Not a member yet? Why not Sign up today
Create an account  

  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
 
RedHex Aerospace Defense Systems (latest: orbital ballistics)

#1
After being disappointed by the cost-effectiveness of LAMS (a 50k RP LAMS system seems to have trouble stopping a 10k RP missile launcher), I've decided to try developing a Lua interceptor system.

Key results

Unguided missile CIWS source code and example rafts:
http://www.fromthedepthsgame.com/forum/s...#pid112925

Cheap interceptor assignment using default guidance:
http://www.fromthedepthsgame.com/forum/s...#pid122634

Cannon-based AMS:
Newest: http://www.fromthedepthsgame.com/forum/s...?tid=15327
Older: http://www.fromthedepthsgame.com/forum/s...#pid141621

Orbital ballistics:
http://www.fromthedepthsgame.com/forum/s...#pid196190

Objectives

I will focus my efforts against non-Lua missiles:
  • It's the more common case.
  • It's less effort.
  • I don't want to get into a counterstrategy war with missile programmers (including myself) which would destroy everyone's CPUs.
I'm hoping to produce a reasonably easy-to-use system that outperforms both LAMS and non-Lua interceptors, and doesn't bring the game to a grinding halt. Hopefully it will come close to breaking even in expenditure, though this seems a tall order especially against Lua missiles.

Non-Lua missile interceptors, part 1

We are competing not just against enemy missiles but the non-Lua interceptor. In addition to the "soft" benefits of smarter behavior, Lua confers "hard" benefits for offensive missiles, as the Lua Receiver combines fuse, seeker, and guidance into a single low-drag module. However, the same is not true of missile interceptors---the Missile Interceptor module already combines payload, fuse, seeker, and guidance into one module, so the Lua Receiver is an extra cost in this case, which will need to be compensated for by smarter behavior.

To better understand the behavior of non-Lua interceptors, I built a test setup consisting of two rafts. One has an Enemy Simulator and a 4-rack of length-4 training missiles approximating the default missile setup. The other holds the interceptors, which are fired via ACB, and a Missile Warner-studded AI.

[Image: I0jCsVn.jpg]

I tested vertical-launch interceptors first. This picture was one of the more successful cases. Overall performance was fairly poor:
  • As others have discovered, stock interceptor guidance is only capable of targeting one enemy missile at a time for the whole craft. Staggered fire helps a little, as it gives the interceptors after the first some time to retarget to other missiles in an incoming swarm.
  • The interceptors perform a pure pursuit. Due to limited turn rate and the high rate of closure, this is often sufficient to cause a miss even at modest aspect angles as the interceptor flies behind the incoming missile.
  • Vertical launch is perhaps the most convenient type of interceptor placement in terms of construction and control, but it means the interceptors have to turn before engaging. It also exacerbates the pure pursuit problem since by the time the interceptors have turned to face the incoming missiles, they are displaced from the vessel carrying the interceptors (often the target of the incoming missiles), and thus have a significant aspect angle.

[Image: prSmWPM.png]
Reply



Messages In This Thread
RedHex Aerospace Defense Systems (latest: orbital ballistics) - by Evil4Zerggin - 2015-10-08, 06:37 AM
RE: Missile interceptor development - by Blothorn - 2015-10-08, 02:28 PM
RE: Missile interceptor development - by Blothorn - 2015-10-09, 04:52 AM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)