HOME | DD

IgnatiusAxonn In reply to solshin [2016-02-05 02:32:34 +0000 UTC]

Space Engineers is a good game. But it gets very boring in single player.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

IgnatiusAxonn In reply to AimofDiscontent [2016-01-04 05:13:28 +0000 UTC]

why have ten gatling guns? well simply because I can. I feel as if having cannons means cutting into armour rather than just tearing it apart very violently. Besides, loose components can fly around inside the empty space of a ship and damage it from the inside. and loose components can almost only ever come from ripping a target to shreds.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AimofDiscontent In reply to IgnatiusAxonn [2016-01-04 16:36:25 +0000 UTC]

What are you talking about? Cutting through armor is the only real way to damage it. Smaller guns would more often bounce right off and do no damage, not "tear it apart". What kind of armor are you going to be shooting at? Cheese? Also, cannon rounds cause better shrapnel damage than tiny rounds. Might want to study up on how weapons work. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

IgnatiusAxonn In reply to AimofDiscontent [2016-01-05 17:10:37 +0000 UTC]

well let's see. Space Engineers does not specify what caliber their gatling guns are. And unlike what most people like to think, my heavy fighters are designed to rip and tear a target while my interceptors and fighters cut and stab. Additionally I have only mentioned the Experimental craft's Space Engineers loadout. I have not yet made any mention of my fiction universe weapon loadout for this design.

Now I also get confused by what you mean to say. Armour on an aircraft is never usually thick for logical reasons. As such the armour that we're firing at is relatively thin and even modern aircraft can still be taken down by thick flak. If you talk about shrapnel you are implying an explosive type warhead and would therefore tear at it's target, not pierce. There are multiple complex items in an aircraft that even the small rifle caliber bullet can cause the greatest amount of damage, and we cannot simply simulate what will happen simply because we know what the properties of said projectile and target are unless they are absolute.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AimofDiscontent In reply to IgnatiusAxonn [2016-01-05 22:26:17 +0000 UTC]

"Axonn Multi-role Fighter" Sounds like a fictional nation's vehicle to me. 

It looks like a spacecraft to me. Thing about space, is unless you are near a large object like a star or planet...there is no gravity. Good news! No gravity means you can have more weight and still move! Also, you're telling me an advanced, space-going nation still doesn't have a material that is stronger yet as light/lighter than aluminum? 

When it comes to fragmentation, you are wrong. Armor piercing ammunition definitively fragments into shrapnel. If it went straight through, that is called over penetration (not much fragmentation). 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

IgnatiusAxonn In reply to AimofDiscontent [2016-01-06 02:36:33 +0000 UTC]

ok then so what if my ships don't have exceptionally good armour. what would happen if a ship like the AHF-14 entered the atmosphere of a planet? That ship is covered in heavy armour, no light armour to be seen. Yes, I have a space going fleet that has never been displayed. So their design is mainly unknown to anyone but myself.

Axonn is based within a united anime universe (yes anime). And as of typical crap anime, some technologies are not logical given their timeline (Toaru Hikuushi e no Koiuta)
Look up the 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 9th Armoy Group commanders.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AimofDiscontent In reply to IgnatiusAxonn [2016-01-06 17:42:20 +0000 UTC]

Then they get shot down by rifles and stray shrapnel like World War One biplanes. You'll be faster, if that's what you want, but that speed comes with a price. Also, if the ship goes planet side, I'd hope it would have the proper engines to stay aloft...being that its a space age craft, I'd assume the engines would actually be able to move armored objects. 

Ok, I'm done here then. Have fun. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 0