[TrashMan]

Structural redesign costs.  Anyways, if it's that cheap and easy, why don't sentry guns have engines and jumpdrives?

Becosue compared to the RBX they are dirt cheap? Becoause they are far smaller and easier to replace? Becosue they usualyl guard installations and not jump nodes?

You do understand the cultural context of the phrase 'High Noon', don't you? 

Also, making the Colussus stronger would be unrealistic; you'd invariably have to strengthen everything else so make the C relatively believeable as a TV construct, and we'd be right back where we started.

Simply buffing the beam cannon power of the collie (rate of fire, duration) and the sath would be enough.

No, you wouldn't have to make everything else stronger...

Unrealistic? To you maby...not to me...

Ah, we are talking telling the developers how to make their game again!

That would be pointless since the game was made years ago, no?

Meh..I'll jsut continue posting my oppinions and let you jump to any misguided conclusion you want...

[aldo_14]

Becosue compared to the RBX they are dirt cheap? Becoause they are far smaller and easier to replace? Becosue they usualyl guard installations and not jump nodes?

Basis?  Would it not be just as cheap then to, ooh, bolt on maneuverable thrusters and jump drives so they could escape? 

Why isn't an RBC dirt cheap?  I mean, if it's that cheap to add an engine to it, it can't be that expensive to start off with, can it?  Why would they even develop it as-is if it wasn't cheap?

We are talking about economies here, aren't we?  i'm sure it's self-evident that a node has a higher value than a supply dump most of the time, ergo the economies allow for more 'disposable' spending upon it.  Question is why should you take that and then begin to build effectively a mini-cruiser-with-a--big-gun, eroding all the advantages an RBC brings as a cheap defensive asset.

Simply buffing the beam cannon power of the collie (rate of fire, duration) and the sath would be enough.

No, you wouldn't have to make everything else stronger...

Unrealistic? To you maby...not to me...

It's certainly unrealistic within the context of the game; the game says that the Colossus can barely fire it's own beams for that long without suffering power and structure problems, let alone have stronger or faster firing beams.  If you want it to have them, then you have to raise the tech - beam - level of every shape, otherwise the Colossus becomes inconsistent.

[TrashMan]

Why isn't an RBC dirt cheap?  I mean, if it's that cheap to add an engine to it, it can't be that expensive to start off with, can it?  Why would they even develop it as-is if it wasn't cheap?

We are talking about economies here, aren't we?  i'm sure it's self-evident that a node has a higher value than a supply dump most of the time, ergo the economies allow for more 'disposable' spending upon it.  Question is why should you take that and then begin to build effectively a mini-cruiser-with-a--big-gun, eroding all the advantages an RBC brings as a cheap defensive asset.

So you're saying, adding a few simple thrusters and a jump drive to a RBC would increase it's price by such a large margin that it would becme economicly unwise????

Kinda hard to belive that tthose two SIMPLE (in fs universe) components could alter the price so much, isn't it?

NOTE - those are manouvering thrusters, ther just so a RBC can turn aroun to track a target. They are not full-blown engines for system patrols.

It's certainly unrealistic within the context of the game; the game says that the Colossus can barely fire it's own beams for that long without suffering power and structure problems, let alone have stronger or faster firing beams.  If you want it to have them, then you have to raise the tech - beam - level of every shape, otherwise the Colossus becomes inconsistent.

The Collie was 20 years in the making, the pinnacle of T-V tech. For it to mount some better beams than a Orion doesn't sounds unrealistc to me....

[AlphaOne]

Good points. I believe that new impoved beam weapons for the GTVA are aroun the corner. Because they are starting to develop more powerfull beams already. Next they have to do something about the energy consumption so that they can actualy use more eficeintly the ractors. Actualy I believe that if they actualy manage to get the energy consumption of a beam lower!

[aldo_14]

So you're saying, adding a few simple thrusters and a jump drive to a RBC would increase it's price by such a large margin that it would becme economicly unwise????

Kinda hard to belive that tthose two SIMPLE (in fs universe) components could alter the price so much, isn't it?

NOTE - those are manouvering thrusters, ther just so a RBC can turn aroun to track a target. They are not full-blown engines for system patrols.

Why else would it not have them?  Y'know, presuming it needs them.  Or how beneficial they'd be, because it'd just be rotational rather than being able to save the thing from fighter attack or blockade compromise; maybe they're not expensive but rather a waste of money at any cost.  I'm not sure rotating a 100m+ cannon is entirely trivial either.

Worth considering, of course, how you'd setup up maneuvering thrusters; FS never makes it clear how it works, but if it entails any form of 360-outlets, i.e. thrusters on the top, bottom, side, etc you're looking at pretty major changes to the structure of the thing there.  That's assuming it doesn't have any already, except that they'd be used solely to stabilise the position whilst firing.

(Why simple-in-capitals?  what basis?  That they exist?  By that basis, insystem drives are simple.  Storing hundreds of rather large warheads in a bomber is simple.  Of course, simple does not entail cheap to do.)

The Collie was 20 years in the making, the pinnacle of T-V tech. For it to mount some better beams than a Orion doesn't sounds unrealistc to me....

Well, it doesn't.    Assuming that the Orion class has never been upgraded to a more reasonable tech level, of course (which is has), and ignoring the other modern beam-firing ships.

[Colonol Dekker]

Or improve the reactors, FSRB says that Orions use Fusion Pile Generators, I reckon those savvy scientist types wil develop a new reactor sytem if not already in use by newer ships.

[AlphaOne]

well its not that simple i mean sure a bigger reactor or a more powerfull one more modern one can increase the beam cannons refire rate or damage but then agin what about all the extra heat. the mai problem is heat in this case the lack of an eficient heat disipation unit.

[aldo_14]

well its not that simple i mean sure a bigger reactor or a more powerfull one more modern one can increase the beam cannons refire rate or damage but then agin what about all the extra heat. the mai problem is heat in this case the lack of an eficient heat disipation unit.

Assuming there's not a physics limit on these things, though.  Or limitations based upon energy transfer rate, which may come down to the actual physical medium (i.e. maybe the Shivans have some really good conductive material they can use), or even the method used to control the beam cohesiveness (it may be possible to get a lot more energy output, but not to control and aim it, or even just stopping it spilling 'over' and damaging the ship like an overload).

[AlphaOne]

you sure have a neck for beeing pesimistic dont you??!!!

for cryng out loud man then what about the mjolnir. It has been proven that you can make a beam more powerfull. I for one believe that the mjolnir is just a rough diamond right now. With a little more polishing you count envisage a future where you have them mounted on ships.

[aldo_14]

you sure have a neck for beeing pesimistic dont you??!!!

for cryng out loud man then what about the mjolnir. It has been proven that you can make a beam more powerfull. I for one believe that the mjolnir is just a rough diamond right now. With a little more polishing you count envisage a future where you have them mounted on ships.

I'm not sure you know the difference between pessimism and common sense.....

[AlphaOne]

i'm not sure you can actualy make a difference what so ever. You are nagtivistic all over.

[aldo_14]

I'm not nagtiv!

[Colonol Dekker]

 
<c>Why all the hostility?<c/>

[TrashMan]

Why else would it not have them?  Y'know, presuming it needs them.  Or how beneficial they'd be, because it'd just be rotational rather than being able to save the thing from fighter attack or blockade compromise; maybe they're not expensive but rather a waste of money at any cost.  I'm not sure rotating a 100m+ cannon is entirely trivial either.

"If it were really that good it would allready have them" is no argument. I can't tell you why it wasn't in. Maby [V] hasn't thoguh of it. Maby they like the Command is stoopid idea so they design stoopid ships to go with it.. I don't know.

(Why simple-in-capitals?  what basis?  That they exist?  By that basis, insystem drives are simple.  Storing hundreds of rather large warheads in a bomber is simple.  Of course, simple does not entail cheap to do.)

Simple - since they are used everywhere. If every ship has those (and they have them now) then they can't be that expensive or complex.
Insystem drives are allso on every fighter. If they really were are so expensive only select units would have them (like inter-system drives).
the GTVA can afford thrusters, engines and jump drives on all fighters... It only makes sense they can afford two of those components oin something bigger and more expensive too, right? (unless you think a fighter costs more than a RBC..)

The Collie was 20 years in the making, the pinnacle of T-V tech. For it to mount some better beams than a Orion doesn't sounds unrealistc to me....

Well, it doesn't.    Assuming that the Orion class has never been upgraded to a more reasonable tech level, of course (which is has), and ignoring the other modern beam-firing ships.

So you're saying "if the GTVA has better beams why aren't they mounted on all modern warship like Deimos?"

LOL.. the collie is one of a kind... any new beams would be tailored specificly for a ship of it's size and tech level..

Or do you think they mounted the best guns on every new warship, or do they mount cannosn that are best suited for that specific ship?

[TrashMan]

<c>Why all the hostility?<c/>

You mean Aldo?

He was born that way 

[Colonol Dekker]

 
No offence but that was funny 

[aldo_14]

"If it were really that good it would allready have them" is no argument. I can't tell you why it wasn't in. Maby [V] hasn't thoguh of it. Maby they like the Command is stoopid idea so they design stoopid ships to go with it.. I don't know.

It's no arguement you can answer, yes.

So you're basing this on you having a better idea of the rules and restrictions of FS than Volition?  Essentially, your arguement is 'everyone is stupid but me' here, including the people who developed the game and decided what was sensible to put in (I'd wager they thought a beam-cannon-with-an-engine would be effectively a pointless addition of what amounted to a single gun cruiser), and that doesn't fly unless you want to scrap every ship, weapon and piece of tech in Freespace canon and make Trashspace instead..

Simple - since they are used everywhere. If every ship has those (and they have them now) then they can't be that expensive or complex.
Insystem drives are allso on every fighter. If they really were are so expensive only select units would have them (like inter-system drives).
the GTVA can afford thrusters, engines and jump drives on all fighters... It only makes sense they can afford two of those components oin something bigger and more expensive too, right? (unless you think a fighter costs more than a RBC..)

Within context, computers are used everywhere.  Jet airliners are used everywhere.  That doesn't make them cheap, or simple.  It makes them cost effective for the task (or simply the only solution).  And a fighter may very well cost more than an RBC; I suspect it does, even ignoring the pilot training cost, because it's a versatile, fully autonomous vessel with things like navigation, jump drive, long range comms, ability to rearm, life support, modular weapons and ammo storage, rearming systems, etc.  I'd venture it could be compared to the relative cost of, say, a stationary AAAf cannon (this is admittedly tough given the highly reusable nature of an RBCs' armament) versus a Jetfighter.

So you're saying "if the GTVA has better beams why aren't they mounted on all modern warship like Deimos?"

LOL.. the collie is one of a kind... any new beams would be tailored specificly for a ship of it's size and tech level..

Or do you think they mounted the best guns on every new warship, or do they mount cannosn that are best suited for that specific ship?

 Do you think suitability for a purpose contradicts 'best available'? 

Unless the GTVA deliberately underarmed the Colossus, it has the most powerful and best weaponry the GTVA has to offer, simply because its role dictates that.  So if it's not got more powerful weapons than the Orion, the GTVA simply doesn't have more powerful beams that it could use on the Colossus.  If the Colossus has more powerful beams, then the GTVA does.  If it does not, then the GTVA does not have more powerful (ship-mountable) beam weaponry.  Hell, LRBGreens strain the Colossus' reactors and superstructure, after all.  There's no way you can upgrade the armament of it without upgrading the whole ship, or it'd melt every time it fired rather than just when it pushes itself as in High Noon.

Not ignoring the rather uneconomic & tricky nature of weapons designed for a single ship class, which makes repairs trickier and more expensive as you need to have a prefab parts supply rather than, for example, reusing common component designs across vessels and having a common store in the supply dump/s.

[AlphaOne]

Not ignoring the rather uneconomic & tricky nature of weapons designed for a single ship class, which makes repairs trickier and more expensive as you need to have a prefab parts supply rather than, for example, reusing common component designs across vessels and having a common store in the supply dump/s.

So basicly you are saing that because new weapons cost more to produce and make them available for some ships then we shouldnt build them? Not that's "common sense" right?

Who cares that you can not use a beam cannon designed for a specific ship. Or can you actualy use the spare parts or engine of the Deimos to repair/replace the engine of  the Hecate???

I really dont think so. This arguement is totaly flawed. If we were to go by your pont of view aldo the we should all fall back to one single weapon stick with it an not develop anythin g else cuz well its not economicly feaseble as you put it to crate new weapons ships etc. hell why not just sit there for the next 200 years with what is already a hardened tested model of a gun/ship/engine/deign feature and wait for the shivans cuz well they should probably go backwards in time form a tech point of view because its unfesable to develop anything new acording to you.(Aldo)

Why should they go back in time from a tech point of view..welll cuz they are way ahed in some regards to the GTVA.

I really really hope you arent planning a carrer as a scientist. Cuz well there you actualy must have an OPEN mind and accept what seems unrealistic and unfesable and imposible sugestions. Give em a go to see if you can actulay make something out of them and if you cant then and only then scrap them or postpone them until the tech alows you to improve them.

You are so mean.

[aldo_14]

So basicly you are saing that because new weapons cost more to produce and make them available for some ships then we shouldnt build them? Not that's "common sense" right?

Who cares that you can not use a beam cannon designed for a specific ship. Or can you actualy use the spare parts or engine of the Deimos to repair/replace the engine of  the Hecate???

I really dont think so. This arguement is totaly flawed. If we were to go by your pont of view aldo the we should all fall back to one single weapon stick with it an not develop anythin g else cuz well its not economicly feaseble as you put it to crate new weapons ships etc. hell why not just sit there for the next 200 years with what is already a hardened tested model of a gun/ship/engine/deign feature and wait for the shivans cuz well they should probably go backwards in time form a tech point of view because its unfesable to develop anything new acording to you.(Aldo)

Why should they go back in time from a tech point of view..welll cuz they are way ahed in some regards to the GTVA.

I really really hope you arent planning a carrer as a scientist. Cuz well there you actualy must have an OPEN mind and accept what seems unrealistic and unfesable and imposible sugestions. Give em a go to see if you can actulay make something out of them and if you cant then and only then scrap them or postpone them until the tech alows you to improve them.

You are so mean.

Not wishing to be mean, but what in the name of **** are you on about?

The point - the purely theoretical point - was that if you develop beam cannon turrets  (because these by nature will constrain the weapons available) as being unique for this one single ship (the Colossus), it's adding a big logistical and economic burden when that ship becomes operational.  Think of how often ships in FS2 lose turrets - quite frequently.  Think of the difficulty and cost of getting replacement parts if that turret is unique across the entire class; you'd need supply dumps specifically for that one ship, and a supply chain to match getting them to it.  You'd need manufacturing capacity unique to the one model, and to have that manufacturing 'area' able to transit parts.

I will admit 'single ship class' was somewhat misleading, but you have come up with a patently idiotic conclusion that this somehow entails disregarding weapons development.  What I said as a suggestion entails the logistic and economic difficulties of making a single unique gun for a single unique ship.  Take it in context - the advantage of the Colossus sharing turret types and hence possibly parts with other classes.

[S-99]

Hmmm, getting heat out of space ships. To do that with a beam cannon, i'd highly recommend what the gtva already uses(heatsinks) to start with. A long with heatsinks, make sure it's made out of a highly heat conductive metal(to radiate heat off the beam cannon faster, sort of like copper vs. aluminum). Another thing, you should probably do something cool like make the beam cannon also liquid cooled, you could do something like pump liquid nitrogen through the heatsink until it makes contact with the hot beam cannon. Another cool idea would of course to rely on heat radiation, like to design the beam cannon to radiate as much heat off of it as it can outside the ship into space. And when things get really hot for the beam cannon i was thinking of keeping a hatch that would open up to space. Like when the beam cannon start getting really hot, you could open up the little hatch to suck the superheated atmosphere out of the room that has all the stuff for keeping the beamcannon cool, after it's vacuum in there, close the hatch and add room temperature atmosphere again(rather any type of gas if you wanted or water for that fact, just immerse the room in water ). And when you do all that venting out into space like that, that's like an over extreme take on radiating heat into something, then getting that something out of the room. Getting rid of heat is easier when you got stuff to move it onto like gasses and other stuff. Of course doing all of this, the room that has the beam cannon would very likely be separate from humanoids, except when the room still has atmosphere. But, it's likely you don't need to be near the beam cannons and they may operate with all the targeting and firing done from the bridge like star trek.