher itself, AND allowing for more reloads to be carried. As well, incorporating a low-to-mid power gauss launching system into the launcher for initial velocity should mitigate some of the range loss by smaller missiles and still allow for safe usage of 1/8th kiloton warheads-for a reasonable definition of safe when dealing with nuclear ordinance at least(barring operator error). As such, here is the revised design:

Kugelblitz GML
Stat reqs: Exoskeleton STR and +0 aux
Cost:2-3 for the launcher, missiles ??(not going to assume a price)

This guided missile launcher fires 100x750mm ordinance, with an initial boost provided by a low-power gauss coil system. The missiles track a target by a combination of radar homing and manual laser targeting, and come in HE, HEAT, and namite incendiary. There is also the option of firing 1/8th kiloton warheads for an additional cost.

PS:I had an idea for an improved HEAT warhead using magnetohydrodynamics and electromagnetic pinching for forming stronger and higher velocity penetrators and hot metal jets, but I haven't had time to test with missions gearing up on the Sword. I'm fording this concept to you to see if it is viable or not, and if there are any improvements. And any more questions with the launcher I'll try to answer as best I can until launch time.

So - cheaper launcher (why would it be that expensive, anyway? it's just a tube with some nice auxiliary systems, but those should be fairly cheap), and cheaper missiles (two for three tokens perhaps?). Can you please run it with Piecewise and Co. again? Because it is currently on the "less cost-effective" side of equilibrium, especially with the new blas-weapons setting the bar quite higher than before.

@Radio Controlled Yeah, my bad. Somehow, the numbers are correct. Or, at least, I had accepted them as correct back then right after that long IRC chat. Oh well!
Blaster weapons approved. (Same deal as before, I'll post everything recently approved in my next Heph action.)

[tryrar]

Ok, I guess I can ask the council to take another look at it to see if the prices can come down a bit or anything. Hey RC, mind if you talk to them?

[NAV]

Blaster weapons, Hoverboard, laser drone, missile launcher, all on the wiki now. In the prototype section.

The mythril penetrator probably shouldn't be prototyped because it's about to be completely outclassed by the forcefield weapons which serve the same role.

[syvarris]

Gah, this thread grew massively.  And there's a lot of good stuff in here...

Spoiler: Spoiler'd for compactness.  Statements organized according to who they're directed at. (click to show/hide)

@Nik's initial Forcefield science

Thank you for looking into my mono-force-rapier-thing idea!

I'm not sure if the crescent blade idea will work--PW may have slipped up.  Before, PW has said that the maximum distance a forcefield can be projected is 2.5x the thickness of the projecting material.  Technically, he said it was 5x the radius of a sphere, so maybe the details are different with different shapes.  I'll ask.

I've thought about arm mounted forceblades, and generally my opinion is that they shouldn't be used unless there's some form of mechanical sheath to retract them.  They can't be disabled, and a passing sweep can take your leg off.  People tend to swing their arms when they walk.  These could make for a problem.

As for forcefield bullets and riot shields... Dunno. I foresee some problems with that, but it might or might not really work.

I have a pair of interesting ideas for forcefield bullets.  I believe I talked about them in IRC some time ago.  One is basically just a method to have non-SM plasma bullets, and the other uses the 'chopping' effect of activating forcefields to carve out a section of enemy armor, and then uses the explosion from the detonating projection material to propel that section through the rest of the enemy's armor.

However, what actually I can suggest, is this: substitute a PSL "Testament" for that gauss machinegun.

Shortly after I designed the testament, I've been wanting to make an intermediate between the testament and PSL, called the "Doctrine".  If the testament is an LMG, the doctrine would be an HMG, like the M2 Browning.  It would be a better fit for an APC.  Of course, I've been planning on making many things, most of which I haven't gotten around to...

@Paris

since the durability of the hilt is not that important,

Why wouldn't it be important?  If the hilt's broken, it goes off like a bomb.   Yes, we likely wouldn't need to have maximum strength forcefields, but even relatively weak ones will go off like a grenade.  Most users won't have Milnoplate-level armor, so that's a rather bad thing.

You could even make the hilt really flexible, extendible and programmable

None of these things are necessarily possible to do with a projector material.  We certainly can have overlapping plates of forcefields, but the inherent resistance they have to each other would likely make a whip or some of your other ideas implausible.

@ComradeP

portable command center (if we even need this),

Probably don't need this.  Quantum Entanglement Communicators can be backpack sized, and can link to command centers on other planets.  At most, a battlefield command center would be a normal vehicle with extra QEC fuel, and exceptionally good radio equipment.

@Radio

Modularity is nice, but not limitless, and increases cost. A tank will need a different shape/frame than a transport, for example.

I think this is somewhat backwards, actually.  Modularity reduces cost, because your tanks, APCs, AA vehicles, etc. all use the same production lines.  In trade, it usually lowers the effectiveness of any given vehicle, because none of them were entirely purpose built only for their role.  Radio's correct if you're trying to make fully effective yet also modular vehicles, though.

IRL, such extreme modularity would be a terrible idea.  95% of the time, one or two mobility designs will work, so you might as well design explicitly for those two designs.  Adding in another six alternatives to wheels is just going to waste money if they're ever used, and make the primary two designs less effective because they partially sacrificed effectiveness for versatility.  That all said, this is a game where god is forgetful and doesn't really understand how physics work, so it might work great for us.

Though, one of the things I wanted to investigate was using (modified) sharkmist for the main frame. If that works, you can have a 'programmable' chassis, where you can indeed choose a main shape, let the sharkmist take that form, then slot in whatever the sharkmist can't form (generators, weapons, whatever).

This is a great idea.  Programmable tank production!  It would get around most of the major issues, I think.  The only problem would be if sharkmist isn't a good structural material.

[Nikitian]

You know what? Fine, let's add them there, just have in mind that that particular section contains approved prototypes as well as designs which have not yet been approved for prototyping (and, I am sorry to add, which might not get approved for that at all); that also means that the mythril penetrator probably belongs there regardless of whether it will ever be produced.

Or, of course, we could keep it 'pure', and then the laser drone and missile launcher would have to be moved elsewhere for now. (And I have no idea about other 'prototype' entries there because, as I have once told RC, I prefer to remember the Armory list than to consult it on wiki.  )


On laser drone: an interesting idea, but I am not sure how useful. It appears in the same niche as the gunner bot, only with a different specialty and flavor. Then again, a flying gunnerbot might be nifty, so perhaps we should consider designing a complete replacement for it (based on/cousin to this laser drone)? Especially since the gunnerbot uses the dreaded gauss weaponry. It's soo last millenium!..


Edit: Oh, a glorious host of text has arrived!

Spoiler: @Syvarris (click to show/hide)

Ah, that would make for some problems; I'll have to ask him again, I guess. Also, would that not be 5x the thickness of the projecting material? As in, you know, I'd guess that only half the thickness of the sphere (i.e. its radius) would be projecting the forcefield in a given direction (the other half - in the opposite direction), but I might be mistaken. Could go either way, depending on whether a single bit of projecting material projects forcefield by default in one direction, or also in the opposite.

And yeah, ever since Paris mentioned them, I've been thinking of putting the force-blade on a reverse-facing telescopic mount, which is extended in "close reach" position, and collapsed in "long reach" position. And as for non-combat wielding around, the blade could simply be 'sheathed' (the sheathe would be absolutely nothing like ordinary ones, but still a viable sheathe). Though what do you think of ways to make the force-blade visible? Maybe just simply paint it over (the paint should come off easily when it cuts through anything, so it would not be detrimental to its efficiency as a mono-weapon).

Also, after Paris's suggestion, I am considering an autonomous Aux-controlled mechanical tentacle with a force-weapon on its end. It doesn't need to be thought-controlled (unless via braincase/MMI), so it could probably be hooked up somewhere on the suit and that would be it (no surgery or anything). The benefit is that it can swing the mono-force-weapon more wildly and quickly than a human can, yet be programmed to absolutely avoid injuring the user (thus removing the potential of cutting own limbs inherent in a weapon the user would wield himself). Of course, avoiding injuring teammates is even a more troublesome thing to program, so maybe that part could be omitted...

And yeah, I'd rather suggested that intermediate PSL weapon for the APC, but I couldn't remember its name and it still isn't developed yet.

[Comrade P.]

@Command unit: point taken

A question about blastpistol.
Here's a list of upgrades I wanted to inquire about:
 - Cooling system/more durable case, which will allow it not to melt down after overcharge (there was a talk about fitting in a small coldplate)
 - Integrated laser pointer/flashlight
 - Custom frame (read custom shape, nothing of technical use)
And if all of the above is available, which is likely, is it realistic to expect such an order to be priced 2 tokens?

[Nikitian]

Laser pointer/flashlight should probably be really cheap (read: negligible cost, esp. if bought in a complex package), but one can never know. I can see the better cooling system priced at one token. The real question comes down to the custom shape, because, on the one hand, Piecewise is lenient to granting niceties of no practical use, but on the other, it'll be the Armory Master you'd be requesting this custom shape, and I'd guess she'll ask for another token on top of that.

So: 2 tokens if you're lucky, 3 tokens expected. (This includes the 1-token price of the blaspistol itself).

[Comrade P.]

Laser pointer/flashlight should probably be really cheap (read: negligible cost, esp. if bought in a complex package), but one can never know. I can see the better cooling system priced at one token. The real question comes down to the custom shape, because, on the one hand, Piecewise is lenient to granting niceties of no practical use, but on the other, it'll be the Armory Master you'd be requesting this custom shape, and I'd guess she'll ask for another token on top of that.

So: 2 tokens if you're lucky, 3 tokens expected. (This includes the 1-token price of the blaspistol itself).

Mhm. That will do. Now I'll just wait to get on ship.

_{^{I will call it "Nadezhda".}}

[syvarris]

Spoiler: @Nik (click to show/hide)

Also, would that not be 5x the thickness of the projecting material? As in, you know, I'd guess that only half the thickness of the sphere (i.e. its radius) would be projecting the forcefield in a given direction (the other half - in the opposite direction), but I might be mistaken. Could go either way, depending on whether a single bit of projecting material projects forcefield by default in one direction, or also in the opposite.

I don't know--it was never specified.  I assumed that it was a calculation related to width, because that was most helpful, but this is also a logical alternative.

Though what do you think of ways to make the force-blade visible? Maybe just simply paint it over (the paint should come off easily when it cuts through anything, so it would not be detrimental to its efficiency as a mono-weapon).

I'm not sure if forceblades even should be made visible.  If you make them microscopically thin, they'll be impossible to see regardless of what you do, but best at cutting.  If the forceblade is a millimeter thick, it'll be much worse at cutting because it has to displace more mass, but it'll be much easier to see.

Regardless, here's my thoughts on ideas for making it visible:
Paint probably wouldn't work--forcefields are frictionless and immaterial.
Another idea suggested was to have a trapped bar of some material inside, which could work and would add mass, but would probably be difficult to see. 
A simpler method would be to just use cameyes x-ray vision mode to see it, because forcefields are opaque/reflective to most spectrums of radiation.  This would limit who could use one though.

My favorite idea is a modification of the second idea: instead of a solid, trap plasma inside.  That would probably allow the thinnest size while still retaining visibility, but the plasma will eventually cool (heat lost through visible spectrum radiation--all other spectrums are reflected) and need to be reheated via an amp or manip.  It would look like a lightsaber, and you'd blind anyone without protection!

[Nikitian]

@syvarris Yeah, your points are valid. Though I rather considered that we'd be making the force-blades monoatomically thin, for ultimate penetration. But would that actually be optimal for damage? What do you say?

[syvarris]

Spoiler: @Nik, monoatomic blade visibility (click to show/hide)

I don't really know.  Monoatomic blades probably work very differently from actual blades.  I don't even know if they'd actually sever the connections between atoms, especially considerig that forcefields aren't actually atoms themselves.  Would a true monoatomic blade simply phase through whatever it hit, doing no damage?  Would it cause tiny nuclear explosions?  I have no idea.

Regardless, my point about microscopic vs. millimeter width still stands even if you swap microscopic for monoatomic.  You will not be able to see either, regardless of what you do with it (with the possible exception of filling it with plasma).  Our eyes, by definition, cannot perceive microscopic items.  Cameyes can perceive larger microscopic items, but even they won't be able to see a monoatomic blade, even if you somehow paint it red.

[renegadelobster]

So, just a thought, but what if you put some thing that glows naturally? Something like the fluid in a glow stick. Or, like a piezoelectric shard, a battery, and a line of LEDs? You hit stuff, it charges the battery, causes the LEDs to glow. You might not be able to see the tip, but you could see most of it. And probably cheaper/safer than plasma.

[Execute/Dumbo.exe]

Didn't one character once get an actually mono-matic blade from the Doc? Along with some necessary upgrades to his/her/it's superspeed, and the blade worked just fine.