i would like to help with some graphics for the equipement

[ergo]

this here can be some kind of magnetic particle accelerator, rail gun

[chuck_starchaser]

WOW! Magnetic railguns don't look at all like that; but it's gorgeous, whatever it is.

[ergo]

WOW! Magnetic railguns don't look at all like that; but it's gorgeous, whatever it is.

well i've never seen any and didnt had time to google for it
anyone knows when will jacks be avilable to decide if we can include it to the game and what is it anyway

[loki1950]

it could be a ship

Enjoy the Choice

[ergo]

not really its meant to be a powerful canon ( stabilizers connected to the chassis ), shielded barrel, etc

[Halleck]

Wow, these look gorgeous!

If you want that to look more like a real railgun, just remove the "barrel", flatten out the things on the sides, and bolt them together.

Here is a picture of my freind's railgun (the copper thing):

[chuck_starchaser]

Instructions for googling:
Go to google.com
Type "railgun"
Press Enter
Click on "Images"
Voila!:
http://images.google.ca/images?hl=en&q= ... a=N&tab=wi

[ergo]

ok ok, i get the point , tommorow i will make a railgun ok ? but there is no railgun in VS :/

[chuck_starchaser]

Don't take it the wrong way; I like your stuff.

There may be a good reason why there's no railgun in VS, but this is just speculation: Question is, what's the advantage of railguns over chemical propellant shells (regular guns)? Well, I'd have to google and now I can't; I'm in a hurry to go, atm; but I would think magnetic acceleration gives you a more constant acceleration, therefore more efficiency, and the energy source is almost inexhaustible if you have nuclear power generation; though the lugs are exhaustible... Also, there's less of a theoretical limit for acceleration; merely proportional to the current. But actually, there IS a limit to current, which relates to the fact that current must flow across the lug, which means that the lug and the rail surfaces must make contact. But too much current would tend to spot-weld them together. So, there IS a catch. And no matter what technological solution we might come up with, will only push that current limitation further out, but won't get rid of it.

EDIT: (Continuing...)

All of which means, that railguns will always tend to be "as long as possible", to achieve maximum velocity with the least acceleration (current). Which means that a railgun would probably be built into a hull, along the line of greatest length; perhaps protruding out. Its reload rate would be measured in minutes, probably; its consumption at the moment of firing is astronomical, so more space would be taken by capacitors, than by the gun itself. All of which points out to that a railgun would be a capship weapon, a stand-off weapon, that could take another capship out with a single shot from beyond radar range. But there's only one type of capship that is specifically designed to fight other capships, officially a "cruiser".

Well a carrier too, indirectly; but a carrier's official mission is to "carry", which means "all purpose", which probably would preclude them having something as mission-type specific as a large stand-off weapon. Also a "battlecruiser". No, not quite... Battlecruisers are as large as cruisers, but light and fast and having more weapons than a cruiser, which excludes something as heavy and slow a weapon as a railgun. And definitely NOT a destroyer, which is typically a large ship specialized on fighting against small ships, for fleet defense.

So that leaves only cruisers as being railgun candidates. Does VS have cruisers? Most large ships I remember are carriers. Cruisers should be larger than carriers (though they may carry a small compliment) and be specialized on fighting other capships. I'm not sure.

Hey, maybe you can put a ship on the railgun...

[jackS]

I seem to recall coil guns (aka mass drivers, aka gauss guns, aka asynchronous linear accelerators) having some preferable wear&tear characteristics vs. (vanilla) linear accelerators.

For why one might bother with EM accel:
The key advantage vs. chemical propellant is greater achievable exit velocity. The advantage vs. missiles is lower engagement/lifetime cost of usage (vs. presumably much higher initial investment cost).

Aside:
There are some vessels slated to feature such weapons. Those that do so prominently are indeed capital in nature. There are and will be cruisers (though sometimes called by other monikers) in VS, along with a number of carrier types (many of them actually quite small). However, the bulk of these have not been modeled yet, so the game's current mix of craft is (and has been) rather of a different flavor than one hopes the final dish to have.
(end aside)

Back to the art -

When it's as pretty as that, we'll assuredly find something to do with it (even if it's not a rail-gun, there are other possibilities).

Unless I'm mistaken, your pics that are posted here don't have dimensions that are powers of two, which is rather preferable for the VS engine to display them - other than that, they're stellar.

My personal take on art generation for equipment (vs. normal cargo types) is that, at this point in development, it's more important that there be iconic/symbolic representations for each class/subclass of equipment entities (vs. the blankness that's there now) than that they are immediately discernable as matching a particular item in game both because they then serve an immediate visual purpose (one will quickly know what a named item is similar to) and because the particular items ingame are still subject to significant flux at this point. As such, while this may not be a candidate for "railgun" or perhaps any of the linear accelerator weapons (it's a bit on the short side for that, methinks) it could readily become the poster boy for some subset of the weapons, as it is clearly a weapon.

I wouldn't worry overly about matching models to particular weapons at least until after klauss implements the/a new damage model and the revisiting of many of the weapons that will undoubtedly occur immediately following said.

As far as general design tips for VS compatibility... weapon inefficiency that manifests itself as heat is a royal pain to get rid of in space - one shouldn't bother attempting to dump it all directly from the weapon to space. A heat-transfer system (perhaps with a gallium alloy as the coolant fluid) that can move the waste heat somewhere more specialized for dealing with it seems preferable. As such, a lot of what is seen for a given weapon may actually be the cooling infrastructure, rather than damage dealing elements. But, as mentioned previously, the weapons are all going to get revamped later anyway, so I certainly wouldn't lose sleep over what exactly matches what at this point :-/ On the bright side, this gives you more freedom to play with.

If you post power-of-2 by power-of-2 pics, we'll make sure they get committed and associated with equipment.

[ergo]

ok i'll make 128x128 pics of stuff will try to commit one by one :] i'll post them here so everyone can decide if they'r ok

[chuck_starchaser]

Better make them 512 x 512; originals should be higher rez than the final images shipping with the game.

[Halleck]

Yes, coil/gauss guns are easier to manage than railguns in my experience...

I liked the idea from a while back that a railgun could cannibalize its own rails for use as ammo once they wear out and are replaced...

BTW, the latest turret pack from strangelet includes a railgun turret.

[Shark]

Sounds good... better check that we need a turret first, though.

Too bad Development:3D Models doesn't have a list of turrets.

I just added the list skeletons. However, they're empty.

[prestidigitator]

How's this for an EMP Torpedo? Since a description doesn't seem to be currently available (based on the understanding I have gleaned on game effects from the forums)....

Code: Select all

This projectile is specially designed for disabling circuitry, especially power systems.

During arming, a high-energy electromagnetic field is built up in a high-frequency superconducting oscillator.  At close proximity, circuitry adjusts the phase and times an explosion to disrupt the oscillation for an optimal pulse.  A special dielectric is used to aid in swift field collapse during the explosion.

[chuck_starchaser]

Excellent! You pretty much nailed this one.
5 ways it could be improved to match current emp munition designs:

1) Longer coil.
2) There's a copper cylinder inside the coil (which expands as the explosive wave progresses forward, shorting turns and causing the field to compress before collapsing).
3) Large capacitors at the back end (which discharge through the coil a few milliseconds before the explosive charge is ignited, to produce the initial field). You could split the back cylindrical section into two disks, separate them, and put 5 or 6 cylinders in a cluster between them, to represent them.
4) The engines could be a bit larger and be accompained by a couple of fuel cylinders and some pipes and valves and whatnot.
5) A guidence system at the front. You could mount it on a tripod so it doesn't hide the end of the coil

But even as is, it looks really good, already.

[prestidigitator]

Cool. I'll work on adding some of those.

(Funny thing is, I had the engines bigger initially and then I thought, "Dang, those look huge." )

[Oblivion]

Why not enclose them in armor?

Have two or three images. Two with armor, looking like missiles, as they should. And the foreground one cut open or like that render. Torpedoes (especially one not depending on explosion-upon-impact damage) should at least be a little protected. My opinoin only, of course.

[prestidigitator]

Actually I was already thinking of surrounding it with an elongated ellipsoid for holding a guidence system. It would be comprised of latitudinal struts and (most of the surface) panels taking up each quadrant that can be removed to show the guts.

[chuck_starchaser]

I'd prefer if the coil was kept exposed, as it really gives a look and feel of something electromagnetic. Missiles used in space don't have to be aerodynamic, and therefore don't have to "look like missiles". The concern with protecting it, though, is a valid one. Most missile defense systems in present day are either inertial munitions, frontal impact missiles, or some kind of flak, though. For those ones, a frontal shield (NOT a "force field", I mean a disc of thick, hard metal) should do.

[prestidigitator]

Hmm. I think I can come up with a compromise.

[prestidigitator]

Who's this?

EMP Torpedo, v2:

[prestidigitator]

Hmm. Sorry. Slightly different camera angle. Shows off shape/features a tiny bit more maybe, but loses a little bit of the nice reflection.... I don't know. Take your pick.

[jackS]

pretty, but the warhead vs. thruster size ratio seem a bit skewed - that is, the thrusters seem to be quite secondary, perhaps to the point of merely being post-launch/second stage maneuvering jets rather than a robust propulsion system.

I'm inclined to suggest the nozzles being removed, and the entire assembly simply being the warhead. The full torpedo could then be implied in icon fashion by putting some sort of torpedo symbol into the image. An EMP missile vs. torpedo could then have the same image, but with a different icon, and a different class of torpedo would have the same icon, but different warhead image, etc.

If this doesn't seem prudent, please feel free to disagree with this suggestion, as it is merely the first course of action that comes to mind for me.

[chuck_starchaser]

What I meant was something like...



...with a lot more greebles and pipes and spare guidence
in case the one at the front gets damage, wires, etc...
...though it could be an un-guided torpedo, as JackS says.

If you make it un-guided, a single solid fuel thruster would
suffice. I feel a bit uneasy about a million dollar weapon
being unguided, though... Ooops! Missed. There goes my
life's savings...