Naval Battle Club

[Mr Tegu]

Ok, I've taken my turn. I intercepted your battleship and prepared to fire. It was at this point i realised I have made a huge mistake with my ships; the stack decouplers on the tops of the missiles are on the wrong way up and consequently I can't shoot straight.

I was able to keep one missile on target which destroyed most of the primary armament and one of the engines. I then closed in and used girder rockets to knock off the remaining 2 1.25m missiles. After that I backed up behind the ship and manually released one more missile and guided it in to knock off 3 of the secondary armament. Given the circumstances I decided that I wasn't going to do much better and retreated. Hopefully I can pull things back next turn..

Taking a look at your ship, it wobbles like crazy with all of the side pods clipping into each other but seems to hold together.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

How in the hell did you get the struts to behave like that? All of the parts just float there. I had no Idea the VAB could do that. It does make for a very tough design. I'm also impressed with how stable the clipped fuel stacks are, they're usually much easier to destroy. I'm going to go back to the original persist and see what a fully functioning Murderer can do..

Persistent: https://www./?ivw9fbl5b9r64t7

Tbh, I'm pretty annoyed with myself about the decouplers, I'd like to finish this match and then go again but with fixed ships and perhaps even the chance to go first.

Edited January 24, 2015 by Mr Tegu

[Mr Tegu]

Gotcha:

Javascript is disabled. View full album

That is one mean warship you got there, took me a while to figure out I had to sneak some of the volley through the gap...

Seriously though, what is this sorcery? Several times this happened:

The ship is in 3 pieces with the seed part separate but it still somehow holds together. really very clever.

[Three1415]

How in the hell did you get the struts to behave like that? All of the parts just float there. I had no Idea the VAB could do that.

Well, it is not actually the struts; all of the Structural Pylons are are technically "connected" to one another by themselves, as they are to the root girder part in the center. One can achieve this effect through judicious use of the "Offset" and "Root" gizmos; I only strutted it together to reduce what wobbling I could. As you saw, the ship's only real weakness is that I could not make a Structural Pylon the root part; if the far more destructible girder segment is hit, the entire ship disintegrates.

I was able to keep one missile on target which destroyed most of the primary armament and one of the engines. I then closed in and used girder rockets to knock off the remaining 2 1.25m missiles. After that I backed up behind the ship and manually released one more missile and guided it in to knock off 3 of the secondary armament. Given the circumstances I decided that I wasn't going to do much better and retreated. Hopefully I can pull things back next turn..

Well, you still got most of my armament, which is good for you and bad for me; I may no longer have enough missiles to destroy your fleet. Given that even girder rockets were able to knock off the 1.25 meter missiles, I may just forgo the armor entirely in the next iteration and simply spread more missiles out farther, as the main strength of this ship is in distribution and redundancy rather than hull strength.

[Mr Tegu]

Yeah, you do have one hell of a concept. A real game changer and this is only V1... the question is can you protect that seed part better?

+rep

[zekes]

Well, it is not actually the struts; all of the Structural Pylons are are technically "connected" to one another by themselves, as they are to the root girder part in the center. One can achieve this effect through judicious use of the "Offset" and "Root" gizmos; I only strutted it together to reduce what wobbling I could. As you saw, the ship's only real weakness is that I could not make a Structural Pylon the root part; if the far more destructible girder segment is hit, the entire ship disintegrates.

Well, you still got most of my armament, which is good for you and bad for me; I may no longer have enough missiles to destroy your fleet. Given that even girder rockets were able to knock off the 1.25 meter missiles, I may just forgo the armor entirely in the next iteration and simply spread more missiles out farther, as the main strength of this ship is in distribution and redundancy rather than hull strength.

I was actually thinking about building something like this. Nice job.

[astecarmyman]

BATTLE POST

Two turreted Panthers have been sighted near the KSC. Destroy them at all costs.

Limit of One craft if you are going first (make sure you have enough ammo) Or two craft if you go second.

(I tried to get in more tanks but the damn save wouldn't let me quicksave or even leave the game if I did)

http://www./download/05xbkz2btu4a5so/persistent.sfs

Limit of 40 tons. No more than two vehicles will participate. (Take only one if you choose to go first, or expend all ammunition on the first attack you make)

[ejudedude13]

Im at Queens wharf here in Auckland (go look that up) and the hmnzs otago is in the port and theres also a helicopter stunt display thing happening. Its relly cool. Andrew would be jealous.....

- - - Updated - - -

The helicopter just went back to the Otago

[andrew123]

Im at Queens wharf here in Auckland (go look that up) and the hmnzs otago is in the port and theres also a helicopter stunt display thing happening. Its relly cool. Andrew would be jealous.....

Ever been to the miramar air show...

[ejudedude13]

No... But the Otago is open to public so you can go in and see stuff. Also, my parents are procrastinating paying for my new graphics card. They are just paying for it, its my money. To prompt them, I might try and push my graphics card to the limit, until it gets worn out. Sneaky sneaky sneaky....

- - - Updated - - -

Here is the wiki for the otago: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMNZS_Otago_%28P148%29

- - - Updated - - -

The queue. !

[zekes]

I built a stealth destroyer, but it corrupted, so i had to redo it:

MkI:

MkII:

[ejudedude13]

I still dont know how to build boats. Anybody can advise me or something?

- - - Updated - - -

DAMN We wre at the front of the queue just as they told us that they couldnt let anyone on anymore! I say its total BS! They sshould have stopped the queue earlier than they did!

[War Eagle 1]

I built a stealth destroyer, but it corrupted, so i had to redo it:

MkI:

http://i.imgur.com/yqOKKbk.png

MkII:

http://i.imgur.com/JLl1XQb.png

Did you include the warranty like we discussed? Or at least some kind of waver declaring that you are not responsible for loss or damage to MacBooks

[zekes]

Did you include the warranty like we discussed? Or at least some kind of waver declaring that you are not responsible for loss or damage to MacBooks

haha, this one's about 1060 parts ready for comat, which is actually really good - my Sword Class battleship was 1000 without missiles, and my other destroyers manage 880 parts for the same number of missiles. But i like this stealth one a bit better (albeit the speed is terrible).

[andrew123]

haha, this one's about 1060 parts ready for comat, which is actually really good - my Sword Class battleship was 1000 without missiles, and my other destroyers manage 880 parts for the same number of missiles. But i like this stealth one a bit better (albeit the speed is terrible).

Welcome to the downsides of all steel warships! My main destroyer is 800 parts with 2 cruise missiles and 8 VLS SAM missiles.

Edited January 25, 2015 by andrew123

[zekes]

Welcome to the downsides of all steel warships! MY main destroyer is 800 parts with 2 cruise missiles and 8 VLS SAM missiles.

Yeah, i actually built the Reed with your type hull - a truss running down the bottom and then it comes up and around - it's very strong, somewhat more part efficient, and provides huge amounts of buoyancy (the ship i sitting 2m higher than the waterline!)

Only downside is that it is really draggy - top speed with two nuclear reactors is 3.2 m/s. with some jets i boost it to about 10, but that's only for combat speed.

But for being a hybrid stealth destroyer, that's pretty good. I'm happy with it.

Edited January 25, 2015 by zekes

[Frozen_Heart]

Ya'll have crazy part counts!

[andrew123]

Yeah, i actually built the Reed with your type hull - a truss running down the bottom and then it comes up and around - it's very strong, somewhat more part efficient, and provides huge amounts of buoyancy (the ship i sitting 2m higher than the waterline!)

Only downside is that it is really draggy - top speed with two nuclear reactors is 3.2 m/s. with some jets i boost it to about 10, but that's only for combat speed.

But for being a hybrid stealth destroyer, that's pretty good. I'm happy with it.

I was able to achieve about 40 m/s with an upgraded destroyer hull... It's just that I needed to fine tune the balancing.

If I had more time, I probably could, but I can only do small scale ksp projects as of now. (lots of schoolwork for AP's)

I can post some pics of the ship later on.

However, I had a prototype Zumwalt with a multi brace design and a hybrid hull.

[zekes]

what kind of range are you getting?

[andrew123]

what kind of range are you getting?

It depends on the fuel load. For the larger ships, I can usually cram in 4000-8000 units of fuel and have a sustained cruising speed of 12-14 m/s.

The unfortunates downside to my VLS missiles is that they take up much of the internal room, reducing the fuel load. If the tanks touch the water of weigh down the ship enough to submerge other components, it could reduce the range by increasing the water drag and make it unnecessarily complex.

That's why I'm working on a refueling ship based on my prototype light hull. Not meant for combat, but it can go well over 20 m/s with good stability.

Something like this to extend the range:

The main issue is the number of engines needed to propel the ships. In the higher end of the fuel load, I'd need 6-8 engines. To say the least, at sea refueling could help a lot.

I need to rip out the weapon systems, make a large superstructure to house the fuel and equipment, and it should be a good prototype refueling ship.

Edited January 25, 2015 by andrew123

[zekes]

It depends on the fuel load. For the larger ships, I can usually cram in 4000-8000 units of fuel and have a sustained cruising speed of 12-14 m/s.

The unfortunates downside to my VLS missiles is that they take up much of the internal room, reducing the fuel load. If the tanks touch the water of weigh down the ship enough to submerge other components, it could reduce the range by increasing the water drag and make it unnecessarily complex.

That's why I'm working on a refueling ship based on my prototype light hull. Not meant for combat, but it can go well over 20 m/s with good stability.

Something like this to extend the range:

The main issue is the number of engines needed to propel the ships. In the higher end of the fuel load, I'd need 6-8 engines. To say the least, at sea refueling could help a lot.

Here's how I find range of ships and planes (only when they are at cruise speed and not accelerating):

((Fuel capacity/Fuel Cousumption) times (speed))/1000

This gives you range in kilometers.

For your ship, (8000/.59 (that's about 6 jet engines)) Times (14)/1000 = 196 KM total distance travelable.

Now, here's why I use nuclear.

196km is not your range - it's your total distance. If you try to go 100km out and 100km back, you will run out of fuel halfway there.

here's a little picture, specially drawn for your 8000L fuel, 14 m/s ship, random island chosen as starting point. Notice useful combat range barely puts you within range of the mainland.

Keep in mind refueling ships will also have limited ranges. So you're in for a logistics daisy chain of stops if you want to go anywhere.

NUCLEAR ships may be slow, but there's no need for refueling or ferry ships. My range is unlimited.

[andrew123]

Here's how I find range of ships and planes (only when they are at cruise speed and not accelerating):

((Fuel capacity/Fuel Cousumption) times (speed))/1000

This gives you range in kilometers.

For your ship, (8000/.59 (that's about 6 jet engines)) Times (14)/1000 = 196 KM total distance travelable.

Now, here's why I use nuclear.

196km is not your range - it's your total distance. If you try to go 100km out and 100km back, you will run out of fuel halfway there.

http://i.imgur.com/1RhZBZW.png

here's a little picture, specially drawn for your 8000L fuel, 14 m/s ship, random island chosen as starting point. Notice useful combat range barely puts you within range of the mainland.

Keep in mind refueling ships will also have limited ranges. So you're in for a logistics daisy chain of stops if you want to go anywhere.

NUCLEAR ships may be slow, but there's no need for refueling or ferry ships. My range is unlimited.

I want to equip my naval vessels with nuclear propulsion, but all sea trials indicate insufficient thrust and speed for my larger vessels.

... Why not equip my replenishment ship with nuclear propulsion. If I made something on the scale of a LNG tanker with respectable speed and nuclear propulsion, it could stay with the fleet and refuel the vessels.

I'm going to need to create some extremely large fuel depots throughout the planets. As you said, this is a logistics debacle, but I have no choice until nuclear propulsion matures.

I do have a prototype hull capable of 35-40 m/s. I think I'll continue to iterate that destroyer while developing the nuclear replenishment ship.

Edited January 25, 2015 by andrew123

[zekes]

I want to equip my naval vessels with nuclear propulsion, but all sea trials indicate insufficient thrust and speed for my larger vessels.

... Why not equip my replenishment ship with nuclear propulsion. If I made something on the scale of a LNG tanker with respectable speed and nuclear propulsion, it could stay with the fleet and refuel the vessels.

I'm going to need to create some extremely large fuel depots throughout the planets. As you said, this is a logistics debacle, but I have no choice until nuclear propulsion matures.

I do have a prototype hull capable of 35-40 m/s. I think I'll continue to iterate that destroyer while developing the nuclear replenishment ship.

Nuclear refuelers might be a good idea. My nuclear powerplant is pretty powerful - it generates about as much thrust as one jet engine. Problem is scaling it down is not easy. If i can find out how to do that, it's gold.

Okay, I made some new super condensed, 250 part drives called the MS9C. I packed two of these into a Reed IV and tested it.

Top speed on nukes: 6.1 m/s (max distance: Unlimited)

Top speed on nukes + 4 jets: 11.4 m/s (max distance: 216KM)

Edited January 25, 2015 by zekes

[andrew123]

Nuclear refuelers might be a good idea. My nuclear powerplant is pretty powerful - it generates about as much thrust as one jet engine. Problem is scaling it down is not easy. If i can find out how to do that, it's gold.

Okay, I made some new super condensed, 250 part drives called the MS9C. I packed two of these into a Reed IV and tested it.

Top speed on nukes: 6.1 m/s (max distance: Unlimited)

Top speed on nukes + 4 jets: 11.4 m/s (max distance: 216KM)

http://i.imgur.com/1GYVjyG.png?1

Those are some nice specs. I think I overbuilt the armor on some of my warships.

My water drag is rather high due to the VLS cells. I really need to put more of the weapons within a larger superstructure.

Also, could you PM me a subassembely of the drive? I want to test compatibility with my warships.

[zekes]

Those are some nice specs. I think I overbuilt the armor on some of my warships.

My water drag is rather high due to the VLS cells. I really need to put more of the weapons within a larger superstructure.

Also, could you PM me a subassembely of the drive? I want to test compatibility with my warships.

I don't want to give you the new version but there is a decent Mk 6 here in this icebreaker

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/107645-Nuclear-Powered-Icebreaker-%28Infinite-range%21%29

[andrew123]

I don't want to give you the new version but there is a decent Mk 6 here in this icebreaker

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/107645-Nuclear-Powered-Icebreaker-%28Infinite-range%21%29

Nevermind. I'm just going to stick with conventional propulsion for now.

Also, the MK6 was a bit too large. I want to armor the engines inside the superstructure.