Welcome to Keen Software House Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the KSH community.
  1. You are currently browsing our forum as a guest. Create your own forum account to access all forum functionality.

"March to Battle!", March Battleship Contest.

Discussion in 'General' started by Skeloton, Feb 25, 2014.

Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.
  1. TheLightLOD Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    74
    close, but not entirely ;)

    To be presice it's the same style, but then oversized and designed up front after my februari carrier entry.

    @ Nutterchap:
    yes, the two turrets on top would be able to destroy each other.. As stated: "impractical" :D
     
  2. plaYer2k Master Engineer

    Messages:
    3,160
    I wonder how that would matter. The captain could also fly the ship right into an asteroid, small fighters within the hanger bays could destroy the inside and each other ... so you could forcefully destroy youself in many ways, if you are willed to :D
     
  3. NutterChap Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    163
    There are more ways, oh yes! Disabled rotors with a warhead on an arm, in a too tight room inside your ship, for example. Or a unblanaced rotor at full speed inside the ship, or just a couple of random heavy loose blocks somewhere...

    But seriously, having turrets like that being able to hit each other, and given the hazy rush you get in combat situations... it is bound to happen by Murphy's law, right? :D
     
  4. plaYer2k Master Engineer

    Messages:
    3,160
    TO THE TESTING FIELDS ... lets see how long they survive!

    But in a real world, you could limit the turrets movement to a certain region so it couldnt perform full 360° * 90° .. So the left turret had to move upwards in the middle and the right turrent can only rotate about 130° to the left and right.

    Well i suggested some fundamental requirements for such a setup with the servo-mode and deathzones for rotors .. lets see if anyone cares.
    You could ofc also slap many rotors together with landing gear to achieve a "similar" effect, but it would be too huge and clunky for most turrets.
     
  5. Barabbi_Moonshadow Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    64
    Another way to resolve the issue would be to raise the height of the rear gun by 2-3 squares, which would (obviously) necessitate the raising of the control tower by the same.

    If you look at the design of (for example) the Iowa class battleship, the midship turret cannot fire straight forward into the forward turret.

    In regard to point defense weaponry (especially smaller caliber guns that were in use during WWII), many times the guns would be offset in height (Y axis) or width (X axis) to allow both to fire on the same target.

    Practical application of turret design on any ship is to be able to fire all guns on any target at any position around the ship. This, being impossible, thus requires a balance of the obvious things (ship balance, weight, etc, etc, etc, ... looks)

    Simply raising the height of the rear turret on your ship, although quite a bit of work, is the easiest solution if you desire it.
     
  6. NutterChap Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    163
    I just came to the conclusion that the 10th is a very tight deadline.

    Very, very tight. I still need to do crew quarters, some light fixtures, make walkways to enable walking around the ship, place abysmal amount of grav gens, finish the turrets (4, each weighing 180+300 tons already, and the actual visible turret isn't there yet), additional small turrets and their ammo storage, power plant, actually closing up the ship, and... making a bridge and control room in it. :comp:

    The horror that my ship would come in at the 19th or 20th, and is not taken into the contest because of some reason (a possibility pointed out in the OP)... Is it a bad thing if I... take an extra few days? :rolleyes:
     
  7. plaYer2k Master Engineer

    Messages:
    3,160
    Well ...

    So he asked us to finish it til the 10th but we can also release it later. Considering the amount of current entries, it shouldnt be difficulty to validate new entries unless suddenly 5 or more people try to enter within the last 2 days (18th+).

    I hope to finish mine in time til the 10th but as iam moving to my family ... i might not be able to do it in time aswell. Lets see :3

    Edit:
    Also he wants to give us the chance to fix errors that invalidate our entries. Thats one of the main reasons for the 10th "deadline".
     
  8. Sungur Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    431
    yeah, i might not able to join the contest due to lack of time. it is already 7th and this weekend i dont have enough time to to finish...though ill do my best.
     
  9. Skeloton Master Engineer

    Messages:
    4,069
    The 20th is the hard deadline. The 10th is when I was supposed to start validating but I got bored and started early. It was mainly for me so I could make sure what we got was valid and had time to notify you and have you fix the problem.
     
  10. Sungur Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    431
    [​IMG]

    btw heres an exemple of battleship maneuverability...
     
  11. Barabbi_Moonshadow Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    64
    Just hope you don't end up like me and have a sudden computer hard drive (SSD, my OS drive) crash. Luckily, I had enough warning to backup my AppData folder to my App disk drive before the issue occurred.

    I blame corporate sabotage.
     
  12. bacondeity Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    419
    I don't think this is relevant to space ships :woot:
     
  13. Barabbi_Moonshadow Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    64
    It all depends on what trajectory the enemy fire was coming from. If it came from a sharp trajectory (IE: Less than 45% to the ship's "water" plane in the picture), the maneuverability would allow a space ship to move "up" quickly and aim itself straight into the line of fire. Obviously, this ship would have to be one of the "light" battleships as opposed to a "heavy" one.

    The direction of the front turret of the ship in the picture would suggest that the enemy ship is below the picture. Thus, our friendly ship may even be preparing to broadside.
     
  14. Sungur Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    431
    actually this ship is Yamato... ww2's biggest ship.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Yamato

    and there goes the battleships can not maneuver theory...

    they can and they must... thats a 256mt long ship with +70k tons of steel maneuvering

    [​IMG]

    <em style="font-size: 11px; line-height: 15.834113121032715px; background-color: #f9f9f9;">Yamato</em> steering to avoid
    bombs andaerial torpedoes during Operation Ten-Go
     
  15. bacondeity Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    419
    When I hear/read "Yamato"

    [​IMG]
     
  16. Sungur Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    431
    sc2 sucks btw...
     
  17. bacondeity Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    419
    Now... why would you go and say that?
     
  18. Sungur Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    431
    these ships are from sc2 right?... i dont want to go off-topic :)

    so maneuverability &amp; a certain acceleration are also required when designing a battleship.

    anyone wants to argue should look at the page 21 :)
     
  19. Skeloton Master Engineer

    Messages:
    4,069
    StarCraft 2 was an ok game to me. but when I think of the Yamato I think of this
    [​IMG]
    BF1942.
     
  20. NutterChap Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    163
    What exactly does this picture prove? That the Yamato had working rudders, which was mighty handy. It does not prove that this ship was the benchmark of naval maneuverability. If she made this twist and turn route in less than a minute, I'd be absolutely amazed. Again, remember that this ship, the Yamato, is 263m long (256 at the water line). Its cornering radius as shown here must have exceeded 500 meters. At full speed, she would do 27 knots, which is 50 km/h, which is 13,89 m/s. For scale, at full steam it would take her 18.9 seconds to cover the distance of her full length. Eying this photo, you can see that her length fits over 6 times in the trail she left in the water, making that trail over 1.5 kilometers (or a mile, for those SI-impaired people among us) long.

    Let's postulate she ran with full steam there to avoid whatever. On the picture, you see that the radius of the curves she makes are about 2times her own length: approximately 520 meters. (Slightly rounded for easier math). For a 90° turn at her full speed at this radius, it would take nearly a full minute.

    2*pi*r = whole circle circumference
    1/2*pi*r = 90° circle circumference
    1/2*pi*520m = 816,81m
    816,81m / 13,89m/s = 58,80 seconds.

    Thus, the turning rate is 90° in about a minute, for a ship with 263m length. Let's just say that is not very high. It is, maybe, for a ship of her size and shape and bulk, but it remains a bit sluggish.
     
  21. Sungur Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    431
    [​IMG]
    heres a 90 degree turn... what do you think?
     
  22. NutterChap Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    163
    First, that photo is taken with a much lower angle, not at all from the top. If the photo would have been taken from the top, you would get a better view on how sharp the cornering actually is.

    Note that the current corner is not at 90° just yet. it's still 10° off. That's why the bow of the ship is less then 2 ship lengths away from her initial bearing. Right now, though, there is already 1.75 ship length between her bow and the initial bearing, so my 2 ship lengths will not be far off: turning radius of 500-520 meters. Same story as my previous post: about 1 minute worth of maneuvering.
     
  23. Sungur Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    431
    so what do you think about many battleships on the SE workshop?

    no offense but i say many of them are not even as maneuverable as this old ship let alone moden battleships

    EDIT: these posts are here becasue many pages ago some of our friends here told that maneuverability is not something that a battleship needs.
     
  24. NutterChap Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    163
    Honestly, I haven't tried any other ships from the workshop. Way to busy making my own stuff and doing other things as well. I take your word for it that there are battleships out there that do not even turn as slowly as the Yamato. I think that it is a missed chance: a couple of added gyros go a long way, you know. :)

    Mind you: I don't think anyone on this entire thread ever said that a battleship does not need maneuverability, at all. It doesn't need to be highly maneuverable, as its (IMHO) mandatory size and weight get into its way, but only space stations have no need for any form of maneuverability at all.
    With that said: there are practical limits to turning rate in SE, in addition to a lower-than-normal need for it. A carrier and a battleship, with custom turrets, both have to deal with valuables that are attached only by landing gear. Landing gear snaps off when enough force is applied. Making a ship turn violently, as pointed out in an earlier thread on this forum, causes the landing gear to lose grip, resulting in a catastrophe. In my opinion, battleships must first and foremost be intimidating, for propaganda purposes. Therefore, they need to be large and heavy. Large custom turrets that are many meters away from the point of rotation would snap off if the ship would be able to turn as quickly as some of you would like to see. Therefore, a slow, hardly maneuverable battleship better fulfills its role as a propaganda act than little, small and nimble, though heavily armed vessels. In my opinion.

    As to your last remark: please point out a modern battleship. I'd love to see one that isn't from the second world war.
     
  25. Sungur Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    431
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/Missouri_missile_BGM-109_Tomahawk.JPG

    ÜSS Missouri - i aö driving so i cant type while driving home sry
     
  26. NutterChap Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    163
    The USS Missouri is an Iowa class fast battleship, laid down, built and used during the second world war. The Japanese signed their surrender on her deck. I asked for a modern battleship, one that hasn't been built during the second world war. ;)

    That particular picture is from after the conversion to be modernized. The ship has been used in the Korean war, Vietnam, as well as Operation Desert Storm (after its modernization, adding tomahawks and such). The ship itself, though, is still old. 'Sluggish'. Not like a modern war ship. It has a reason that it has been decommissioned.

    In short: this was your best shot, and it missed. There are no modern battleships, since the political use of large naval vessels, namely for prestige and intimidation, has ceased to be used. However, in space engineers, we will have battleships again: players want to make the most intimidating warship of them all, right? :)
     
  27. Barabbi_Moonshadow Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    64
    As was stated in a "military ship classification thread," the battleship (or, older term: ship of the line) was replaced by the aircraft carrier due to... aircraft. In a battle, the military force (navy) that can hit first (longest range) has the advantage most times. And, on our spinning Earth (gravity), an airplane goes farther than a gun shell. (This has gone even further with tomahawk/cruise missles, land based ICBMs, etc.)

    The only reason the Iowa class battleships survived in the US Navy for so long was that, initially, the Marines demanded for the ships to be retained for coastal bombardment. Later, Congress wouldn't let the Navy move them into the reserve fleet.

    In the future, if/when we get space fighters that can deliver the equivalent of nuclear warheads into large ship's vulnerable areas, the same issue will probably occur again. (If we don't jump directly to this step, bypassing the battleship as a ship class.) Cruisers, like the "Star Trek" Enterprise, yes. Destroyers, like the "Star Trek" Defiant, yes. But, battleships... not in my opinion.

    I give the example of the "Star Wars" Death Star 1.
     
  28. radam Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,207
    Oh the "exhaust pipe" problem...

    Not to mention that if we already have air drones, in space they would be even more effective...
     
  29. Barabbi_Moonshadow Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    64
    A conversation about drones, and all "unmanned" military units, is included in the range doctrine, but has its own main conversational point as well.

    [Note: I use the English language default of "he" here.] If a soldier can sit at the base and provide the same amount of utility, logistics, or firepower to a battle as he could if he were at the battle, in harm's way, why should he be there?

    We do not yet know the level at which the AI in SE will be able to control the weapons and craft we create. But, some more sci-fi examples:

    1. Stargate SG-1/Atlantis (made by the Ancients) drones.
    2. The Andromeda Ascendant<em style="font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 19.200000762939453px;"> </em>(Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda) http://en.androwiki.org/Andromeda_Ascendant , with one of its many defensive systems being automated point defense drones that surround the ship.
    3. The "learning probe" in Babylon 5 that came to the station, demanded answers to complex questions for ultimate knowledge... or destroy the station (inhabitants) for not being worthy. Yet, in the end, it was the opposite... destroy any opposition.

    The realism we have in SE, and eventually in real life, will be wholly determined by the level of AI and control systems we have.

    I am reminded of the "Star Trek" Voyager episode where the two mechanical races were at war with one another, while all of the inhabitants of both planets were long dead.
     
  30. Sungur Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    431
    Well nuttercap,

    İ looked for a modern battleship just Because of your sarcastic question. Having said that iowas are heavily modernised as far as i know.

    Otoh as you can notice English is not my native tongue and By modern battleship i tried to refer Big modern ships heavy war ships i am süre we can find some.

    Finally your conclusion about intimidation ultimately supports my main idea.

    Making it bigger and heavier is nothing but Show Business.

    İ think its a bit contraire to the engineering Philosophy
     
Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.