I appreciate your dissemination of information. The bug on fuel calc for instance- here I was thinking the fuel requirements for flamers was bonkers, turns out it's a bug. (I should have known.) One thing that I find tricky with rams is that if you aren't hitting exactly on the ram itself, you're breaking off a large part of your own vessel. And multidirectional rams, such as to prevent the vessel from trying to climb over or under the opponent adds a lot of drag. In that regard, as long as you aren't putting your vessel in ramming danger while using flamers (which is still a bit of risk on stock AI) flamers allow you to keep more general maneuverability. It could be a product of my style of building, but rams as I say tend to have a lot of drag and be somewhat heavy, and hitting anything but the ram will break a section of vessel possibly including what the ram is attached to leading to further damage. I've not built anything like your vivisector though, and I doubt anything but black magic can output better damage. I'd have to say that it's far higher damage than the average FTD player has the skill to output, though, so it's best suited as a top-end comparison than a mean.
@ed.thefeli41593 ай бұрын
nerd >:c, lol, good video man
@QuantumSeanyGlass3 ай бұрын
So far, the niche that flamethrowers seems most promising in is that you stick one on a drone and have it fuel fires that are started deep inside a ship by APS/Cram API rounds. That way you can bypass armor with AP, and then potentially pump very significant amounts of damage into the internals without having to pay any additional "delivery" cost.
@bungalowbill5213 ай бұрын
I think the issue is that AP inc applies the fuel only to the last block hit, so the fire outside and the fire inside often don’t connect. Charge lasers, on the other hand, make a tunnel of fire into the target as long as it’s not metal or stone.
@QuantumSeanyGlass3 ай бұрын
@@bungalowbill521 what happens if you use APHEI? I have a hard time imagining how something that applies to the last block hit would interact with an explosion likely to destroy the last block hit.
@sirgaz86993 ай бұрын
"We are going to see what kind of a niche flamethrowers have for themselves" made me lol, it's a flamethrower, I think I might know.
@anamerican10543 ай бұрын
Good video you bring up some valid points. BorderWise made a doom cram with flame that looked pretty scary. I do thinking adding flame will make wooden ships that much easier.
@bungalowbill5213 ай бұрын
I’ve done some side by side testing of incendiary cram vs pure he cram, and I tend to find it competitive in time to kill most targets, but the he cram disables the target much faster. I’m more favorable of incendiary damage for smaller weapons rather than larger ones.
@anamerican10543 ай бұрын
@@bungalowbill521 I would agree. It looks cool though. I did some testing with rail gun and frag still does better.
@BNSG193 ай бұрын
You mentioned local weapon controllers being able to control the flamethrower by connecting to any block, but I couldn't manage to make that work, regardless of if I was using the 2 cell or 4 cell range on the lcw. The flamethrower would only be controlled if the lcw was attached to the firing piece. Is this just a bug?
@bungalowbill5213 ай бұрын
I meant that it can connect to any cell of the firing piece, not any block in the system, so you don’t have to snake the piping around the lwc.
@BNSG193 ай бұрын
@@bungalowbill521 ohhh that makes much more sense. thank you
@sunRay043 ай бұрын
Alright, hear me out: A missile... with a flamethrower it rams the enemy to get inside, and then burns them from within.
@bungalowbill5213 ай бұрын
The problem is that it’s way harder than it used to be to bore a hole with melee damage. I have been considering pushing a nuke into vehicles using docking stations, but I haven’t tested the idea out yet.
@leandrogoethals6599Ай бұрын
but u also burn urself way faster then the vehicle ur in
@SuwinTzi3 ай бұрын
I'm just happy that I can now have AP-I rounds. Now if the devs added kinetic spalling that'd be the final piece.
@vaultence98593 ай бұрын
let's go here come the fire USE guides. Looking forwards to figuring out AP incendiary stuff.
@kazoo33543 ай бұрын
One thing not mentioned in this video about steam engines is that boilers now create fire when destroyed by anything; "Destroying steam boilers under pressure creates fires, fuel is a function of the size of the boiler chain and pressure"
@bungalowbill5213 ай бұрын
I wasn’t aware of it. I guess I’ll have to compare how flammable they are to fuel for fuel engines.
@shawnreed3433 ай бұрын
@@bungalowbill521 According to the alpha update changes posted by Draba, 'Boiler controllers also explode when damaged. Added HE damage to the explosion, base damage is 10% of the fuel in the spawned fire', 'Boiler explosion damage scales with AMOUNT^0.9 (multiple smaller/shorter boilers spawn slightly more fire and weaker explosions with more total HE power than fewer larger ones) And also- laser cutter hits now also spawn fires.
@sunRay043 ай бұрын
I came for the From The Depth content I stayed for the intro song
@nopenope49384 ай бұрын
Great intro 😂
@anamerican10544 ай бұрын
I like using steam because you can turn them off with a valve when not needed. The best is the brick of small pistons but needs 7 x 7 x 8. They need to add fire extinguishers if fuel and material can burn so easy.
@bungalowbill5214 ай бұрын
The counter to fire is currently water. The devs have been trying to make boats viable for a long time, so this might be part of it. The other part of the counter is avoiding the fire damage. APS, CRAM, and missile incendiary is countered the same way as normal, and flamethrowers are good on small craft, but those can be shot down with point defense or outmaneuvered. Flamethrowers on large craft are overshadowed by melee weapons and CRAM.
@doktork34063 ай бұрын
@@bungalowbill521 Compared to flyers, boats were fine. Far easier to build, far cheaper to run not needing constant thrust, far easier to armor. Very little bottom armor needed, If mixed with alloy or wood, you could easily get a ton of HA to defend important areas. If they tried making boats better, this is not it...
@NearQuasar3 ай бұрын
@@doktork3406Large ships cannot be evasive otherwise you have an airship.
@reapzilla4 ай бұрын
very nice, now teach it some party tricks
@Madwand994 ай бұрын
My main resource gatherer for campaign is a quadjet, using either propellers or huge jets. I did it this way because I wanted both a vehicle that could 1) be cheap 2) be fast and 3) hover in place over a resource point (even though this doesn't matter when it's out of play). Quads worked very well for this use case. And yeah, the breadboard got pretty fancy.
@kazoo33544 ай бұрын
I've actually made a craft similar to this that sits above GT frontsiders and beams them with rail burst HESH. I noticed that sometimes the "rotate to angle" spinblock mode is a bit slow, especially for thrust outputs moving through/near the origin. To make it faster, I had the continuous spin rate mode set up with bread to change the rate to try to reach target orientation in the next game tick, and that way it can rotate at 30 rad/s no matter how much weight is put on the spinblock. My next idea would be to put the pitch-axis spinblocks onto roll-axis spinblocks for strafe and a better yaw moment. I think it would be fun to see you do this as well!
@bungalowbill5214 ай бұрын
I think that spinblocks were bugged at one time, but there is no longer a downside to having them set at maximum rotation rate all the time. The issue with two axis jets is that they will have a limited arc rather than their full movement, and solving the constrained system is much more difficult.
@QuantumSeanyGlass4 ай бұрын
@@bungalowbill521 I tested it just now, and the continuous spin rate thing is definitely very important. The key is, yes, like you said, if you're in rotate to angle mode, you can have them set to the maximum rotation rate at all time, but the game will still limit the maximum spin rate based on the mass of the subassembly on the end of the spin block. If you set the mode to continuous, on the other hand, the game no longer limits the rate at which the spin block will spin, and so with a proper control algorithm you can almost completely remove the delay required for the thrusters to spin into a new orientation.
@anamerican10544 ай бұрын
Wow! I wish I knew more about bread boards. Are you working on it to avoid projectiles? With how fast it moves, it'll have a high instability. Missiles might be a better option but kind of defeats the purpose.
@SvenWM4 ай бұрын
my first atempt was using props, it was a nightmare because not only do you get delay from turning, but also from the propulsion system itself 😆. I think in the end i manually turned the thrusters, and had the ingame ai do the thrusterbalancing. If you can work with the delay of custom propellers you get a "free" reverse thrust tho
@sunRay044 ай бұрын
Great, now I know how to do tilt jets time to waste 5 hours designing a craft that I will never use!
@bigboi1934 ай бұрын
it is the way
@bungalowbill5214 ай бұрын
Who builds a craft in 5 hours? I stayed up until 2 working on this and it’s just a test vehicle.
@serphnoto96564 ай бұрын
Having it bob up and down would be super helpful
@DarkKinou4 ай бұрын
You should really test with a version of the game that predates the April Fools : Sean - 09/04/2024 12:21 Just a note that some unintentional changes went into stable regarding lasers. With the fire update lasers will get some rebalancing. But due to April Fools it looks like the laser damage buffs went through but not the nerfs on the other side of scale. Therefore lasers will overperform at the moment. We are aiming for the start of May for the fire release into stable so it'll be like that until then or unless Nick makes a hotfix. Thanks!
@bungalowbill5214 ай бұрын
I was under the impression it only affected LAMS damage.
@ainumahtar4 ай бұрын
So at least 50% nerf to essentially everything, and 25% to DWG, the faction that has 1 craft you might want a laser against, that seems a bit harsh
@bungalowbill5214 ай бұрын
It’s no more than a %50 nerf in the absolute worst case against our metal targets. In testing, it feels like a 25-35% nerf in general.
@chillbuilder1014 ай бұрын
Thanks for doing all the testing (and thinking)! From the notes it seemed the intent was to give watercraft more of an edge against airships. Watercraft can keep all their important bits just under the waterline, whereas airships can catch fire (alloy, speed) and have a hard time putting it out fires, esp with 'smoke nerf' that was intended to buff the lasers. Will have to investigate more. Still, a well made airship can be mostly immune to CRAMS, slower missiles, payload APS, melee, and now flamethrowers. While being slightly more vulnerable to lasers and plasma. It's very hard to have something make up for the advantage in simply having mobility, when it is so easy to achieve in this game.
@drkreuzer6704 ай бұрын
Rapid Firing EMP PACs can do alot against fliers, since most aircrafts are too small to have EMP protection, its a very easy way of just dealing with a squadron of aircrafts
@ainumahtar4 ай бұрын
Same with pierce, and impact if they are really small craft
@anamerican10544 ай бұрын
That laser cutter craft is sweet. Can't wait until you come out with some more awesome craft.
@vaultence98594 ай бұрын
I'd done some bugtesting last night and found that regardless of frequency doublers lasers never start fires with an intensity above 10, which seriously hurts its performance
@bungalowbill5214 ай бұрын
From my reading of the patch notes, lasers don't actually provide fuel for a fire or provide an intensity. The blocks that they burn do, so the intensity of the fire will be based off of the resistance of the blocks that are being burned. Since wood is the most flammable and metal has 0 flammability, it's likely that laser fires will usually have a low intensity. From my testing so far with flame based weapons in general, the bigger problem is that fires burn very slowly, so I've had a lot of trouble making them even slightly useful. I think it's strange that the intensity of a fire depends on the flame resistance of the block fueling it rather than an additional stat, but it's how it works for now. It give another parameter for the devs to play around with, and alloy could cause intense metal fires like with magnesium on real ships.
@vaultence98594 ай бұрын
@@bungalowbill521 Yeah I'd misread the patch notes. I only really see lasers being especially effective against wood (lol) or alloy. The problem attacking wood will be, of course, that being stuck at an intensity of 10 will mean the fire burns *painfully* slow, and most of the damage from the fire will be stripping away more wood instead of anything valuable. As for the alloy while it will burn much more quickly I think the damage is still pretty pitiful sitting at 25% of the health of the alloy destroyed. Even going for internal components with high storage pulse lasers has been pretty ineffective because the health of internals is even lower with only some 20-40% flammability.
@NearQuasar4 ай бұрын
@@bungalowbill521Huge missile fires are quite good as they can have a high intensity and tend to decapitate turrets.
@vaultence98594 ай бұрын
I found swarm IR seeking missiles also extremely effective hunting turrets since fires on subobjects tend to be more localized and are separate from the fire of the main body.
@sunRay044 ай бұрын
Wow, first plasma and now flamethrowers. Looks like the devs are in the mood to spice up the game.
@1andonlyMilante4 ай бұрын
Not sure if this was addressed elsewhere, but part of the reason your medium missiles were slower than the interface was telling you was due to the fin module near the front of the craft. That introduces more drag than if it were in the back, and slows the missile down overall.
@bungalowbill5214 ай бұрын
Thanks, I forgot about that. I’ll have to go and retest. I didn’t bother looking for solutions since it seemed like all missiles in the game are really slow, so most can’t catch a max-speed jet
@danielbovv54414 ай бұрын
Nice!:)
@chillbuilder1014 ай бұрын
The best option for armor is to combine 4m beamslopes and 4m wedges, as wedges have been becoming prevalent, AP-Heat rounds are seeing widespread use for against targets failing to have multiple airgaps. The best option for defeating properly designed armor is always flanking, as this type of armor takes up a lot of space and cannot be arranged in every orientation. HESH bombers are a great option for this campaign, or high-speed flanking tanks with AP-Heat rounds.
@atesz76364 ай бұрын
I just started university, and integration is the bane of my existance.
@kolorfast4 ай бұрын
The mnemonic I learned was "Oscar/Had A/Hunk Of/Apple" but I like that "So/h Ca/h To/a" clues you in to which formula does what.
@Garethaxz4 ай бұрын
Unironically With small volume craft, like those in ashes, Sabot Frag becomes a pretty reasonable munition. The tradeoff in payload damage is offset by how compact and dense the internals of enemy craft tend to be.
@stefan43654 ай бұрын
Where a shell hits your pole is evenly distributed across y. Not theta
@bungalowbill5214 ай бұрын
I handle that correctly but explain it poorly. It’s the reason that I write the integral with respect to y before doing the substitution.
@thekringe43874 ай бұрын
Yippie. So in theory if i make a boxy tank like a tiger and make it angle it using a breadboard it should be incredibly effective?
@ForkEnthusiast-tw8fg4 ай бұрын
I might as well just watch my AP chem lecture notes due tomorrow.
@sunRay044 ай бұрын
I love how the thumbnail is a lovely drawing of a tank, but the video is just math, math, and more math. you have successfully click baited me
@bungalowbill5214 ай бұрын
Tanks are math.
@sunRay044 ай бұрын
@@bungalowbill521 Pretty sure tanks are tanks, and math is math, but ill default to your judgment.
@user-wt3vo8sw2e4 ай бұрын
14:26 You can hide any block with decos. You just have to chesk the "box" that hides the original mesh when you are creating/editing a deco (it will fully hide the block it's tethered to!) I even use this to make glass out of HA (transparent/hidden HA is cheezy).
@nickjohnson4105 ай бұрын
I was laughing so loud until the word pad part... then I sh*t myself laughing... I really needed that laugh. Thank You!
@SuwinTzi5 ай бұрын
I appreciate your choice of Lt Hawkeye, I'm more partial to Judith from Tales of Vesperia.
@Garethaxz5 ай бұрын
The new breadboard stuff is unhinged, The single most powerful block in the game just became even better lol...
@bungalowbill5215 ай бұрын
Sadly, it’s still missing a lot of things I want like the ability to spawn a vehicle with a blueprint spawner and convert it into a subvehicle so that carriers can autoreplenish. Currently, the process is manual and has too many steps. There is a lot of nice utility for converting between reference frames that I haven’t used yet, though.
@RorstenVT5 ай бұрын
Nice this is clean!
@anamerican10545 ай бұрын
For taking out air fighter craft a PAC would work great.
@bungalowbill5215 ай бұрын
Those are coming. I’ve been testing out a prototype, but it could use some more work.
@ForkEnthusiast-tw8fg5 ай бұрын
🎉 1,000 subs!
@vaultence98595 ай бұрын
Just 1 more sub...
@messymessr5 ай бұрын
This is my second favorite type of content. I really enjoy testing and demonstrations of different tactics like this. I look forward to seeing how this craft's new role affects your larger strategy in the campaign. Your designs in particular seem to have more specific consideration for how they will work as part of a group than what I've seen from other creators. Not that they don't try to make specific craft to fill certain roles, but that the roles they choose seem less cooperative. (This might stem from the general difficulty of making even 1 craft behave how you want, so I see why most prefer to let each craft function pretty much independently rather than struggle to implement synergy between multiple uncooperative AI.)
@sunRay045 ай бұрын
I don't even need to watch the video to say that it's really good and I liked it.
@gergoturi75595 ай бұрын
With regards to the fighter at home: - I think there is a safety module for missiles, that prevents detonation, if it hits the aircraft it was launched from - you definitely can build an aircraft, that can go faster, than 170 m/s without exploits. However, mostly to make them look good, like canted canards and horizontal stabilizers, you'll definitely need to use spin blocks, which will just make the part in question not drag inducing->the aircraft slips into cheeseland... but still, looking cool is never a crime in my book ;). With that being said, I think where most would suffer is the agility department, the fighter at home is actually very nimble due to it's size. Overall, where it could be improved is the drag department to achieve a higher top speed, but it still gets the job done for a very low price.