Class 4 weapons

aws357 · Sep 14, 2015

While still speaking about realism, the recoil and the reaction of the target to the round, I might mention that the round in itself is too small in comparison to really push a big ship over great distances (tumbling comically).

If per chance it was to hit a sidewinder, perhaps. Although it would probably blow it to smithereens before even sending anything tumble...

It's like saying a bullet should send an adult human flying (it does not). Even if sent a great velocity like the rail gun, it would pierce the target instead of transferring all the energy to the target.

Unless the round is designed to shroom inside a ship, which would be awesome for internal damages...

But ED lacks love in the round department. It is still mostly pew...

Snarfbuckle · Sep 14, 2015

aws357 said:
While still speaking about realism, the recoil and the reaction of the target to the round, I might mention that the round in itself is too small in comparison to really push a big ship over great distances (tumbling comically).

If per chance it was to hit a sidewinder, perhaps. Although it would probably blow it to smithereens before even sending anything tumble...

It's like saying a bullet should send an adult human flying (it does not). Even if sent a great velocity like the rail gun, it would pierce the target instead of transferring all the energy to the target.

A bullet will not send a person tumbling and neither will a shotgun slug to the chest.

But a person wearing body armour and is hit by a shotgun slug to the chest will have all the kinetic energy in the bullet transferred over to his upper body instead of THROUGH his body.

It would also depend on the angle of the shot, a hit on a cobras left wing might put it into a temporary spin the pilot has to counter so we are not talking about uncontrolled spin but rather an involuntary turn or twist of the hull.

xondk · Sep 14, 2015

aws357 said:
Care to check?

Sounds pretty close, though that said without air resistance they would travel significantly faster.

aws357 · Sep 14, 2015

xondk said:
Sounds pretty close, though that said without air resistance they would travel significantly faster.

Closer to the theory (where everything is done in vacuum

) rather than faster... Let's not anger physicists. You don't want to see them angry...

PS : after mulling it over (several hours later

), you might be right... No air resistance to slow the round in the barrel might means higher initial velocity...

The Rifter · Sep 14, 2015

The A4 Plasma Accelerator is boss if u can deal with it.

Arithon · Sep 14, 2015

I don't know why we don't have Class three multi-cannons. Balance would be easy to achieve by reducing ammo. Bigger gun, but less ammo.

Ditto for Class 4 Beams and Multi-cannons and lasers - just make them fixed, which (aside from a lucky shot) would make them a big-ship-to-big-ship-only weapon, since any small ship can dance out of shot.

This gives small ships a fighting chance but opens the gates for super-battles between large ships.

aws357 · Sep 14, 2015

Arithon said:
I don't know why we don't have Class three multi-cannons. Balance would be easy to achieve by reducing ammo. Bigger gun, but less ammo.

Ditto for Class 4 Beams and Multi-cannons and lasers - just make them fixed, which (aside from a lucky shot) would make them a big-ship-to-big-ship-only weapon, since any small ship can dance out of shot.

This gives small ships a fighting chance but opens the gates for super-battles between large ships.

They could also balance by making the large auto cannon generate more heat... why always less ammo... -_-'

Snarfbuckle · Sep 14, 2015

aws357 said:
They could also balance by making the large auto cannon generate more heat... why always less ammo... -_-'

-More heat
-Greater weight
-Greater energy demand
-More Expensive Ammo
-Longer Reload
-Smaller magazines
-Greater spread
-Slower ROF
-Burst Fire

Hell, just gives the Auto-Cannon burst-Fire weapon that bridges the gap between cannon and multi-cannon.

After all, we have PULSE and BEAM with the BURST in between. Hmm...nice rhyme.

ROSS-128 · Sep 14, 2015

Or they could just make it so cannons compare more favorably to a same-class multicannon, so which one to take is a harder choice.

aws357 · Sep 14, 2015

Snarfbuckle said:
-More heat
-Greater weight
-Greater energy demand
-More Expensive Ammo
-Longer Reload
-Smaller magazines
-Greater spread
-Slower ROF
-Burst Fire

Hell, just gives the Auto-Cannon burst-Fire weapon that bridges the gap between cannon and multi-cannon.

After all, we have PULSE and BEAM with the BURST in between. Hmm...nice rhyme.

As long as there is more dakka to balance the pew, anything goes.

And make it so that it shakes the whole bridge when fired... (going so far as lowering hull integrity for the largest guns... 1% every 100 shots or so...)

Quineloe · Sep 14, 2015

If I had the choice between a huge mining laser and any other huge laser, I know what I would take.

Srsly, while I haven't used the huge cannons yet, from what I understand their v0 is just too poor to actually use them

Snarfbuckle · Sep 14, 2015

aws357 said:
As long as there is more dakka to balance the pew, anything goes.

And make it so that it shakes the whole bridge when fired... (going so far as lowering hull integrity for the largest guns... 1% every 100 shots or so...)

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7_Iowa_pic.jpg

Im ok with multiple barrels that are not gatling designs too.

AdriánGuth · Sep 14, 2015

Realism tell me that shoot a C4 cannon in flight assist off should be hilarius

NavyBee · Sep 14, 2015

aws357 said:
Anyway. Based on the muzzle velocity alone what sort of delay should we expect for a 280mm gun?

How long would it take to reach a target 3km away in game with that sort of speed? 5 seconds.

1km away : 1.8 seconds

0.5km : 0.9 seconds

I went in this thinking the rounds where too slow, but maybe FD is closer to home than I thought...

Care to check?

Does FD say anything about the Cannons, or has anyone already measured projectile velocity over distance?
Judging from cannon calibre in relation to ship mass and ship flight behavior which does not show any automated thruster compensation I always assumed Cannons in ED are the equivalent of today's recoilless guns, which have significantly lower muzzle velocities.

Lazerus Artificial · Sep 14, 2015

NavyBee said:
Does FD say anything about the Cannons, or has anyone already measured projectile velocity over distance?
Judging from cannon calibre in relation to ship mass and ship flight behavior which does not show any automated thruster compensation I always assumed Cannons in ED are the equivalent of today's recoilless guns, which have significantly lower muzzle velocities.

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=137104

djamila said:
Since everyone seems to be so in favor of the class 4 cannon compared to the plasma accelerator I did some tests to get hard evidence that my gut feeling indeed wasn't wrong (meaning is that PA is WAY better).

To test I lined up my FDL exactly 1000m from a nav beacon and did several shots with both weapons.

Cannon has an average measured projectile flight time of 2,695s which results in an estimated speed of 371,05m/s if timed with 1000m.
Plasma Accelerator has an average measured projectile flight time of 1,67s which results in an estimated speed of 596,81m/s if timed with 1000m.

This means the PA is approx. 1s faster over 1000m than the cannon.

Fun facts:
I did not really look at the damage of the cannon, but it took 4 shots to take out the nav beacon from 1000m. I believe the nav beacon had between 5% and 10% health left after 3 shots. The PA did 53% damage with every shot from 1000m, requiring only 2 shots to kill a nav beacon. This means that the PA is doing roughly twice the damage of the cannon, to a nav beacon anyway. ;-)

Result:
I'll keep the PA. ;-)

Mephane · Sep 14, 2015

I want class 4 lasers, all three kinds pulse/burst/beam and modes fixed/gimballed/turret.

Snarfbuckle · Sep 14, 2015

LazerusKI said:
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=137104

That projectile velocity is so slow it's stupid.

Let's say 370 meters per second.

That's 22 200 meters per minute and 1 332 000 per hour or 1332 kilometers per hour.

That means that an F-18 of the US Navy TODAY has a maximum speed (without afterburn) that is at 1915 km/h.

Or 44% FASTER than a PROJECTILE in a weapon 900 years from now.

While an F18 is still faster than a tank projectile of a modern battle tank I really think the muzzle velocity should be MORE than HALF of a modern tank and at least catch up with a 900 year old atmospheric craft.

aws357 · Sep 14, 2015

LazerusKI said:
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=137104

Thanks for the link. Interesting infos indeed.

SkyRex · Sep 14, 2015

What I would like is a Big Class 4 Railgun! Even if its fixed and takes a time to load I would just fit it because I like the Firing animation of them. Having a big one , imagine: aiming,aiming,aiming... fire... chaaaarge..........KAAAWOOUUMPF

jonny taco · Sep 14, 2015

Snarfbuckle said:
While an F18 is still faster than a tank projectile of a modern battle tank I really think the muzzle velocity should be MORE than HALF of a modern tank and at least catch up with a 900 year old atmospheric craft.

f18 tops out at roughly 1750 fps. A sabot round from a modern L44 120mm does over 5,000 fps, 5,500 fps has been topped from euro l55 guns as well (that's almost mach 5). Even the lower velocity heat rounds are fired at over twice the velocity of a full burner f-18 at 40,000 ft. F-18 is is one of the slower fighters btw.

Imo, any chemical energy weapon firing projectiles at sub 1,000 m/s is a bit silly in a space game. IF other values of the weapons must be addressed to make such velocities on larger cannons "balanced" so be it. What we're shooting atm are comparable to medium velocity grenades and it's just too darn silly.