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

  • 4 Vote(s) - 4 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
 
Laser building checklist

#21
Since I don't see any mention of them at all in this thread, what about the relatively new storage and single-input cavities?
Ultimately, they accomplish the same goal as destabilizers - albeit from the other end. Rather than changing the percentage of a cavity that a single pulse uses, they simply increase the amount it's drawing from. Storage/SI cavities' increase to discharge are also absolute, compared to the benefit of a destabilizer which is relative to cavity length - though up to a line of 50 conventional cavities, a single storage cavity will have a greater effect on discharge power than a single destabilizer, and storage cavities' benefits and those of destabilizers don't interfere with each other. Storage cavities do take up more space, and SI cavities have mixed benefits - it's probably best to use them blended regularly into a line, and/or for form factor of a cavity line.

Unfortunately I can't bring up the game now due to technical issues, and the wiki doesn't have their prices right now. So I cannot see the costs of destabilizers or storage/SI cavities, and so I cannot compare them on that front.
Reply

#22
Storage cavities are great, with them:
- you can use a single combiner and still utilize 100% of your pump capacity
- cavity lines are more compact
- in (now useful)mixed 4Q systems LAMS nodes are closer to each other in damage
- not that significant but the initial burst from a full charge is much stronger

Price is slightly higher than stacking destabs for similar effect, but I think it's much better.
A storage cavity is enough for short lines, 1 storage 1 destab or 2 storages for most systems, a 4m long mix of them for the longest ones.

Not a fan of single cavities since they are practically the same as storage, just slightly less efficient and come with an awkward form factor.
Will probably write a very simplified disco guide to address the misconceptions that keep popping up(wavefronts not counterable, destabs conjuring up damage from thin air).
Reply

#23
I've gotten a lot of use out of the storage cavities for making small LAMs systems to combat CRAMs. using them it's pretty easy to do 2 things:
-you can make compact, modular LAMs setups. for example, 2 lines, 2-3 node outputs
-you can massively increase the beam alpha damage with little additional space or power draw requirements.


I've had great success building systems that have the beam alpha to stop a handful of 2000mm CRAMs but the sustained damage to knock down swarms of missiles. mount 2-3 such modular systems on a ship and you can give a vessel the ability to shoot down CRAM volleys on the order of a Bulwark's firepower without needing long cavity lines or the typical 20k-50k power required for what most consider a 'serious' LAMs system.

The main disadvantage is that you can't do it constantly, keeping the system from charging, for example with a constant missile stream, will degrade the ability to kill larger CRAMs on subsequent salvos.
-Do not bring forth an argument as fact that can be disproven with a 10 minute Google search.
Reply

#24
(2016-10-18, 04:27 PM)Lincrono Wrote: The main disadvantage is that you can't do it constantly, keeping the system from charging, for example with a constant missile stream, will degrade the ability to kill larger CRAMs on subsequent salvos.

I imagine a good way to deal with this would be to have an anti-missile LAMS with longer range than the anti-CRAM LAMS. Hopefully you would take out most missiles before they get within anti-CRAM range, reducing or even eliminating strain on the anti-CRAM system.

At this point we're talking about a buttload of lasers on one boat, but if one has room then that's alright.
[Image: yNphadh.gif]
Reply

#25
(2016-10-19, 12:20 AM)Captain Evil Stomper Wrote:
(2016-10-18, 04:27 PM)Lincrono Wrote: The main disadvantage is that you can't do it constantly, keeping the system from charging, for example with a constant missile stream, will degrade the ability to kill larger CRAMs on subsequent salvos.

I imagine a good way to deal with this would be to have an anti-missile LAMS with longer range than the anti-CRAM LAMS. Hopefully you would take out most missiles before they get within anti-CRAM range, reducing or even eliminating strain on the anti-CRAM system.

At this point we're talking about a buttload of lasers on one boat, but if one has room then that's alright.

the real danger with that though is once things get inside the range of both you're now burning power to support 2 systems. The whole point of doing it this way in the first place, in my mind, is to grant CRAM killing ability to a ship that would not normally be capable of it while still possessing excellent anti-missile abilities.
-Do not bring forth an argument as fact that can be disproven with a 10 minute Google search.
Reply

#26
I've had a lot of success stuffing compact Lams systems in things with the new storage cavity. Four cavities, a storage, and 16 pumps keeps a 4Q Lams at 200+ damage.

Since this discovery I have no reason not to put a Lams in everything. The above setup is 3x3x6 and can be basically placed anywhere.
Reply

#27
(2016-11-12, 07:59 AM)SynthTwo Wrote: I've had a lot of success stuffing compact Lams systems in things with the new storage cavity. Four cavities, a storage, and 16 pumps keeps a 4Q Lams at 200+ damage.

Since this discovery I have no reason not to put a Lams in everything. The above setup is 3x3x6 and can be basically placed anywhere.

I do the same. Every single vessel I build now has LAMS. The very first small ship I build will have a 800 power LAMS system with a storage tank. Sustains 100 damage, enough to take out a relentless barrage of missiles. It can't handle CRAMS, but missiles are wrecked.

My smallest LUA tiltrotor hovercraft has the same setup as SynthTwo. Now it can handle most CRAMS if they are staggered, and missiles are laughable. So 200 damage, forty times a second. That's from a LAMS system just 3x3x8 if you add the laser box and a freq doubler or two.

After that, my LAMS systems don't get much bigger. All I need are two or three small hovercraft in the area, and all CRAMS and missiles are toast.


I'm seeing what people build for a LAMS system and thinking I'm missing something, but what I have is so incredibly effective, I doubt it. I don't use destabilizers either. All my testing has shown that they drain the storage tank too quickly in the first couple shots, and I lose sustained damage. Tell me if that is wrong.
Reply

#28
(2016-11-22, 05:30 AM)ScottWright Wrote: My smallest LUA tiltrotor hovercraft has the same setup as SynthTwo. Now it can handle most CRAMS if they are staggered, and missiles are laughable. So 200 damage, forty times a second. That's from a LAMS system just 3x3x8 if you add the laser box and a freq doubler or two.

After that, my LAMS systems don't get much bigger. All I need are two or three small hovercraft in the area, and all CRAMS and missiles are toast.

I'm seeing what people build for a LAMS system and thinking I'm missing something, but what I have is so incredibly effective, I doubt it. I don't use destabilizers either. All my testing has shown that they drain the storage tank too quickly in the first couple shots, and I lose sustained damage. Tell me if that is wrong.

There are some problems with that setup:
- With a single line using 4 pumps/cavity a 3x3x8 continuous system only has 7x4 = 28 pumps, thats 1400 DPS (35 damage/tick).
You see higher reported damage because your storage holds much more energy than what the pumps can sustain. That bonus is gone after the first few missiles.
- You've got the destabilizer mechanics backwards: you can never lose sustained damage by adding destabs, but having too few will leave some unused pump regen in the cavities(unless you have some extra storage).

You're right in that LAMS is very useful even at small sizes.
Larger ones are still much better, longer missiles have more HP so even 200 damage/tick isn't too much for a continuous LAMS.
Also, you can use multiple nodes to get an almost linear increase in projectiles shot down.

To see the practical difference shoot a midsized salvo(20-30x non-explosive 6 block missiles without stagger) at your flyer, a very good portion will connect.
Larger systems can handle missiles in the hundreds with a great intercept% (thumpers are the exception, swarms of 600+ HP missiles can't be shot down).
If you want a small LAMS use 4Q, it gets twice the damage for the same amount of pumps/power.
Reply

#29
(2016-11-22, 12:29 PM)draba Wrote: If you want a small LAMS use 4Q, it gets twice the damage for the same amount of pumps/power.

I have switched my LAMS setup to a continuous LAMS because after several trials I have seen that it's better at shooting APS 500mm shells.
I have also seen that I now have more trouble agains CRAM shells and missiles.

Maybe my 4Q setup wasn't good to begin with, I'm not an expert on lasers.
But when fighting the Thyr, it's best to destroy these APS shells before they hit you.
But going from 4Q to continuous greatly increased the survivability of my ship against the Thyr, and as I don't know how to improve my 4Q setup... I'll stick with the continuous, even knowing that it's not energy efficient.
Reply

#30
(2016-11-22, 01:23 PM)Gladyon Wrote: I have switched my LAMS setup to a continuous LAMS because after several trials I have seen that it's better at shooting APS 500mm shells.
I have also seen that I now have more trouble agains CRAM shells and missiles.

Maybe my 4Q setup wasn't good to begin with, I'm not an expert on lasers.
But when fighting the Thyr, it's best to destroy these APS shells before they hit you.
But going from 4Q to continuous greatly increased the survivability of my ship against the Thyr, and as I don't know how to improve my 4Q setup... I'll stick with the continuous, even knowing that it's not energy efficient.

APS projectiles are a completely different matter, they have less total HP than a big swarm of missiles and you've a much smaller window to get them.
At very small LAMS sizes it could go either way but yeah, continuous is overall better.
Can't really defend against APS spam with LAMS so I focused on missiles, if you don't want to get killed by the Thyr just don't get hit Smile
Reply



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)