Naval Battle Club

[ejudedude13]

Could I join? I'll only bring two (or three) ships.

Sorry bro, there are already 3 fleets and we are waiting on 2 more. There are already 14 ships, with another 6 or 7 coming

EDIT: Zamo, hows testing of my tank coming along? It quite a weird shape and has dual turrets.

[Zamovinar]

Yep, structural pylons make good warheads. Their collision box is weird though, so move them around to different angles to see what works best.

Your testing inspired me to experiment with new warhead materials. I've had some promising results recently with small gear bays (airplane landing gear) in conjunction with other structural parts. The gear bays are massless which lets missiles go faster compared to a heavier warhead.

Another random observation: probe cores in ships built in 0.25 will still have their original battery life that they did in 0.25 even if the ship is launched in 0.90. But if 0.90 removed the reaction wheel in the core, it will be gone. Same goes for subassemblies built in 0.25.

I tried building with Structural Pylons just now. but I found out something crucial, they are heavier than the wheels! so I guess I'm back to my original tire warheads

The TR-2L Ruggedized Vehicular Wheel has 100 m/s impact tolerance at 0.05 t while the Structural Pylons have 999 m/s impact tolerance at 0.2 t

so the wheels are better in my opinion. Any new player can use an 80 m/s, 70 m/s or 50 m/s impact tolerance part as substitute though.

Some note on designing warhead though that I;ve observed, it's not about the speed it's about the velocity of the projectile, by that I mean it should be light and but it should be heavy enough to give some piercing or punching power.

I designed a Supercharged I-beam with 24 sepatrons. When I use it, sometimes it disintegrates on impact together with the Structural Panel it hits. Sometimes going too fast is not right, it should be at a right velocity to deliver the right damage at a point without disintegrating. (So a good solution is using the wheels as example, cause if the impact tolerance is the same there's a chance both will disintegrate)

[Zamovinar]

Sorry bro, there are already 3 fleets and we are waiting on 2 more. There are already 14 ships, with another 6 or 7 coming

EDIT: Zamo, hows testing of my tank coming along? It quite a weird shape and has dual turrets.

I'll get on that soon. can you give me the link to the persist? (I'm to lazy to search lol or pm me)

[ejudedude13]

OK guys, I am about to release my Pentration Test rig to test all your hypersonic missiles. Stay tuooned!!!!!!!..... This arms race is sorta like a competition. I suspect I have already won.....

[Zamovinar]

OK guys, I am about to release my Pentration Test rig to test all your hypersonic missiles. Stay tuooned!!!!!!!.....

I have something like that I use it every time for my I-beam missiles. I need to make something bigger though for missile tests.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/101595-KRAKEN-TECHNOLOGIES-Reactive-Armor-Systems-TESTERS-NEEDED?p=1586918&viewfull=1#post1586918

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[ejudedude13]

This one isnt vertical. Comes with my hyper sonic missile.

DOWNLOAD

Also, NEW RECORD! 554m/s with maximum penetration.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[SmartS=true]

I tried building with Structural Pylons just now. but I found out something crucial, they are heavier than the wheels! so I guess I'm back to my original tire warheads

The TR-2L Ruggedized Vehicular Wheel has 100 m/s impact tolerance at 0.05 t while the Structural Pylons have 999 m/s impact tolerance at 0.2 t

so the wheels are better in my opinion. Any new player can use an 80 m/s, 70 m/s or 50 m/s impact tolerance part as substitute though.

.

Some note on designing warhead though that I;ve observed, it's not about the speed it's about the velocity of the projectile, by that I mean it should be light and but it should be heavy enough to give some piercing or punching power.

I designed a Supercharged I-beam with 24 sepatrons. When I use it, sometimes it disintegrates on impact together with the Structural Panel it hits. Sometimes going too fast is not right, it should be at a right velocity to deliver the right damage at a point without disintegrating. (So a good solution is using the wheels as example, cause if the impact tolerance is the same there's a chance both will disintegrate)

The impact tolerance for the wheels listed is the point they pop at. The speed that they explode at (Which you can see by clicking it with the left mouse button) is something like 300 m/s.

Anyways, I'm not sure if the impact tolerance for the pylons is correct either

[sdj64]

I tried building with Structural Pylons just now. but I found out something crucial, they are heavier than the wheels! so I guess I'm back to my original tire warheads

The TR-2L Ruggedized Vehicular Wheel has 100 m/s impact tolerance at 0.05 t while the Structural Pylons have 999 m/s impact tolerance at 0.2 t

so the wheels are better in my opinion. Any new player can use an 80 m/s, 70 m/s or 50 m/s impact tolerance part as substitute though.

Some note on designing warhead though that I;ve observed, it's not about the speed it's about the velocity of the projectile, by that I mean it should be light and but it should be heavy enough to give some piercing or punching power.

I designed a Supercharged I-beam with 24 sepatrons. When I use it, sometimes it disintegrates on impact together with the Structural Panel it hits. Sometimes going too fast is not right, it should be at a right velocity to deliver the right damage at a point without disintegrating. (So a good solution is using the wheels as example, cause if the impact tolerance is the same there's a chance both will disintegrate)

Very good summary. Don't you mean "momentum" not "velocity"? Yes, I suspect the wheels work well because they have higher crash tolerance than plates plus they have suspension so they are able to transfer more energy to the target before breaking and exploding. My experiments with the airplane gear were based on the assumption that when the missile hits, more parts flying around inside the ship equals more damage. So the gear are moderately high crash tolerance, easy to put in a missile, and massless so they don't affect the flight of the missile. My new warhead uses a combination of those and structural pylons.

Also, here's our persist: https://www.dropbox.com/s/m60se750ejm4f83/persistent.sfs?dl=0

OK guys, I am about to release my Pentration Test rig to test all your hypersonic missiles. Stay tuooned!!!!!!!..... This arms race is sorta like a competition. I suspect I have already won.....

Not sure you've won, since the rest of us are designing missiles that go by Zamo's criteria rather than pure velocity in a tiny missile. But that is very impressive.

[Spartwo]

I prefer to measure munitions force with momentum.

Edited December 20, 2014 by Spartwo

[Three1415]

So, who still needs to set up for the Duna battle? I know I need to retrofit the Zytkow and the Fermi again, but I do not know what others must do...

EDIT:

I prefer to measure munitions force with momentum.

*Shudders at massacre of physics terminology*

Anyway, something I have noticed in regards to this: Projectiles high in momentum (i.e, SRBs or liquid-fueled torpedoes) are more useful for rending or shearing off ships' hulls or external armor, whereas those with high kinetic energies (i.e, lightweight, fast-moving missiles such as I-Beams) are far better at doing penetration damage and gutting internals (even when they do not phase through armor) while leaving the exterior relatively undamaged. I assume this has something to do with how KSP handles energy versus momentum dissipation, but it is probably worth investigating further.

Also, ejudedude, to what extent is the I-Beam propelled by the explosion of whatever serves as its mount? I wonder how effective bullet-style weapons would be...

Edited December 21, 2014 by Three1415

[Mr Tegu]

Dayum, that's a dreadnought. If the ship number can be brought up by 1.

So you want to bring 5 ships vs my 3? What did you plan on bringing?

[ejudedude13]

For the penetration test, the cubic strut explosion is used to decouple it as an explosion. Otherwise, for long range it is used to accelerate it from 200m/s to 500m/s, probably faster in vacuum.

[Spartwo]

So you want to bring 5 ships vs my 3? What did you plan on bringing?

Anything that isn't 900 parts. The jump is from 150 to 350 and I don't want to bring 3 of the same ship.

EDIT: Did I say 4?

[Three1415]

What are the rules concerning the retrieval of missiles and armaments from enemy vessels? If the enemy ship is disabled but still functional and has lost a missile, can one retrieve it oneself? Or need the opposing craft be completely destroyed?

I simply wish to be clear on this before we begin our battle, as my ships' armament (primarily I-Beams) has a tendency to disarm enemies rather than kill them outright, and I wish to put any freed munitions to their best (for me, at least ) possible use.

Edited December 21, 2014 by Three1415
Grammar/reducing ambiguity

[Zamovinar]

What are the rules concerning the retrieval of missiles and armaments from enemy vessels? If the enemy ship is disabled and has lost a missile but is still functional, can one retrieve it oneself? Or need the opposing craft be completely destroyed?

I simply wish to be clear on this before we begin our battle, as my ships' armament (primarily I-Beams) has a tendency to disarm enemies rather than kill them outright, and I wish to put any freed munitions to their best (for me, at least ) possible use.

Good question, I want to know too because I have external armament deployed on the outer parts my ships. They tend to get separated when hit.

-I suggest we could still use them (by that I mean the original owner of the separated armament such as a common missile) provided that they still have probe cores and is still functional with propulsion.

-Only the player who owns the separated armament can control and fire them but they can be stolen by other players either by going near them or grabbing/docking with them (Players can steal armament by going maybe around 50-100m near the armament and is considered stolen when the ship is near it cause sometimes there is no retrieval capabilities like docking ports or grabbing arms). We should discuss the distance on which the part is considered stolen.

-Regarding the I-beam missiles (because most of the time they don't have probe cores and they are sometimes considered as debris). As long as the I-beam missiles are still connected to some sort of structure that has a core module that you can track, then you can fire and use them (but most likely it will not happen cause it will lack propulsion but still can be used, in that case it's a munitions stash if they are many or in a group)

-I-beams can be stolen by using the said rule above either by grabbing, docking or going near them.

-To transfer ownership we should only rename the core module.

-Parts can be stolen but cannot be fired on the same turn.

Anyone agree with me about those rules? Let's discuss this properly.

[Zamovinar]

Very good summary. Don't you mean "momentum" not "velocity"? Yes, I suspect the wheels work well because they have higher crash tolerance than plates plus they have suspension so they are able to transfer more energy to the target before breaking and exploding. My experiments with the airplane gear were based on the assumption that when the missile hits, more parts flying around inside the ship equals more damage. So the gear are moderately high crash tolerance, easy to put in a missile, and massless so they don't affect the flight of the missile. My new warhead uses a combination of those and structural pylons.

Also, here's our persist: https://www.dropbox.com/s/m60se750ejm4f83/persistent.sfs?dl=0

I'll send my ships now. But before we start we should test it properly if there is any missing mass on the ships (bug)

Not sure you've won, since the rest of us are designing missiles that go by Zamo's criteria rather than pure velocity in a tiny missile. But that is very impressive.

I used to design a missile that could penetrate the armor itself but not completely, half of it's part could phase through the armor and cause damage on the insides but I abandoned it because it's limited to certain length of the M-Beam 650 I-Beam as warhead and how easily it could be countered by thick armor.

[Three1415]

I think those are good; it is probably for the best if armament cannot be stolen and fired in one turn, but rather "made off with" by the attacking ship. The last rule also requires that a player somehow grab a freed weapon anyway, as to transport it with one's vessel one has to have some method of attaching it.

What does everyone else think?

EDIT: Ninja'd

Also, here's our persist: https://www.dropbox.com/s/m60se750ej...stent.sfs?dl=0

I'll send my ships now. But before we start we should test it properly if there is any missing mass on the ships (bug)

Also, everyone ensure that your ships are not disintegrated by the recent update; I loaded up ScriptKitt3h's 0.25 persistent and most of our ships were experiencing 30+ g's of Kraken summoning (suffering which I prolonged by promptly enabling "Unbreakable Joints" and time-warping at 4x speed while laughing maniacally) that seemed to start after an autosave. I do not know if Zamovinar's persist will do the same; let me check...

EDIT 2: Never mind, as that is an even older one. But beware the Kraken.

EDIT 3: Previous edit rescinded--it is still happening in Zamovinar's persist...Unless we are battling in 0.25, I think everyone shall have to re-place their ships.

Edited December 21, 2014 by Three1415

[ejudedude13]

I think those are good; it is probably for the best if armament cannot be stolen and fired in one turn, but rather "made off with" by the attacking ship. The last rule also requires that a player somehow grab a freed weapon anyway, as to transport it with one's vessel one has to have some method of attaching it.

What does everyone else think?

EDIT: Ninja'd

Also, everyone ensure that your ships are not disintegrated by the recent update; I loaded up ScriptKitt3h's 0.25 persistent and most of our ships were experiencing 30+ g's of Kraken summoning (suffering which I prolonged by promptly enabling "Unbreakable Joints" and time-warping at 4x speed while laughing maniacally) that seemed to start after an autosave. I do not know if Zamovinar's persist will do the same; let me check...

EDIT 2: Never mind, as that is an even older one. But beware the Kraken.

EDIT 3: Previous edit rescinded--it is still happening in Zamovinar's persist...Unless we are battling in 0.25, I think everyone shall have to re-place their ships.

I have to rebuild my ships then. Or design new ones. That gonna take a while. Good thing its the summer holidays where I am.

[Zamovinar]

I think those are good; it is probably for the best if armament cannot be stolen and fired in one turn, but rather "made off with" by the attacking ship. The last rule also requires that a player somehow grab a freed weapon anyway, as to transport it with one's vessel one has to have some method of attaching it.

What does everyone else think?

Also, everyone ensure that your ships are not disintegrated by the recent update; I loaded up ScriptKitt3h's 0.25 persistent and most of our ships were experiencing 30+ g's of Kraken summoning (suffering which I prolonged by promptly enabling "Unbreakable Joints" and time-warping at 4x speed while laughing maniacally) that seemed to start after an autosave. I do not know if Zamovinar's persist will do the same; let me check...

I have found the problem:

The map on the tracking station displays a different mass. (e.g. 146.56 tons, somehow the craft is heavier than the info displayed when you fly the ship directly) while the map where you are directly piloting the ship shows a different one. (e.g. 143.74 tons lighter)

Javascript is disabled. View full album

I guess some parts with mass are not shown/included on the ship map view while the tracking station shows the mass of the ship during launch where it may still include other parts such as the launch clamps or maybe decouplers.

Another possible reason are those massless parts like struts, they may have a hidden mass (or something we don't know of)

Here are my deployed ships by the way: Persistent file: http://www./download/k5ajjpkll101xp8/Duna+Source+Zamovinar.sfs

[burnoutforzai]

I need to get into this. How would in atmosphere fights be done? Such as tanks or even planes?

[Zamovinar]

Unfortunately there is no atmospheric battles here, tanks can be turn based but Aircraft one on one is not available, I guess you'll need DMP (Dark Multiplayer) for that but as far as I know I doesn't work, We can do battle with ships, tanks, and starship on orbit but no aircraft dogfights between two players.

[SmartS=true]

I would like to join, but I cannot dock without MechJeb...

[burnoutforzai]

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/73329-Docking-From-Navball-to-First-Station-and-Beyond LEARN IT!

[daemonCaptrix]

I would like to join, but I cannot dock without MechJeb...

Some basic functionality of MechJeb was added to vanilla in 0.9 update. You can use that to dock. It's best if you know how docking works though.

@Burnout- Planes are less useful in turn-based play than tanks or boats, but aircraft (especially VTOL) have their place. They move faster and can fly up mountains and across water. They can't dog-fight though.

[burnoutforzai]

Some basic functionality of MechJeb was added to vanilla in 0.9 update. You can use that to dock. It's best if you know how docking works though.

@Burnout- Planes are less useful in turn-based play than tanks or boats, but aircraft (especially VTOL) have their place. They move faster and can fly up mountains and across water. They can't dog-fight though.

Right. Thanks!