[Sandwich]

Originally posted by Robin Varley
Anyway the big question: how much should manoeuvrability change?

Noticably but not significantly - say ~%10.

[Robin Varley]

Originally posted by Sandwich


Noticably but not significantly - say ~%10.

Sounds good to me.

So if we take 10% manoeuvrability off say the Ursa when it's fully loaded with 'heavy' flagged weapons, are people gonna mind, or are they expecting their Ursa to perfrom better than it does at the moment.


Ok that's muddled, say hypothetically we dont have a flag system to determine 'heavy' weapons, ie any weapon you carry will affect manoeuvrability, in that case would you expect the Ursa to move as it does at the moment in FS2 when it has a full load and then gain up to 10% extra manoeuvrability as you fire off the weapons, or when your empty it'll move as it normallly does and with a full load of weapons its manoeuvrability is reduced by 10%

Then  you could just control the use of 'heavy' weapons with a command line option, so you'd have an all or nothing system as it were.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Descenterace
It doesn't matter how low the density of matter is.  A kilogram is still a kilogram.  Half a kilo each of matter and antimatter (and once we can produce 10 grams of antimatter, we'll have no trouble producing 500 grams, or even several tonnes) would produce a larger blast than any weapon previously constructed.  We're talking the complete obliteration of a country the size of France.

Actually Robin Varley has it correct. I worked out the numbers for this on another thread a while back (it's pretty easy. You just plug the numbers into e=mc^2. The hard part is converting from Joules to megatons )

I think there was a bomb built around 100Megatons but it was later dismantled again since it was pretty pointless.

[Corsair114]

The Tsar Bomba, made by Russia, was a 100 megaton atomic weapon. Even the RUssians were scared of it, so they dismantled it fairly quickly.

[Taristin]

Lovely... They probably sold the bits too

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by Robin Varley


Sounds good to me.

So if we take 10% manoeuvrability off say the Ursa when it's fully loaded with 'heavy' flagged weapons, are people gonna mind, or are they expecting their Ursa to perfrom better than it does at the moment.


Ok that's muddled, say hypothetically we dont have a flag system to determine 'heavy' weapons, ie any weapon you carry will affect manoeuvrability, in that case would you expect the Ursa to move as it does at the moment in FS2 when it has a full load and then gain up to 10% extra manoeuvrability as you fire off the weapons, or when your empty it'll move as it normallly does and with a full load of weapons its manoeuvrability is reduced by 10%

Then  you could just control the use of 'heavy' weapons with a command line option, so you'd have an all or nothing system as it were.

For mission balance sake, I'd say it would be best to have it affect the Ursa by +/- 5% of its current speed, but I don't know how you'd pull that off.

[Descenterace]

If you call the total mass converted to energy in an H-bomb 'm', and the bomb's yield in tonnes of TNT 'y', then the yield per kilo of converted mass 't' is given by:

t = y / m

If you know the approximate efficiency of the reaction, then:

m = total bomb mass x efficiency

[Terorist]

Originally posted by Robin Varley
for some incredibly dry stuff on nuclear weapons...

That site seems... well, crappy. If you actually want to know something, read the Nuclear Weapons Frequently Asked Questions. It's best to have the .zip file handy:
http://nuketesting.enviroweb.org/hew/Nwfaq/Nwfaq.zip

Recommended reading and an absolutely mandatory resource for anyone wanting to have a clue about the subject. Very accurate details about the designs, effects, materials, you name it.

Originally posted by Corsair114
The Tsar Bomba, made by Russia, was a 100 megaton atomic weapon. Even the RUssians were scared of it, so they dismantled it fairly quickly.

Uhh... Not even close, sorry.
The Tsar Bomba design was for a 100 Mt device, but the tested bomb was a 50 megaton bomb.
Check the FAQ: "The largest nuclear explosion ever set off (50 Mt) was the Tsar Bomba (King of Bombs), a Soviet three stage fission-fusion-fission design."
Without babbling too much about the matter (those who want can read the faq for the longwinded details), they replaced it's fissionable stage(s) with non-fissionable material. That halved the yield and made it the cleanest nuclear wepon ever (the term "clean" means how large a portion of the yield comes from fusion - with a uranium tamper the bomb would have produced huge amounts of fission fallout) - 97% fusion.

And by the way, the Tsar Bomba wasn't anything practical, it was a huge device and impractical for actual military use. Information, pictures and interesting descriptions about the test in here: "The nickname Tsar Bomba is a reference to the Russian proclivity for making gigantic but useless artifacts for show. The world's largest bell (the Tsar Kolokol) and cannon (the Tsar Pushka), neither of which are actually useful for anything, are on display at the Kremlin." For comparison, according to the faq, the largest deployed US three stage weapon is the 25 megaton Mk-41...

[TrashMan]

Normal fighter/bombers shouldn't make a big bang when destroyed, but kamikazy ones should, since they'll cetanly arm everything they have. Taken that into account, no flag or code is needed, just set a special explosion and enjoy the show.