Jump to content

Naval Battle Club

astecarmyman

By astecarmyman
in Forum Games!

 Share

Recommended Posts

Zamovinar

Zamovinar

Posted
Posted

I've made a target practice orbital platform/structure. The one on the pic is unfinished but It's finished now.

It's supposed to look like an orbiting oil refinery or storage facility just for taking screenshots and maybe placing ships near it for storytelling. Shoot my experimental armaments at it maybe once in a while. What I found out was it has a strong hull, in fact I just might make it a capital ship, My tirepedoes don't do .... against it.

BaoQt9E.png

Riy5V5W.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites
panzer1b

panzer1b

Posted
Posted
I've made a target practice orbital platform/structure. The one on the pic is unfinished but It's finished now.

It's supposed to look like an orbiting oil refinery or storage facility just for taking screenshots and maybe placing ships near it for storytelling. Shoot my experimental armaments at it maybe once in a while. What I found out was it has a strong hull, in fact I just might make it a capital ship, My tirepedoes don't do .... against it.

http://i.imgur.com/BaoQt9E.png

http://i.imgur.com/Riy5V5W.png

Ive also had very similar experiences to yours, in that quite a few rather good ships started as cinematic target practice, or immobile bases, but ended up tough to kill and became capital ship hulls in the long term. At least 2 skeleton structures i still remember came out of my target practice making (they were both supposed to be destroyed ship lookalikes, ended up harder to kill then anything ive had before). Ofc, those are now redundant as they are from the age before i started being super part count efficient, now most of my craft have hulls under 150 parts, none sofar except carriers have over 200 part hulls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
panzer1b

panzer1b

Posted
Posted
http://i.imgur.com/TcfCGKC.png

MY NEW CRUISER:

Parts: 388

Weapons: 6 I-beam torpedoes, 4 Guided armor piercing missiles

Mass: 240.38 t

You need to upgrade ur resolution of screenies (when u take screenshots just up ur settings a bit, even if it gets laggier). Aside from that, not bad, although (provided what i see is the only ship core), its very vulnurable as MK-3 hull, while great mid-range armor, is not going to work against any accuract hits (if the mk3 cargo bay is the actual skeleton, i bet i could kill that with a FK-100 micro-fighter using a SINGLE one of its micro-railguns, and i always have a 2nd shot if needed). Looks pretty nice, but i doubt itll hold up to actual enemy fire (unless there is some hidden spine that i cant see in the screenie made of 80m/s parts).

Also, i think ive actually discovered how to massively lower lag, without actually lowering part counts all that much. I believe large numbers of engines exponentially increase lag on any vessel, much more then adding another part such as a girder or wing. I accidentally discovered this when i compare my Sk-CRV-I 3rd and 4th generation, the 4 has less ibeams in the front, and it barely lags at all, and the 3rd gen is way more slow, and it really gets unbeareably laggy in atmo when trying to get it to orbit using the rocket i made for it. The part count is slightly higher on the 3rd gen, but it also has more engines, way more so then the newer vessel.

Learning of this, im redesigning all my craft, railguns will be replaced by a equal part count weapon that has only one engine and performs similarly, it has less accel, but it becomes a matter of firing at longer ranges (not an issue if you have MK1 inline cockpits to aim with), and as a bonus it actually attains much higher velocity at extreme ranges (too bad that engine was nerfed, 30kn of thrust was amazing back when it had that much not to mention better ISP). Only medium rail-cannons will stay as is (2 seps and a long ibeam, since there is no 0.6m engine powerful enough to beat 2 seps and even with 2 seps the acceleration isnt exactly great).

Also, apparently spamming RCS thrusters also adds to lag, a single engine is better then multiple RCS engines in terms of lag (although im still gonna keep some KDrone-Ms as they are really really good if you have good aim). Time to redo the weapons on all my ships, less engines means i can bring more weapons in even with a higher part count (300 parts with half the engines is way less laggy then even 250 parts with alot of engines).

Ohh and now i avoid ion engines like the plague, i had a ship with ~200 parts, 100 of them being ion engines, and with this new realization, i think i know why it lagged so bloody badly (couldnt explain why my craft that had excessive ion engine numbers were so bloody laggy compared to other higher part count ships). More then one engine for redundancy is a must, but 100 engines is an instant guaranteed lagfest even if you make the whole ship low on parts total.

Now, i need to do some research, do struts add as much lag as say another part? DO fuel lines cause lag? Does having large numbers of fuel tanks cause lag? Im guessing that it may be parts that have to use fuel/produce thrust that mostly add to the lagginess, but i have to actually test this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
8bitgammers

8bitgammers

Posted
Posted
You need to upgrade ur resolution of screenies (when u take screenshots just up ur settings a bit, even if it gets laggier). Aside from that, not bad, although (provided what i see is the only ship core), its very vulnurable as MK-3 hull, while great mid-range armor, is not going to work against any accuract hits (if the mk3 cargo bay is the actual skeleton, i bet i could kill that with a FK-100 micro-fighter using a SINGLE one of its micro-railguns, and i always have a 2nd shot if needed). Looks pretty nice, but i doubt itll hold up to actual enemy fire (unless there is some hidden spine that i cant see in the screenie made of 80m/s parts).

my video explains how i've constructed the cruiser with a 80m/s spine, and that i have made all the components independent of each other: Front control, Missile bay, fuel + engines.

each attached to a 80m/s structural panel which is connected to the spine. this ensures that the entire destruction of, say, the front cockpit will not effect the

structural integrity of the entire vessel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Alphasus

Alphasus

Posted
Posted
my video explains how i've constructed the cruiser with a 80m/s spine, and that i have made all the components independent of each other: Front control, Missile bay, fuel + engines.

each attached to a 80m/s structural panel which is connected to the spine. this ensures that the entire destruction of, say, the front cockpit will not effect the

structural integrity of the entire vessel.

May I damage test it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zamovinar

Zamovinar

Posted
Posted

Huzzah! I think I have found my new direction in KSP, it's not about how big you make it but what you do with the parts that triggers your imagination.

I used to make large space colonies that lag but I thought hey why don't I fake it to look like it's big? I might use these as setting for a certain game.

(Now all it needs is some sort of subtitle at the bottom where is located, the one you see in the movies where the location get's typed in, green text mostly)

K-Tech now has a subsidiary called Kraken Konstruction. Y'all have your space battles for now. I'll make this a thing, as a setting why the space battles happen in the first place.

Refinery on the Mun

yaEOIbF.png

gxRRtda.png

kKq9Gj9.png

yit5a6x.png

Population Center on the Mun

MmC7jxe.png

JJimC7c.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites
panzer1b

panzer1b

Posted
Posted
Huzzah! I think I have found my new direction in KSP, it's not about how big you make it but what you do with the parts that triggers your imagination.

I used to make large space colonies that lag but I thought hey why don't I fake it to look like it's big? I might use these as setting for a certain game.

(Now all it needs is some sort of subtitle at the bottom where is located, the one you see in the movies where the location get's typed in, green text mostly)

K-Tech now has a subsidiary called Kraken Konstruction. Y'all have your space battles for now. I'll make this a thing, as a setting why the space battles happen in the first place.

Refinery on the Mun

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

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

http://i.imgur.com/kKq9Gj9.png

http://i.imgur.com/yit5a6x.png

Population Center on the Mun

http://i.imgur.com/MmC7jxe.png

http://i.imgur.com/JJimC7c.png

Interesting to say the least, the whole desig stuff to look extremely cool is something ive kinda lost the knack for since well, i started caring about part counts and efficience (simplicity has its own beauty, but i have to say more part open up more options).

Im really hoping that 1.1 opens the door to somewhat less conservative craft, and even moreso, less conservative bases (my current bunkers look like utter crap since im trying to cut down parts and alot of those parts go into mandatory missiles).

Anyways:

YL0naaa.png

I think i have the longest range heavy fighter (without ions which ive just about given up 100% on) around, 5.3K bloody dV, makes it able to get to laythe, and explore half the planet before coming home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
panzer1b

panzer1b

Posted
Posted
Must have broke out some serious tank clipping with that.

Yes, sadly it has very bad armor (and tends to explode when hit by anything thats ibeam+2 seps or larger), but i designed it as a stealth strike fighter, intended to operate behind enemy lines and hit lone targets before they can react. At least thats the idea, and sofar its worked (and its even quite hard to kill via ant torps (oscar+ant engine+docking ports), or nose cone+oscar+48-7s style missiles. Yes even those can kill it with a very lucky shot to the hangar bay (is something gets in there its game over every time, but its rare). All in all, its got not the worst armor considering the sheer clipping it has (there are 30 or so FLT-100s in the hangar bay along with 2 missiles, i couldnt get any other fuel tank to fit while leaving room for 2 missiles in the bomb bay).

That said, its gotta be the smallest armed SSTL ive come across, considering the incredible dV it gets (ive managed to get 4670 dV in orbit left with my best try), and the fact that its a sleek stealthy hull (like most stealth jets, no extrernal weapons), im very happy with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
panzer1b

panzer1b

Posted
Posted (edited)
The NX-1 (shown above)? Right around 100 with a full ammo load. I've got other ships though, but the NX-1's my most advanced to date.

Id actually be glad to fight your NX once i actually finish my frigate (that i keep redesigning as every time something about it pisses me off and i blow it up, then make a new one). None of my current ships would stand a chance as neither well armored nor great firepower, and ~60 tons, kinda designed my latest good one, the SK-CRV-I as a anti-fighter craft, lots of weak crap, although i guess i could always blow up ur engines unless u use ions clipped inside very hard armor plating.

If you wnat a more for-fun battle with slightly lesser ships (or perhaps giving me numerical superiority or something since a 60t ship cant really fight the NX head on), im all for it, but if you want serious ultra competitive game, then give me a day or two to finish at least my Sk-CRV-IIIg4, which is FAR better then the old one (which had a rather successful career imo when it was my main warship).

Ohh, and no more the 600 parts, id prefer 500 as a cap, but i understand if you go over it a little bit. My ships are now at a max ~300 (as in ill only go over by like 2-3 or so over 300 f absolutely needed, but no more) as i like fleets loaded up at once.

Finally, a bit offtopic, i strongly reccomend you update ur ASMs, those decoupler thinguies were nerfed recently, they still work, but they are nolonger 999 impact, its actually less then a ibeam now.

I also need new ordinance, all my weapons are starting to get outdated, my only good remaining weapons is heavier and more complex then id like it to be (the Tripedo-S), and most of my smaller 0.6m systems just suck against capitals.

Edited by panzer1b
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ScriptKitt3h

ScriptKitt3h

Posted
Posted
I really need to make lighter ships. My 240T beast is my most advanced ship.

I once or twice made ships with over 200t or so in mass... they didn't meet the aesthetic or practical goals I had set for them.

Just over 100 tons seems to be the sweet spot for my medium-heavy vessels, and 35-75 for anything less that's not a fighter or singleship.

- - - Updated - - -

I hope you know, once I fix my KSP up, I'm reverse engineering that thing. It's too pretty for it's own good...

The NX-series (that's right, SERIES) of ships are all based around that same principle of practical aesthetics.

I will say that the most advanced part of the NX-1 (and thus later models)'s design is the prow of the ship and the VLS missile cells. I hope to improve on the cells in the NX-2, adding in extra armor in that area to deflect excess thrust on missile launch and to help sandbox the core systems even more so than on the NX-1. The NX-2's gonna be essentially a larger, beefier NX-1, while the NX-3's gonna be a fighter-style singleship with a nice missile load and ion-nuclear hybrid propulsion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Spearka

Spearka

Posted
Posted

I know I promised myself that I wouldn't do these things again but... in the middle of the night, I ended up opening the Griselbrand II file trying once more to try and make it a functional ship; I ended up fixing the clipping issues at the expense of reducing the Delta-V to 1.4km/s, I've stuck on some detachable tanks to try and prolong its DV.

I don't know if it performs well and I still don't care, I'm just going to leave the dropbox link and be off, I seriously cannot be bothered to add a picture

Link to comment
Share on other sites
8bitgammers

8bitgammers

Posted
Posted
May I damage test it?

yes you may

Cruiser 1

IMPROVED IMAGE QUALITY:

aDWpX6z.png

NJMhSdX.png

Parts: 388

Weapons: 6 I-beam torpedoes, 4 Guided armor piercing missiles

Mass: 240.38 t

Craft file:

http://www./download/4z6d2m7silke6pt/Crusier+1.craft

- - - Updated - - -

Anyone wish to battle? (Be warned, I don't build for partcount efficiency too often)

http://i.imgur.com/FTyYND0.png

i would be interested.

we could each use our main large ships. ( you, your NX-1, and i my cruiser)

with three accompanying fighters?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ScriptKitt3h

ScriptKitt3h

Posted
Posted

I'm a madman...

GVmJ055.png

The soon to be fully prototyped NX-2 is a drastic upgrade from its sister ship (much how a cruiser is outclassed by a proper battleship or battlecruiser).

Upgrades compared to the NX-1:

-More fuel, and 4 engines over 2.

-Better, improved armor and internal bulkheads.

-Room for up to a whopping 12 re-loadable 1.25 missiles or cargo pods in the twin VLS bays mounted in the top and bottom of the center hull.

-A strong, high-redundancy power system to help prevent loss of power due to significant localized damage to one section of hull.

-Marvelous aesthetics.

-MU-patented "LagShield" defensive force field capable of melting the nav computers of hostile vessels. :P

-*Not installed in pic* Room for 8 kerbal crew, same as the NX-1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...