Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Starsector 0.97a is out! (02/02/24); New blog post: Simulator Enhancements (03/13/24)

Pages: 1 2 3 [4]

Author Topic: realism  (Read 4155 times)

Igncom1

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1496
    • View Profile
Re: realism
« Reply #45 on: September 15, 2022, 12:00:57 PM »

Why choose between a smart missile and a fighter when you can just have Ludds finest pilot torpedoes directly into the enemy!
Logged
Sunders are the best ship in the game.

Goumindong

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1886
    • View Profile
Re: realism
« Reply #46 on: September 15, 2022, 05:07:18 PM »


Errr you seem to have ignored/misunderstood my whole point there. The drones I'm talking about never attack an enemy major combatant/ship, nor do they want to, or even get close to them: they want to make the space between major combatants a more difficult place for the real weapons (missiles of some sort/terminal guidance projectiles) to exist in, either by wasting their fuel with evasive actions or preemptively locating and shooting them down. They don't need lots of dV to do that: just enough to loiter and keep up with the main ship maneuvers. With lasers being so short ranged (in space combat terms) and potential missile warheads like bomb pulsed xray lasers having quite a long range itself while not needing to worry about heat issues (as its 1 use/exploding), having active interdiction drones seems like a good idea! Not to mention all the other uses I pointed out.

This has the same problem that fighters do though. It "keeping up with the ships maneuvers" isn't actually minimal dV. (indeed its at minimum the same as your main ship, which is going to be maximizing dV). Any energy you're wasting deploying "not weapons" is dV you're taking away from your main ship because its fuel that it cannot consume. Or dV you're taking away from your weapons because its fuel they cannot consume.

That doesn't mean you may not attempt to intercept missiles with your own. But its all just missiles then.

[/quote]
Point 1 has a serious problem: heat. The practicality of cooling a ship goes down sharply as its size increases, especially if that ship is doing things that are hot like firing weapons and riding giant plumes of fire.
[/quote]

I don't think this is actually an issue. Your cooling apparatus does not need to be constrained to the form factor of your ship. You can heat water up really high and then vent the steam as an example. This doesn't make you stealthy, but you aren't stealthy anyway. While your actual form factor is functionally limited by square/cube law your venting apparatus can actually be linear in mass to surface area because the relevant value is the amount of space between radiators. Which is linear to the volume of the ship which is linear to the mass of the ship.

Quote
In terms of defense, surface area/volume ratio only matters if armor matters, which is highly dependent on how future technology develops, but it honestly isn't looking good for armor. Heavy armor is already obsolete in modern warfare when it comes to naval engagements; whether the analogy holds in space warfare is an open question depending on tech. I suspect yes: it is far easier to scale up a missile to penetrate a given amount of armor than it is to scale up armor, to the point where without some revolution in materials science I don't see how armor can compete. There might be some balance of light armor vs "shotgun" style weapons I'll admit.

This is neither true today nor would it ever be functionally true. The main reason for this is that armor always forces a response. Yes anti-tank weapons are good at cracking tanks. But tanks are still very valuable on the battlefield. Because bullets are not good against tanks. Being immune to certain classes of weapons is exceedingly valuable. Forcing your enemy to have a certain size of warhead in order to penetrate your armor is valuable. (bigger warheads means they need larger missiles to hit you which means they have fewer attacks)

And its going to be exceptionally valuable if bomb pumped lasers are a thing because they cannot have specific penetrating conditions. So any amount of armor reduces the final damage that the weapon does to its target.

Plus, in space there is no such thing as a "non shotgun weapon". Any weapon you want to fire at an enemy must account for the fact of where it can be by the time that weapon arrives. Even a weapon that tracks functionally has this problem (as its effective range is reduced every time it has to course correct to deal with any change in vector of its target)

Quote
Cross sectional area matters somewhat and in that case a larger ship has an advantage in terms of amount of equipment brought to bear vs exposed size. However, that in turn depends a lot on the guidance/accuracy of weapons. For unguided projectiles its critical; for missiles and terminal guidance projectiles? A lot less critical, depending on the ratio of weapon maneuverability vs ship maneuverability (which is heavily in favor of the weapon). I think that active countermeasures and ECM/spoofing are going to matter a lot more than putting the nose to the enemy.

Cross sectional area also matters in drive efficiency. Radial acceleration also applies to anything off axis when the main drive fires. You can reduce this by adding arches. But only so much.

And cross sectional area also means that you can angle armor. Which will be extremely valuable against all sorts of weapons. There is, additionally, very little loss in this. You lose nothing by minimizing your cross sectional area. And even if you DO want to have a broadside alignment a tube minimizes your cross-sectional area to as many attack vectors as possible while still maintaining at least a semi-optimal armor alignment.

This matters even more as weapons become guided because a low cross sectional area is necessary to produce armor angling against guided weapons. A high cross sectional area is trivially bad.

Quote
Point 2 is accurate! But at the same time, the most efficient and strongest shape for rotating quickly would be a sphere.

In terms of mass optimization yes. But not by a lot. And it comes with a lot of other disadvantages. The inability to angle armor(anything that hits center mass hits armor in an efficient penetrating and damaging fashion). Inefficient allocation of armored area (the larger your cross sectional area that you're pointing towards the enemy the more armor you need to take/the less armor that you can effectively use). Structural difficulties under acceleration. Pointless space allocations. (like, you can maybe argue for the convex forward facing area but why not make the back half concave? Or straight? You would save mass, have a more protected section that saves armor, you don't gain any cross sectional area. You could actually use that space for things like venting

[/quote]weapon maneuverability vs ship maneuverability (which is heavily in favor of the weapon)[/quote]

I am not sure that this is terribly true either. It may be in the immediate term but not necessarily over the life of the weapon. The reason its true in the short term is because the maneuvering limits for ships relate to their ability to rotate and their inability to accelerate at G's that would pulp their passengers. But not necessarily the overall net dV. If your missile has a day of travel time it doesn't matter as much that the ship accelerates slower than it in the immediate term if the missile can only burn for 2 hours of that day and the ship can burn for 24
Logged

z0orb

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: realism
« Reply #47 on: September 21, 2022, 09:49:35 PM »

While yes the crews only get paid 10 Credits (Say 1 credit is 100 USD) That means they get paid 1000 USD each month. That's still low, but consider this: A Hammerhead cost ~55k. Thats 5.500.000 USD. A supply crate costs ~100 credits which is 10.000 USD. a liter/gallon of fuel costs ~24. That's 2.400 USD. Point is, the 47k is COMPANY FUNDS where you have to distribute it between you, officers, your ships, logistics, fuel, and weaponry & modules refit. The Crews get to eat food, receive fresh clothing everyday, safety inside warships, free trips to wherever colonies and planets the admiral goes, and all they have to do is work on ship duties. For 1000 a month. That's good enough. Also keep in mind that planetary supplies and fleet supplies are different, what makes ship supplies super expensive is components, and space-worthy equipments and processed space MRE's. If it were regular planetary meals it would've costed around .001 credits or 1 dollar, or for clothing 0.5 credits, or 50 dollars. It makes sense.
Logged

KikogamerJ2

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 27
  • CEO Of Crespillo Corp.
    • View Profile
Re: realism
« Reply #48 on: September 22, 2022, 09:45:57 AM »

While yes the crews only get paid 10 Credits (Say 1 credit is 100 USD) That means they get paid 1000 USD each month. That's still low, but consider this: A Hammerhead cost ~55k. Thats 5.500.000 USD. A supply crate costs ~100 credits which is 10.000 USD. a liter/gallon of fuel costs ~24. That's 2.400 USD. Point is, the 47k is COMPANY FUNDS where you have to distribute it between you, officers, your ships, logistics, fuel, and weaponry & modules refit. The Crews get to eat food, receive fresh clothing everyday, safety inside warships, free trips to wherever colonies and planets the admiral goes, and all they have to do is work on ship duties. For 1000 a month. That's good enough. Also keep in mind that planetary supplies and fleet supplies are different, what makes ship supplies super expensive is components, and space-worthy equipments and processed space MRE's. If it were regular planetary meals it would've costed around .001 credits or 1 dollar, or for clothing 0.5 credits, or 50 dollars. It makes sense.
a crewman makes 10 credits a month, a officer makes 3k a month, also price for goods are abstract yk the 1x10 stuff in colonies makes it a bit complicated, also free trip? when did any of your crewmen ever abandon your ship after landing in a colony? never because you didnt pay for the upfront fee. marines put their life on often suicidal missions, they get paied 20 credits a month. if 20 credits a moneth is considered good enought to put yourself in life danger situations, then people in the sector have extreme horriable lives, where the rich keep getting rich, and the poor keep getting dirt poor
Logged

Thogapotomus

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
Re: realism
« Reply #49 on: September 22, 2022, 02:11:18 PM »

If anyone has an interest in near future realistic space combat, "Children of a Dead Earth" would be right up your alley. It's on steam and is pretty neat. It deals with a lot of the topics being discussed in this thread.
Logged

Histidine

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4661
    • View Profile
    • GitHub profile
Re: realism
« Reply #50 on: September 22, 2022, 07:11:43 PM »

Is there an actual complaint here beyond "massive income inequality and concentration of wealth in private ownership is unrealistic"
Logged

Kwbr

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 128
    • View Profile
Re: realism
« Reply #51 on: September 22, 2022, 07:19:10 PM »

Is there an actual complaint here beyond "massive income inequality and concentration of wealth in private ownership is unrealistic"
lord if only that were true
Logged

intrinsic_parity

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3071
    • View Profile
Re: realism
« Reply #52 on: September 22, 2022, 09:29:48 PM »

I always laugh when people start arguing about the realism of starsector in terms of energy/propulsion. This is a universe where the energy generation and propulsion technology exists such that a massive ship can cross an entire solar system in a matter of days or weeks... without using a noticeable amount of antimatter fuel. The implication of that fact is that the engine technology has such absurdly high specific impulse that the rocket equation is basically trivialized.

It's just so far outside the realm of our current technology.
Logged

KikogamerJ2

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 27
  • CEO Of Crespillo Corp.
    • View Profile
Re: realism
« Reply #53 on: September 23, 2022, 01:50:45 AM »

Is there an actual complaint here beyond "massive income inequality and concentration of wealth in private ownership is unrealistic"
we are less arguing about weather or not this is realistic and more on, the *** life of living in the sector and probably the domain
Logged

CapnHector

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1056
    • View Profile
Re: realism
« Reply #54 on: September 23, 2022, 04:24:42 AM »

Well, let's say a ship has 100 crew and 1 level 1 officer. The crew earn 10 credits / month and the officer earns 500 credits / month. The officer earns 1/3 of the income of the ship, so the gini coefficient for the ship is roughly 1/3. So this is actually much more equitable than most modern Earth countries. Even if the officer makes 3000 credits / month, the gini coefficient would be roughly 3/4, so not that much worse than modern South Africa. I imagine if you were to calculate these ratios for modern corporations rather than countries you would end up with much worse numbers.

Of course this is saying nothing of the corporate executives, black marketers and such who will casually pay somebody 500 years worth of crew wages just to spite a rival or make a delivery etc. Planetside, capitalism is obviously completely rampant in the sector. The Black Market is so bad that anybody can buy a capital ship. In our world, at least for the time being, nuclear armed aircraft carriers staffed by PMCs are not for sale for cash on the black market. And of course, all the factions employ mercenaries and killing the opposition pays much more than you could ever earn through honest work. Very hypocritical that the Lion of Sindria gets such a bad rap for supposedly harsh civil law and bad working conditions, for all we know he might be just what the sector needs.
Logged
5 ships vs 5 Ordos: Executor · Invictus · Paragon · Astral · Legion · Onslaught · Odyssey | Video LibraryHiruma Kai's Challenge

Retry

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 420
    • View Profile
Re: realism
« Reply #55 on: September 23, 2022, 09:53:25 PM »

Is there an actual complaint here beyond "massive income inequality and concentration of wealth in private ownership is unrealistic"
we are less arguing about weather or not this is realistic and more on, the *** life of living in the sector and probably the domain
That's literally just canon, though?

Quote
The Domain of Man is no more. Their countless fleets and innumerable armies have been shattered and lost. The comforts of their civilization are a distant memory. Cut off from the Star Gate network and scattered in isolated pockets throughout the galaxy, humanity is trying to recover from the great Collapse.
Doesn't quite give off the feel of a Star Trek style post-scarcity utopia, eh?


In any case, while we've had a few people give rough guesses on the effective purchasing power of a credit (personally I think Ruddygreat's estimate of 1 Credit ~ $1000 is a good starting point), I don't believe you have yet.
Logged

CapnHector

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1056
    • View Profile
Re: realism
« Reply #56 on: September 24, 2022, 12:55:36 AM »

Food seems to be produced the same way in the sector as it is in our world, that is, on farmland. No replicators or such. Also, food is not extremely plentiful nor extremely scarce, since there are occasional but not frequent food supply crises. People also seem to eat food like we do.

Let's therefore assume the ratio of crew wages to food prices is constant between our world and the sector. Apparently, an average person on Earth consumes approximately 1.85 kilograms of food per day. A crew member makes 10 credits per month. Food costs 20 credits per unit. An average person in America spends approximately 10% of their income on food. Let's assume this is the same in the sector. So a crew member spends 1 credit per month on food. Therefore, 1 unit of food is enough to feed a crew member for 20 months. Therefore 1 unit of food is equal to 1110 kilograms. Let's round that to 1000 kilograms. Now the food is apparently a lot of different products packaged, and inclusive of distributions costs. Let's say the price per kg is equivalent to Doritos 3D Crunch Chili Cheese Nacho Flavored Corn Snacks though, which are 66.3 ¢/oz at Walmart. So 1000 kilograms of these would cost about $23400.

20 credits is equivalent to $23400, so 1 credit is equal to $1170.
Logged
5 ships vs 5 Ordos: Executor · Invictus · Paragon · Astral · Legion · Onslaught · Odyssey | Video LibraryHiruma Kai's Challenge
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]