daemonCaptrix Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 Please define: "No fragmentation of the ammunition."The ammunition doesn't fall to pieces.Here's an example of the kind I'm working on right now:http://www./view/a1fzlxno1cbhp0l/daeCorp_-_Experimental_Atmo_MAC_Pistol.craftTo fire, set throttle to maximum. Manually decouple the stack decoupler on one of the bullets to let it fall into place. Tap the "1" key to activate the engine, then hit "1" again right away to save fuel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow Lane Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 I'm on an IPad right now, could you please simply explain it to me? Please define: "Ammunition." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daemonCaptrix Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 I'm on an IPad right now, could you please simply explain it to me? Please define: "Ammunition."Bullets... the things that pop out of the end of the gun when it goes boom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow Lane Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 Please define: "Bullets", please define: "Gun", I am sorry, I do not wish to offend you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daemonCaptrix Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 Please define: "Bullets", please define: "Gun", I am sorry, I do not wish to offend you.lol okayThe "gun" in this case is the MAC weapon.The "bullets" are the little ballistic missiles it fires.A bullet differs from a typical missile in that it has no propulsion of its own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spartwo Posted November 1, 2013 Author Share Posted November 1, 2013 Don't ask me why it doesn't work. It just doesn't.I get the feeling you've never actually seen one in action. What you described is logical, but it doesn't describe the results of actual experimentation. There is no fragmenting of the ammunition, for example.I had a M.A.C but it beame inaccurate in .21 because aerospikes got nerfed.It could blow the spirit of kerbin wide open in one hit,and it carried 13 shots.M.A.Cs can have results which by far surpass conventional weapons and be far smaller.It just takes alot of effort is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow Lane Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 Alright, why would you have to deal with fragmentation on a missile? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spartwo Posted November 1, 2013 Author Share Posted November 1, 2013 You don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daemonCaptrix Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 (edited) Alright, why would you have to deal with fragmentation on a missile?You wouldn't. That's why it's odd to even bring it up. missiles generally don't just fall apart.Okay never mind. I misread your original post.You're right that mass is more important than relative velocity. Guns are just cool. Edited November 1, 2013 by daemonCaptrix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
War Eagle 1 Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 You wouldn't. That's why it's odd to even bring it up. missiles generally don't just fall apart.That does get me wondering.What do you think the affects of a guided fragmentation missile would be?Build up speed then at the last second, separate parts from it with radial separators Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daemonCaptrix Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 That does get me wondering.What do you think the affects of a guided fragmentation missile would be?Build up speed then at the last second, separate parts from it with radial separatorsThey're crap. lolI tinkered with one once, but somehow it caused all the littler missiles to live up to their name and miss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
War Eagle 1 Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 But what if they were not missiles but shrapnel, like I beams maybe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briansun1 Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 ...would give it an AOE but would not be able to pen armor...(like you know in reall life) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow Lane Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 (edited) That does get me wondering.What do you think the affects of a guided fragmentation missile would be?Build up speed then at the last second, separate parts from it with radial separatorsMe and my partner have been experimenting with a different mechanism to produce the same effect, but it has proven ineffective. Edited November 1, 2013 by Shadow Lane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow Lane Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 Velocity is more important than mass, because it gives you armor penetration, but if you get going too fast you have to deal with Hyperspeed Syndrome, therefore, a balance must be struck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
War Eagle 1 Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 The mind of an ADHD person is truly amazing What if we did something like ball and chain like what pirates fired out of cannons sometimesthe design should be simpleone engine in the middle builds up speed,then two engines (probably SRB) on the side (facing opposite directions) fire to create a spinning motion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow Lane Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 I had that same idea, I have yet to test it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briansun1 Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 That would never... wait it might acctualy work... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spartwo Posted November 1, 2013 Author Share Posted November 1, 2013 From what I've seen it just like you would think from pressure the force is the same but spead out.The ship shrugs them off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daemonCaptrix Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 Considering space ships don't have masts, I'm not sure what use it would have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briansun1 Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 ...solar panles... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
War Eagle 1 Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 Considering space ships don't have masts, I'm not sure what use it would have.If it is as devastating as I hope it would be it would act like a normal missile but far more spread out. So it would be like hitting it with three shots for the price of oneWhile it would be cool to experiment with, its practicality would be low as its almost triple the mass of a single missile Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daemonCaptrix Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 ...solar panles...Solar panels fall off if you look at them the wrong way. lolMy ships are all nuclear-powered anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spartwo Posted November 1, 2013 Author Share Posted November 1, 2013 Again pressure,If the force hits a wider area the ship will flex less making it less likely for connections to break.EDIT:I think all military ships are nuclear,even sickles have an RTG and they weigh 1 ton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
War Eagle 1 Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 Again pressure,If the force hits a wider area the ship will flex less making it less likely for connections to break.Its at least worth experimenting withafter all what is the KSP Motto?FOR SCIENCE!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts