Hard Light Productions Forums
General FreeSpace => FreeSpace Discussion => Topic started by: Mars on March 31, 2006, 07:02:38 pm
-
Is anyone familure with the Railgun in the Freespace 1 tables? If so please leave Veteren comments about it on the wiki, http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/index.php/Category:Weapon. The one I left just sounds stupid.
P.S. Is this post in the right place? I didn't think people would see it in the Wiki forum, I wanted a more "General" selection.
-
Is anyone familure with the Railgun in the Freespace 1 tables? If so please leave Veteren comments about it on the wiki, http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/index.php/Category:Weapon. The one I left just sounds stupid.
P.S. Is this post in the right place? I didn't think people would see it in the Wiki forum, I wanted a more "General" selection.
Yes this is in the right place. The "Railgun" was the name they origionally had, for a weapon in FS2, that they later changed. Most all of the FS2 weapon names that we see now, in game, were something different before when they were being developed. The Railgun, was, IIRC, the Subach-HL7. I may be wrong, but you get the general idea.
-
No just glancing at the stats it's very different from the Subach.
-
No no no no no...The railgun was a hidden superweapon type thing introduced in Silent Threat. It was in tables IIRC, but it was commented out.
The fs2 naming thing was different. Subach was the Sidearm.
-
Ah yes, the promo... I'm glad they replaced that woman's voice with the one they did. The way she sounded was like listening to a textbook "...we inherited from the ghosts who haunt these ruins (p.5)..."
-
I may be wrong, but you get the general idea.
I was alittle farther off then i thought. My apologies. Thanks for the corrections, Solatar.
-
Actually so far all of you are wrong.
The Railgun was originally supposed to be the anti-subsystem weapon in Descent: FreeSpace. It has nothing to do with the Subach HL-7 (which came out in FS2). It was a test weapon in the tables that was just never removed. It actually doesn't work very well in the default tables without some work. Alot of early table modifications enabled the weapon for fun's sake but it wasn't all that useful without quite a bit of change. I think they decided the concept of a railgun and the other weapons didn't quite match up so the Disruptor cannon was borne, being quite a bit like the ML-16.
From what I understand, the Railgun was probably the same "vintage" in the development period where the Ulysses was originally a Terran bomber. Lots of things changed during the development of the original game.
-
The ulysses? Dont you mean the apollo?
-
Technically there still is a railgun in fs2.
And that would be the mass accelerator sliding caseless slugs along it's smoothbore barrel.
The maxim :nod:
On another note, why name a weapon that disrupts subsystems after a gun that shoots a bullet at the speed of light?
The maxim on the other hand is not a gun that shoots near the velocity of the speed of light, otherwise you'd literally blows holes through the hulls of anything with one shot.
Now that would be funny stuff, target a subsystem with an actual railgun, and take it out in one shot:p
On a side not, railguns that can achieve the near speed of light velocities, they need a lot of power, like a powerplant.
Actual railguns are sweet :)
-
And yes the sidearm is the subach hl7.
How in the hell would a ulysses survive being a bomber?
Apollo
What is meant by the disruptor cannon being like ml16?
I know you wont get anywhere with trying to kill a ship with a disruptor cannon versus an ml16 barrage :lol:
And an ml16 trying to take out a subsystem doesn't work too well.
-
The disruptor cannon is like the ML-16, but is considerably better than the ML-16.
-
In my knowledge, a rail gun is not an energy weapon, but kinetic.
-
Actually so far all of you are wrong.
The Railgun was originally supposed to be the anti-subsystem weapon in Descent: FreeSpace. It has nothing to do with the Subach HL-7 (which came out in FS2). It was a test weapon in the tables that was just never removed. It actually doesn't work very well in the default tables without some work. Alot of early table modifications enabled the weapon for fun's sake but it wasn't all that useful without quite a bit of change. I think they decided the concept of a railgun and the other weapons didn't quite match up so the Disruptor cannon was borne, being quite a bit like the ML-16.
From what I understand, the Railgun was probably the same "vintage" in the development period where the Ulysses was originally a Terran bomber. Lots of things changed during the development of the original game.
When in doubt, ask the guy who worked with :v: :D
-
Interesting thing about the disruptor and the ml16, i'll have to try the disruptor out a lot more on the port.
As far as :v: and the railgun name for the disruptor, maybe they realized it was dumb after thinking about an actual railgun.
And i also like pointed out that a railgun was kinetic :lol:
-
I've always wondered how the GTW-66 Maxim gun (Wiki does it to you) is by definition an energy weapon when it uses ultra-efficent conventional explosives to accelerate uranium slugs down a smoothbore barrel, which sounds like a high tech conventional gun to me.
-
Because ballistic primaries weren't implemented until some time before FSO v3.0
-
AHA! Direct quote from game time :D
"Reconstruction efforts after the great war inspired advancements in metallurgy and efficient conventional explosives. The two are elegantly combined in the gtw-66 maxim. The maxim is by definition an energy weapon,though it behaves like a high-velocity mass-driver cannon, accelerating uranium slugs along its smoothbore barrel. The maxim has a difficult time penetrating energy-based shields, but it has a devastating effect on hull plating and subsystem armor."
My main gripe about the maxim cannon is the only single thing classifying it as an energy weapon is that it says "The maxim is by definition an energy weapon,".
As far as railgun goes, it says it acts like a mass driver, but it doesn't say it out right.
On another note, "advancements in metallurgy and efficient conventional explosives."
It doesn't say what the efficient explosives are for.
My guess would be that it may use explosives to propel the uranium slug like a standard bullet today.
Though a rifled barrel would be much better than a smoothbore.
As far as the cannon being ragarded as an energy weapon by definition.
Maybe it's the fact that it runs off of your gun energy, and that would seem to be really the only reason, because it doesn't use ammunition, unless people get the enable analog ballistic ammo gauge feature working with scp(like ngtm1r mentioned).
Or if the maxim was a mass driver it'd be using the energy to propel the uranium slugs anyway, but :v: neglected putting in an ammunition meter for the weapon.
If the gun is to be using any energy at all and not have limited ammunition, it'd either have to be a mass accelerator, or a space-age machinegun(what the description points it out more to be than a mass driver), you'd need my least likely idea for why it's an "energy weapon by definition."
If it used a replication matrix(like replicators on star trek) to replicate bullets on demand, which you're gun energy would be powering.
Like i said, that's the least likely idea.
And since fs2 has no beaming transporting devices(like startrek), they're so definitely not able to convert energy into matter with another device :)
:v: should have just plain old included an ammunition gauge or something, i mean, the maxim in many ways is not by definition an energy weapon at all. When the term energy is used, i start thinking electricity. Of course when the gun uses explosives to accelerate the uranium slug, yeah that's energy, but it gets too damn confusing calling a machine gun an energy weapon based on that. Not to mention weird, it'd be wierd as hell refering to an m-16, or a pistol as an energy weapon, if anyone gets what i mean besides referring to lasers and emp's as energy weapons?
-
Back on the original topic, slightly, but by the tech description the maxim does have heavy subsystem damage. :lol:
-
Keep in mind, that to the GTVA "conventianal explosives" may mean "nuclear bombs"
-
The majority of modern tank cannon are smoothbores. (Offhand only the Brits are using rifled cannon anymore. They've never been particularly big on standardizing their guns.) They can attain higher velocities then rifled weapons, and you have all that nice onboard electronic stuff for accuracy. Smoothbore weapons are also much more ameniable to differing types of ammunition. It is much simpler to design a sabot round for a smoothbore then it is for a rifled weapon. I imagine much the same reasoning was applied to the design of the Maxim.
And no, conventional explosives does not mean "nuclear bombs" to the GTVA. You have to remember that though many of the missiles in FS1 certainly had nuclear-level yields, they made a specific point of mentioning the Harbinger was a nuclear weapon. Similarly they make a point of describing the Cyclops as "non-conventional warhead"; what that means is never specifically explained, but it could well be nuke too. So for that matter could be the Helios. It's never actually stated they're antimatter or some other exotic quantum doohickey.
-
...but it could well be nuke too. So for that matter could be the Helios. It's never actually stated they're antimatter or some other exotic quantum doohickey.
Yes it does:
"The GTM-13 Helios is the product of an entire generation of high-energy physics research, based primarily at the GTVA particle accelerator complex near Antares. The most powerful warhead in the fleet's arsenal, the Helios generates a massive shockwave from the cataclysmic annihilation of matter and anti-matter, triggered upon impact with its target. Each bank of Helios warheads can fire only once every 30 seconds. The Helios is prohibitively expensive to produce, thus its deployment is severely restricted."
Not to sound snobbish, or anything, and just as a helpful suggestion, the wiki, and nearly every artical in it is 10 clicks or less away.
Update:
Like I check the Wiki every single time I post :rolleyes:
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,39198.0.html
-
The cylcops is also suggested to have evolved from the tsunami, an antimatter bomb.
Also, i highly doubt a missile about 50cm long could contain an explosive equivalent of 2000 tonnes of TNT
Intelligent tracking similar to GTA targeting system - prior to launch, communicates with ship computer, gathering data about enemy target types and whereabouts - slow, low maneuverability - antimatter warhead (500 tonne3 mass-to-energy conversion) - due to instability of antimatter, no more than 10 may be carried on board a GTA bomber at any given time, unless pilot is granted a special permit by an appropriate governing body.
The GTM-12 Cyclops has been in service for over 15 years in the GTVA arsenal. It is the standard ultra-high-delivery Secondary weapon loadout, utilizing the latest in aspect-seeking guidance technologies. The Cyclops has the distinction of being the most consistently upgraded weapon in the fleet. Although its development began shortly after the Great War ended, its excellent performance has kept it firmly entrenched in the role of main assault weapon. Its payload is approximately fifty percent greater than that of the older Tsunami warheads.
That, and the fact that :v: has said that bomb shockwaves dont do damage to sheilds because the antimatter washes over them.
-
Gah, why cant i delete posts anymore?
-
The cylcops is also suggested to have evolved from the tsunami, an antimatter bomb.
The suggestion does not exist. There is a comparison of relative damage to the last weapon filling that role in service. That does not imply anything...save that the replacement is 50% more powerful, and hence better and a logical replacement. Why it is more powerful is not explained.
Also, i highly doubt a missile about 50cm long could contain an explosive equivalent of 2000 tonnes of TNT
50cm? Don't make me laugh! Remember, your average FS fighter is about the size of a house. The missile is a wee bit bigger then you're giving it credit for. I'd also point out how far FS is in the future, and that the Interceptor was explictly conventional and had a multi-Kt yield.
That, and the fact that :v: has said that bomb shockwaves dont do damage to sheilds because the antimatter washes over them.
That quote was made in reference to the Tsunami. Which, in any case, doesn't actually hold true in the games; the Tsunami annihilates your shields quite effectively.
-
I merely suggested that that may impy a connection, the GTVA obviously has antimatter technology and has used it in antimatter bombs in the past, so why not continue to do so. By itself this is rather unsubstantiationg, but it is stated to be a non conventianal bomb. The GTVA seems to have few other explosives available to it, and it fufiling the same purpose of the tsunami, and the development starting a short time after the tsunamis deployment causes me to strongly lean towards antimatter.
Alright, 3000 tonnes in a 125cm long tube with a radius of 16cm, a volume of 0.1 cubic metres, still far to much for any chemical explosive. If you still doubt me extract the fury model from the game yourself and measure it.
Standard Issue
Fast Target Lock
All-aspect seeking - laser tracking senses energy reflected off a target from the primary weapon systems of the target, increasing single-pass kill probability - medium payload (18.5 Kt) - missile is designed to pierce reinforced hull, thus
securing itself to the target, prior to detonating (15 ms delay).
This is the standard issue fighter-killer in the GTA. Designed to take out fighters with minimum hassle, a simple lock is all that is needed to grab the enemies attention. Short lock time, good speed, and decent payload makes this the best
missile to use against all but the strongest ships. It's effectiveness against large targets, however, is less than a typical laser run, making this primarily a ship to ship missile.
I fail to see where this states it uses chemical explosives.
I'd hardly call 30 sheild damage decimating, ignoring the fat that at normal distances from the balst this will be much less. Other bomb shockwaves seem to behave similarly implying a connection.
-
I'd hardly call 30 sheild damage decimating, ....
My GOD don't let Goober see that!!!
-
The ulysses? Dont you mean the apollo?
Perhaps not. The Ulysses, IIRC, was the first Terran ship made but changed to TV as a result of deciding to go with a different art design.
-
I'd hardly call 30 sheild damage decimating, ....
My GOD don't let Goober see that!!!
Eh?
-
I'd hardly call 30 sheild damage decimating, ....
My GOD don't let Goober see that!!!
Ya rly.
[mathematics inquisition]
Decimating = reducing by one-tenth. So for a shield strength of 300, a shield damage of 30 is decimating.
[/mathematics inquisition]
-
Getting back to an earlier point:
As far as railgun goes, it says it acts like a mass driver, but it doesn't say it out right.
Ah, but a mass drives is not necessarily a railgun. Essentially a mass driver is really just something that magnetically accelerates stuff.
A railgun is a very specific form of mass driver, which has the accelerated object sitting on two rails (hence the name) hooked up to a power supply. It's the current passing through one rail, across the object, and into the other rail that generates the magnetic field to move it forward. Supremely simple in this basic form, and actually something that can (almost) be built on your kitchen table. To achieve any great speeds though the ammunition and rails need to be superconducting and the power supply big enough to run half the united states, so don't expect relativistic speeds from home made experiements :p
Not to be confused with the coilgun (sometimes known as a gauss gun) which is also a mass driver but has nothing to do with a railgun.
-
You dont need superconductors to get very high velocities, though it does help.
I'd hardly call 30 sheild damage decimating, ....
My GOD don't let Goober see that!!!
Ya rly.
[mathematics inquisition]
Decimating = reducing by one-tenth. So for a shield strength of 300, a shield damage of 30 is decimating.
[/mathematics inquisition]
And your point is??
[freespace inquisition]
All shielded, player flown, freespace ships have over 300 max sheilds.
[/freespace inquisition]
-
Well, no, many don't actually... don't forget the Vasudans, or even FS1 ;)
-
The point is that unless something is being reduced by one tenth, it's not decimated! :hopping: :mad:
I'm with Goober on this;
"The Rebel fleet has been decimated!" (as in, "we've destroyed a shed load of 'em!")
"What, they've only lost one ship in ten? Whoopy do." :doubt:
A correct term in that case might be;
"The Rebel fleet has been devastated!"
It's Latin you see, deci = ten, the rest relies on that! ;)
-
Either way, that's a fairly deprecated use of the word, it can be used to mean what i'm saying.
Awfull means awe inspiring, that word has probably been used thousands of times in this form to mean something bad.
-
And your point is??
I was playing off of Nix's post, but from a different angle. He expected me to harp on your grammar and spelling. Instead, I harped on your misuse of the word "decimated". :p
The meaning probably shifted because of the horrific connotation the word implies. Originally, it was used on Roman armies that got out of line. To instill fear and obedience, the commander executed every tenth person.
It's Latin you see, deci = ten, the rest relies on that! ;)
Actually, deci = one-tenth. Deca = ten. :p
-
Yes, i looked it up.
I can notice my grammar isn't perfect in the lat sentance, but it's definitley within the restrictions of normal writing, iIm not making a formal report. "shield" is spelled wrong though.
(How do I do the capitalisation on that last sentance?)
Also, I think "Linguistics Inquisition" would have made more sense and had more tact.
-
YES SHADE. :lol:
Accept that you can use either a coil gun/mass accelerator or a rail gun for the same purpose.
Now, a railgun is a form of a specific mass driver, but it's still a mass driver/mass accelerator, sorry to point that out.
As far as i remember the maxim definition, it said it behaved like a mass driver, but no one could conclude it was one, plus it mentioned the fact of conventional explosives once, also the fact that it had a smoothbore barrel on the maxim, you can't conclude it's a railgun.
There was enough of the definition to speculate whether it was a coilgun or not which is a mass driver/mass accelerator just like a railgun is.
But, it's really not even that, the maxim just appears to be a gun that uses conventional explosives to drive bullets(probably uses caseless bullets at that, or you'd see bullet shells after firing the maxim).
The fact that it's a kinetic weapon in fs2, and it said it behaves like a mass driver was why i thought it was worth mentioning(the fact that it may have been in any way similar to a railgun).
I have built a coilgun before.
The reason i went with a coilgun was because i found it easier to build.
They both use different methods of propelling a slug, but they can achieve the same velocities, and both take advantage of electromagnetic forces for propulsion.
It really wouldn't matter which way you went when building an electromagnetic gun.
Plus i find these two types of guns too related in the fact, that they both do the same thing.
It does not take power from half the US to run these things, it takes usually about the power provided from something the size of about a city block.
Which would like just say, plug a powerplant into it.
The smallest powersource i've read about for a railgun was something the size of a van.
I mean, people are considering putting these things on carriers and stuff, if testing proves the railgun worthy, maintaining the rails on such a gun sounded like ***** though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun
-
The ulysses? Dont you mean the apollo?
No I mean the Ulysses. The Ulysses was the first ship that went from concept art to game model. It was originally a Terran design and a bomber at that. Then things changed a bit in terms of art direction (the Shivans went from green to red as well) and the Ulysses ended up as a hybrid Terran and Vasudan fighter once the art direction was standardized.
For the record I never worked with Volition. I very early on started a fan webste covering the game and belonged to a small group that beta tested the demo version for several weeks prior to its release to the public. We provided some very good feedback to them and they made some great changes prior to the demo going out. That said...the original demo we beta tested was superb and I knew the game was going to be a whole lot of fun right from the start.
-
Accept that you can use either a coil gun/mass accelerator or a rail gun for the same purpose.
They both use different methods of propelling a slug, but they can achieve the same velocities.
It really wouldn't matter which way you went when building an electromagnetic gun.
Certainly, no dispute there. But in the context of discussing whether the Maxim is actually a railgun, and specifically when you use the argument I quoted above, it does matter what a railgun actually is. I agree that it is indeed a mass driver since it accelerates uranium slugs, but it is definitely not a railgun. That's what I was arguing. We know for sure it's not a railgun because railguns don't, indeed can't (they'd conduct current and ruin everything), have barrels ;)
At least unless the barrels are significantly larger than the slugs, in which case there's no point in pointing out that they're smoothbore.
-
Well, try noticing that fact as i mentioned that fact already in my last post shade.
About the barrel thingy.
So that way you can try quoting me a little better.
-
Heh, yeah, I can see that now. I only had a few lines to go on when I started my post though, and I didn't notice till afterwards that you'd edited a lot more in. I guess the bottom line is that we more or less agree even though we don't really act like it, so I'll consider this settled :) It's nice to discuss this though, I love all kinds of electromagnetic gadgets :)
-
No problem.
It's sort of funny in me being stubborn kind of way.
****, yeah i gotta quit using the edit command.
I didn't find using a coilgun too good after i built it, i mean, i didn't have anything better than a car battery to mess with.
It sucked.
So i went back to usual effective pneumatic and combustion potato guns. :D
-
Those blue streaks are actually hyper-velocity solanum tuberosums? :eek2:
-
To make a proper coilgun you are going to needs some fancy staging devices. Railguns are much simpler conceptualy.
-
Yeah, if you had a 0 friction, superconducting material, that melted at 300,000 K, it would be easy.
-
What would be easy?
-
Yeah, if you had a 0 friction, superconducting material, that melted at 300,000 K, it would be easy.
Railguns are easy, and require neither superconduction nor high heat resistance. High power railguns that could be used as weapons, though, aren't.
-
"that" being a weapons grade railgun.
-
Man, if i had a railgun, i'd want to find some ****ing way to lube the rails or something.
That's a lot of friction on the rails when you shoot something out of the gun at the velocities railguns can reach.
And hopefully when firing the railgun, you got high quality rails that don't become so worn down after the first shot.
I guess you could compare this friction problem to getting it on with a hole in a tree. :lol:
-
Of course with things getting worn down by the bullet being accelerated by being slid against two rails until exiting the barrel.
A lot of friction, heat, maybe warping.
And that be my getting it on with the hole in the tree metaphor. :lol: